Search
Search results
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Well paced (1 more)
Good characters
Third times a charm
I am not terribly well versed in Guy Ritchie films, however "Snatch" is one of my favorite films. I went into this with no expectations, and without even knowing the basic plot, I was greated with a wonderful experience.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Mellow paced - nothing special
89 year old Director/Actor Clint Eastwood has mellowed with age. He seems at peace with himself and prefers to work at a pace that he sets. His latest Directing effort - RICHARD JEWELL - has that sort of mellowness. It takes it time to tell it's story with no real urgency to it.
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
When I first heard about the Stephen King book called Gerald’s Game I was about 16 years old, and it scared the shit out of me! Just the concept and the idea of it happening to you. So I never read the book. In my mind, I had imagined the worst already and did not want to go there.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
JT (287 KP) rated Argo (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Does making a film based on a true story make it any more endearing to the Oscar big wigs? Possibly, but one thing is for sure, Ben Affleck’s third film Argo is an outstanding piece of film making with exceptional attention to detail and sense of realism.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Playing for Keeps (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Gerard Butler has stepped out of his 300 uniform and into some soccer
cleats. As a former international soccer star, George (Butler) is down on
his luck. He has no job, and he’s living in Virginia, attempting to
reconnect with his estranged son.
The story opens with some backstory about George’s past before quickly
tumbling into his present situation. George’s ex-wife (Jessica Biel) is
getting remarried, and his son Lewis (Noah Lomax) is having a hard time
learning to trust his real father after being separated for so long.
The plot quickly unfolds into a predictable “chick-flick” scenario, where
the main character is floundering and wants to get back what he once had.
His path to redemption comes in the form of coaching his son’s youth
soccer team, while fending off hordes of attractive soccer *moms* who want
to place hands on the well-sculpted Coach Dryer!
This film is incredibly formulaic, and it’s predictable every step of the
way. That said, Butler, Biel, and the rest of t*he cast* do an exceptional
job given what they had to work with. I even have to give some props to
the young actor, Noah Lomax, for giving a noteworthy performance as the
son.
While there were some great chuckles and all-out laughs mixed with a few
touching moments, it’s hard to look past the poor production values of this
film. Many of the scenes were filmed in a free-hand format. The shaking is
not just noticeable, but rampant throughout the film. It’s very
distracting, and downright shoddy film-making.
The directing wasn’t bad, in general, but I think a more seasoned director
would have at least chosen better angles. Case-in-point: many of the
scenes involving the red Ferrari were obviously lit with bright, white
lights reflecting off the surface of the car, giving us a view of grips and
other personnel behind the camera.
Dennis Quaid starts the film with a great role, and delivers a fantastic
performance. Unfortunately, after the jail scene, he’s oddly absent until
the end of the film. His absence was so awkward that it distracted me from
the people who were on the screen. I even asked myself: where did Dennis
Quaid’s character go?
Uma Thurman, playing Quaid’s character’s wife, and Catherine-Zeta Jones,
playing a soccer mom, did a marvelous job (again, despite not having much
to work with).
The Hollywood stars saved this film from rating lower, due to their vast
acting experience and talent, but I can’t recommend the movie as a whole.
Even their performances weren’t enough to keep Playing For Keeps in the
same ballpark as a well-produced film. It’s shoddy movie-making at best.
I recommend you wait to watch this one at home and save your movie theater
budget for another flick, *but if you are into chick-flicks, Playing for
Keeps will not disappoint.*
cleats. As a former international soccer star, George (Butler) is down on
his luck. He has no job, and he’s living in Virginia, attempting to
reconnect with his estranged son.
The story opens with some backstory about George’s past before quickly
tumbling into his present situation. George’s ex-wife (Jessica Biel) is
getting remarried, and his son Lewis (Noah Lomax) is having a hard time
learning to trust his real father after being separated for so long.
The plot quickly unfolds into a predictable “chick-flick” scenario, where
the main character is floundering and wants to get back what he once had.
His path to redemption comes in the form of coaching his son’s youth
soccer team, while fending off hordes of attractive soccer *moms* who want
to place hands on the well-sculpted Coach Dryer!
This film is incredibly formulaic, and it’s predictable every step of the
way. That said, Butler, Biel, and the rest of t*he cast* do an exceptional
job given what they had to work with. I even have to give some props to
the young actor, Noah Lomax, for giving a noteworthy performance as the
son.
While there were some great chuckles and all-out laughs mixed with a few
touching moments, it’s hard to look past the poor production values of this
film. Many of the scenes were filmed in a free-hand format. The shaking is
not just noticeable, but rampant throughout the film. It’s very
distracting, and downright shoddy film-making.
The directing wasn’t bad, in general, but I think a more seasoned director
would have at least chosen better angles. Case-in-point: many of the
scenes involving the red Ferrari were obviously lit with bright, white
lights reflecting off the surface of the car, giving us a view of grips and
other personnel behind the camera.
Dennis Quaid starts the film with a great role, and delivers a fantastic
performance. Unfortunately, after the jail scene, he’s oddly absent until
the end of the film. His absence was so awkward that it distracted me from
the people who were on the screen. I even asked myself: where did Dennis
Quaid’s character go?
Uma Thurman, playing Quaid’s character’s wife, and Catherine-Zeta Jones,
playing a soccer mom, did a marvelous job (again, despite not having much
to work with).
The Hollywood stars saved this film from rating lower, due to their vast
acting experience and talent, but I can’t recommend the movie as a whole.
Even their performances weren’t enough to keep Playing For Keeps in the
same ballpark as a well-produced film. It’s shoddy movie-making at best.
I recommend you wait to watch this one at home and save your movie theater
budget for another flick, *but if you are into chick-flicks, Playing for
Keeps will not disappoint.*
Henry Rollins recommended All the President's Men (1976) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Father (2020) in Movies
Jun 12, 2021
Dementia twists the strands of Anthony’s personal multiverse
Anthony (Anthony Hopkins) is elderly and living in his flat. His daughter Anne (Olivia Colman) keeps dropping by to check he is OK. But is this right? Strange things keep happening to him, from losing his watch to having strange people turn up at the flat. For Anthony is battling against dementia, and reality and fantasy are not quite as distinct as they once were.
Positives:
- I was one of those disappointed that Chadwick Boseman didn’t posthumously win the Best Actor Oscar for “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”. But, boy oh boy, after seeing this I am fully supportive of the Academy’s position. Anthony Hopkins has delivered some astonishingly powerful performances during his career – from the tortured ventriloquist in “Magic”, to Hannibal Lector to the elderly pope in “The Two Popes”. But he really excels himself here, tapping both your emotions and your sympathies as the confused and terrified old man.
- The Oscar- and BAFTA-winning screenplay by Florian Zeller, based on his stage play, is devastating, subtly twisting the knife. It will be particularly telling/upsetting for those who are getting on in years and/or have/had elderly parents affected by dementia. I would personally not have included (being deliberately vague) the “Williams entry” scene in the trailer, since it is a jolt of a twist in the film. But there are so many other clever devices in the screenplay that you don’t see coming. The ending in particular is brutal on the emotions.
- The production design (an Oscar nomination for Peter Francis and Cathy Featherstone) is ingenious, as the set subtly and progressively transforms. Almost a ‘spot the difference’ in movie form.
- The score by Ludovico Einaudi uses atonal strings to great effect, as Anthony’s reality keeps shifting from under him.
Negatives:
- I’ve nothing here, hence my 10-bomb rating. I’ve seen some reviews that have thought that the movie was too “stagey” (which is a criticism I have levelled before at a bunch of “stage to screen” adaptations such as “Fences” and – more recently – “One Night in Miami” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom“). But I really didn’t feel that way about “The Father”. The claustrophobic nature of the plot was well served I thought by the (largely) single set location.
Summary Thoughts on “The Father”: Dementia is a cruel and heartless disease that robs any affected elderly person of their memories, logic and – ultimately – their dignity. I thought the movie was extremely clever in reflecting this decline, anchored by the astonishing career-best performance from Sir Anthony Hopkins. But this in turns makes this a very hard watch indeed!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies post here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/12/the-father-dementia-twists-the-strands-of-anthonys-personal-multiverse/ . Thanks.
Positives:
- I was one of those disappointed that Chadwick Boseman didn’t posthumously win the Best Actor Oscar for “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”. But, boy oh boy, after seeing this I am fully supportive of the Academy’s position. Anthony Hopkins has delivered some astonishingly powerful performances during his career – from the tortured ventriloquist in “Magic”, to Hannibal Lector to the elderly pope in “The Two Popes”. But he really excels himself here, tapping both your emotions and your sympathies as the confused and terrified old man.
- The Oscar- and BAFTA-winning screenplay by Florian Zeller, based on his stage play, is devastating, subtly twisting the knife. It will be particularly telling/upsetting for those who are getting on in years and/or have/had elderly parents affected by dementia. I would personally not have included (being deliberately vague) the “Williams entry” scene in the trailer, since it is a jolt of a twist in the film. But there are so many other clever devices in the screenplay that you don’t see coming. The ending in particular is brutal on the emotions.
- The production design (an Oscar nomination for Peter Francis and Cathy Featherstone) is ingenious, as the set subtly and progressively transforms. Almost a ‘spot the difference’ in movie form.
- The score by Ludovico Einaudi uses atonal strings to great effect, as Anthony’s reality keeps shifting from under him.
Negatives:
- I’ve nothing here, hence my 10-bomb rating. I’ve seen some reviews that have thought that the movie was too “stagey” (which is a criticism I have levelled before at a bunch of “stage to screen” adaptations such as “Fences” and – more recently – “One Night in Miami” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom“). But I really didn’t feel that way about “The Father”. The claustrophobic nature of the plot was well served I thought by the (largely) single set location.
Summary Thoughts on “The Father”: Dementia is a cruel and heartless disease that robs any affected elderly person of their memories, logic and – ultimately – their dignity. I thought the movie was extremely clever in reflecting this decline, anchored by the astonishing career-best performance from Sir Anthony Hopkins. But this in turns makes this a very hard watch indeed!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies post here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/12/the-father-dementia-twists-the-strands-of-anthonys-personal-multiverse/ . Thanks.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Jul 1, 2021
It Doesn't Work
While surfing through my various streaming services looking for something to get swallowed up into my couch while watching, I encountered GREENLAND a film about a “planet killing” comet hurtling towards Earth starring that noted thespian Gerard Butler.
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Weird - and I couldn't look away
I have viewed some really strange films in my day. When asked, I often mention MIRRORMASK (based on a Neil Gaiman story) and mother! (the Darren Aronofsky oddity) as the strangest films I have ever seen.
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm terrible with watching films in sequence, but I've been seeing the trailers for War for the Planet of the Apes repeatedly and really wanted to watch it. I saw the first one when it came out in some fashion, the second one has eluded me though.
The films begins with the Alpha-Omega paramilitary group laying down an attack on Caesar's ape clan. There is heavy resistance and several of Alpha-Omega's team are captured. Caesar, wanting to bring some form of peace to his clan, sends back the captured soldiers to the Colonel with a message, they did not start this war and that they want to live in peace together.
Caesar's son, Blue Eyes, returns from searching for a safe haven, and has found a place across the desert for them all to live. Thinking that they need more time to prepare, Caesar puts off their departure with tragic consequences. During the night the Colonel and a team of men infiltrate their camp, and her slaughters Blue Eyes and Caesar's wife, believing it was him.
Seeking revenge, Caesar leaves the camp to hunt down the Colonel, accompanied by a small group. Along the way they encounter a single soldier with his daughter in a camp, who Caesar kills when he goes for his gun. The girl doesn't speak and deciding not to leave her there alone, they take her with them on their journey.
The group make their way to the Border with the help of Bad Ape and Caesar discovers that the rest of their clan has been captured and is imprisoned below. After being captured they must plan their escape from both inside and outside the walls of the Border any way they can...
Quite simple put, this was an epic feat, and well worth the watch. At some point while it was on I honestly forgot that what I was seeing wasn't real. The effects are magnificent, and the emotions in Caesar in particular are just incredible. Those alone should be sure fire reasons to watch it, but if you're not convinced, then the story line isn't bad either.
I always think it's amazing how well movies manage to match up the emotion of the actor with their digitised counterpart. That takes an amazingly skilled group behind the scenes. My first reaction when I saw Woody Harrelson in the trailer was not a good one. He's amusing, but I couldn't name a film of his that I've enjoyed him in. I'm happy to say that this one has changed all of that. I thoroughly enjoyed his performance, you see his character go from one end of the spectrum to the other, and Harrelson does it all so well. Amiah Miller who plays Nova was amazing too, barely any lines and acting at something that gets put in the scene after the fact must be incredibly difficult and she managed to pull it off with real emotion.
The films begins with the Alpha-Omega paramilitary group laying down an attack on Caesar's ape clan. There is heavy resistance and several of Alpha-Omega's team are captured. Caesar, wanting to bring some form of peace to his clan, sends back the captured soldiers to the Colonel with a message, they did not start this war and that they want to live in peace together.
Caesar's son, Blue Eyes, returns from searching for a safe haven, and has found a place across the desert for them all to live. Thinking that they need more time to prepare, Caesar puts off their departure with tragic consequences. During the night the Colonel and a team of men infiltrate their camp, and her slaughters Blue Eyes and Caesar's wife, believing it was him.
Seeking revenge, Caesar leaves the camp to hunt down the Colonel, accompanied by a small group. Along the way they encounter a single soldier with his daughter in a camp, who Caesar kills when he goes for his gun. The girl doesn't speak and deciding not to leave her there alone, they take her with them on their journey.
The group make their way to the Border with the help of Bad Ape and Caesar discovers that the rest of their clan has been captured and is imprisoned below. After being captured they must plan their escape from both inside and outside the walls of the Border any way they can...
Quite simple put, this was an epic feat, and well worth the watch. At some point while it was on I honestly forgot that what I was seeing wasn't real. The effects are magnificent, and the emotions in Caesar in particular are just incredible. Those alone should be sure fire reasons to watch it, but if you're not convinced, then the story line isn't bad either.
I always think it's amazing how well movies manage to match up the emotion of the actor with their digitised counterpart. That takes an amazingly skilled group behind the scenes. My first reaction when I saw Woody Harrelson in the trailer was not a good one. He's amusing, but I couldn't name a film of his that I've enjoyed him in. I'm happy to say that this one has changed all of that. I thoroughly enjoyed his performance, you see his character go from one end of the spectrum to the other, and Harrelson does it all so well. Amiah Miller who plays Nova was amazing too, barely any lines and acting at something that gets put in the scene after the fact must be incredibly difficult and she managed to pull it off with real emotion.