Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Licorice Pizza (2021) in Movies
Mar 9, 2022
Disjointed
The films of Director Paul Thomas Anderson is a bit of an “acquired taste”, moviegoers generally fall into one of 2 camps. (1) those that LOVE what he does (and thinks he is one of the greatest Directors of All Time) and (2) those that don’t.
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Killer (2023) in Movies
Nov 18, 2023
Interesting...but ends with a "thud"
Director David Fincher has a strong track record of interesting films…SE7EN, FIGHT CLUB, THE SOCIAL NETWORK (to name a few). Michael Fassbender is one of the more interesting actors working today…HUNGER, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, PROMETHEUS (to name a few). So when these 2 got together to make a film of the graphic novel THE KILLER, anticipation was high.
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission impossible dead reckoning part one (2023) in Movies
Jul 14, 2023
What A Summer Blockbuster Movie Should Be
Boy, that Tom Cruise sure knows how to make a crowd-pleasing, summer blockbuster movie.
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 8-BIT CHRISTMAS (2021) in Movies
Dec 12, 2021
Charming, Nostalgic and HeartWarming
If I told you that I just watched a charming Holiday movie where the Narrator reminisced about a Christmas of his youth - when he was 10 or 11 - and the Narrator desperately wanted a special present brought to him by Santa - but said item is strictly forbidden in his household, so the Narrator heads off on an adventure to get this item, you would think I was talking about the classic Holiday perennial A CHRISTMAS STORY - and you would be wrong.
I’m speaking about the HBO MAX Original Film 8-BIT CHRISTMAS starring Neil Patrick Harris as the Narrator of the story that reminisces about his life as a 10-11 year old around the Holidays in the late 1980’s.
And, darn it all, if it doesn’t work well (despite my indignation that all they are doing is ripping off A CHRISTMAS STORY) for there is enough nostalgia and heart to melt the emotions of even the most miserly of Ebenezer Scrooge’s this holiday season.
Written by Kevin Jakubowski (based off his book) and Directed by Michael Dowse (the underrated comedy STUBER), 8-Bit Christmas tells the tale of 11 year old Jake Doyle who wants nothing more in this world than to receive the mother of all Christmas presents - a Nintendo 8 Bit system. Along with a “Goonies” collection of friends, Jake sets off to find this hard to find item - and convince his parents to get it for him for Christmas.
In the hands of young actor Winslow Fegley (Disney’s TIMMY FAILURE), young Jake is a pleasant enough protagonist to head off on this journey with. His ragtag group of friends are a group of generic nerds that pretty much check-off the “nerd friend group” list (and this is meant as a compliment). We spend quite a bit of time with these kids and they are a good enough group of kids to spend time with.
This film does hit a few of the same notes as A CHRISTMAS STORY, there is an obsessed, seemingly out of touch Dad, this time played by Steve Zahn (RESCUE DAWN) in a heart-warming portrayal and the coupon-cutting, cost saving Mom played by June Diane Raphael (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) who is putting up with it all. This film even has a younger sibling, this time a sister Lizzy, who wants her own elusive gift - a Cabbage Patch kid.
A highlight for me was the performance of Kathy Greenwood as the teacher with the constant sniffles. I know many a teacher and they almost ALWAYS have colds given to them from their charges.
This film is a fine post card of Chicago in the late 1980s and skewers (and honors) the pop-fads of the time (complete with fashion and styling) and is an entertaining enough 2 hour escape during the Holidays.
Oh, and did I mention that at one point in this film, I had to dab at my eyes with a tissue? Yes, despite my skepticism, this film managed to touch my heart even though I fought like crazy to deny that.
If you’re looking for a fun family entertainment this Holiday season, 8-BIT CHRISTMAS can fill the bill nicely.
Letter Grade: B+
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I’m speaking about the HBO MAX Original Film 8-BIT CHRISTMAS starring Neil Patrick Harris as the Narrator of the story that reminisces about his life as a 10-11 year old around the Holidays in the late 1980’s.
And, darn it all, if it doesn’t work well (despite my indignation that all they are doing is ripping off A CHRISTMAS STORY) for there is enough nostalgia and heart to melt the emotions of even the most miserly of Ebenezer Scrooge’s this holiday season.
Written by Kevin Jakubowski (based off his book) and Directed by Michael Dowse (the underrated comedy STUBER), 8-Bit Christmas tells the tale of 11 year old Jake Doyle who wants nothing more in this world than to receive the mother of all Christmas presents - a Nintendo 8 Bit system. Along with a “Goonies” collection of friends, Jake sets off to find this hard to find item - and convince his parents to get it for him for Christmas.
In the hands of young actor Winslow Fegley (Disney’s TIMMY FAILURE), young Jake is a pleasant enough protagonist to head off on this journey with. His ragtag group of friends are a group of generic nerds that pretty much check-off the “nerd friend group” list (and this is meant as a compliment). We spend quite a bit of time with these kids and they are a good enough group of kids to spend time with.
This film does hit a few of the same notes as A CHRISTMAS STORY, there is an obsessed, seemingly out of touch Dad, this time played by Steve Zahn (RESCUE DAWN) in a heart-warming portrayal and the coupon-cutting, cost saving Mom played by June Diane Raphael (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) who is putting up with it all. This film even has a younger sibling, this time a sister Lizzy, who wants her own elusive gift - a Cabbage Patch kid.
A highlight for me was the performance of Kathy Greenwood as the teacher with the constant sniffles. I know many a teacher and they almost ALWAYS have colds given to them from their charges.
This film is a fine post card of Chicago in the late 1980s and skewers (and honors) the pop-fads of the time (complete with fashion and styling) and is an entertaining enough 2 hour escape during the Holidays.
Oh, and did I mention that at one point in this film, I had to dab at my eyes with a tissue? Yes, despite my skepticism, this film managed to touch my heart even though I fought like crazy to deny that.
If you’re looking for a fun family entertainment this Holiday season, 8-BIT CHRISTMAS can fill the bill nicely.
Letter Grade: B+
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022) in Movies
Dec 31, 2022
Not "just" a Murder Mystery
Move over, James Bond, Daniel Craig has another series to star in.
A surprise hit when it was released in 2019, KNIVES OUT was Daniel Craig’s first outing as Southern Master Detective Benoit Blanc. This All Star whodunnit, Directed by Rian Johnson (STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI) was a resounding hit and a sequel was inevitable. The biggest mystery was the question as to whether the new mystery - and this character - would hold up to the first one.
And…that question has been answered as THE GLASS ONION is a fascinating, interesting commentary on our modern “Click Bait” society, the pandemic and the shallow people looking for attention while also disguising itself as a murder mystery.
THE GLASS ONION does what a good sequel should do - take the essence of the first movie (the characters, the tone) - and opens it up in new, unusual and daring ways. And, in this, THE GLASS ONION acquits itself nicely.
Credit, of course, goes to Writer/Director Johnson who found a new premise and direction for our intrepid Detective to go and peels back the layers of this Onion in intriguing and clever directions. The story was always one step ahead of the viewer in it’s twists and turns - the sign of a well devised mystery - and Johnson knows how to thread this needle honestly (the clues were there all along, you just needed to see them). He also throws in enough red herrings to keep the audience guessing and mentally going down dead-end rabbit holes.
Craig puts back on the SeerSucker Suite of Benoit Blanc and this suit, improbably, fits him perfectly. As befits a good actor who gets a second chance to play a character, Craig fleshes out Blanc while settling back into a character that is now familiar to the audience.
As befits a good murder mystery, Johnson brings together an All-Star Cast and not only does one have to figure out “whodunnit”, but in this GLASS ONION, one also needs to figure out “who’s gonna get it”. Edward Norton (Fight Club), Kate Hudson (ALMOST FAMOUS), David Bautista (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), Kathryn Hahn (BAD MOMS) and Leslie Odom, Jr. (Broadway’s HAMILTON) all bring the right level of star power, mystery and intrigue to their characters and they blend together into a nice ensemble that adds to the “whodunnit” aspect of this film.
Sticking out from this ensemble - and the clique that the others have formed - is Janelle Monae (HIDDEN FIGURES) as an estranged person from the past who will help unlock the secret of THE GLASS ONION - but will it be as the solver of the mystery? A key piece of the puzzle? The victim? The murderer? Her performance brings all of that to the table and continues to get me wondering why Ms. Monae isn’t a bigger Movie Star than she is. She has shone in every film that I have seen her in (including the woe-fully misguided ANTEBELLUM). It was GREAT to see her shine again.
An original murder mystery - that is more than “just” a murder mystery - THE GLASS ONION will be satisfying for those who enjoy these types of films, while also bringing something new to the genre…and cements Benoit Blanc as a character that Daniel Craig will be playing for many films to come.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A surprise hit when it was released in 2019, KNIVES OUT was Daniel Craig’s first outing as Southern Master Detective Benoit Blanc. This All Star whodunnit, Directed by Rian Johnson (STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI) was a resounding hit and a sequel was inevitable. The biggest mystery was the question as to whether the new mystery - and this character - would hold up to the first one.
And…that question has been answered as THE GLASS ONION is a fascinating, interesting commentary on our modern “Click Bait” society, the pandemic and the shallow people looking for attention while also disguising itself as a murder mystery.
THE GLASS ONION does what a good sequel should do - take the essence of the first movie (the characters, the tone) - and opens it up in new, unusual and daring ways. And, in this, THE GLASS ONION acquits itself nicely.
Credit, of course, goes to Writer/Director Johnson who found a new premise and direction for our intrepid Detective to go and peels back the layers of this Onion in intriguing and clever directions. The story was always one step ahead of the viewer in it’s twists and turns - the sign of a well devised mystery - and Johnson knows how to thread this needle honestly (the clues were there all along, you just needed to see them). He also throws in enough red herrings to keep the audience guessing and mentally going down dead-end rabbit holes.
Craig puts back on the SeerSucker Suite of Benoit Blanc and this suit, improbably, fits him perfectly. As befits a good actor who gets a second chance to play a character, Craig fleshes out Blanc while settling back into a character that is now familiar to the audience.
As befits a good murder mystery, Johnson brings together an All-Star Cast and not only does one have to figure out “whodunnit”, but in this GLASS ONION, one also needs to figure out “who’s gonna get it”. Edward Norton (Fight Club), Kate Hudson (ALMOST FAMOUS), David Bautista (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), Kathryn Hahn (BAD MOMS) and Leslie Odom, Jr. (Broadway’s HAMILTON) all bring the right level of star power, mystery and intrigue to their characters and they blend together into a nice ensemble that adds to the “whodunnit” aspect of this film.
Sticking out from this ensemble - and the clique that the others have formed - is Janelle Monae (HIDDEN FIGURES) as an estranged person from the past who will help unlock the secret of THE GLASS ONION - but will it be as the solver of the mystery? A key piece of the puzzle? The victim? The murderer? Her performance brings all of that to the table and continues to get me wondering why Ms. Monae isn’t a bigger Movie Star than she is. She has shone in every film that I have seen her in (including the woe-fully misguided ANTEBELLUM). It was GREAT to see her shine again.
An original murder mystery - that is more than “just” a murder mystery - THE GLASS ONION will be satisfying for those who enjoy these types of films, while also bringing something new to the genre…and cements Benoit Blanc as a character that Daniel Craig will be playing for many films to come.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paths of Glory (1957) in Movies
Feb 18, 2024
Early Kubrick Masterpiece
Dore Schary, then head of production of MGM, like Stanley Kubrick’s first film, THE KILLING (1956) so he hired Kubrick to develop film stories from the studios pile of scripts and purchased novels. Finding nothing the he liked, Kubrick remembered reading Humprhey Cobb’s anti-war novel PATHS OF GLORY and suggested that. Schary (like every other studio exec in Hollywood at the time) turned down the opportunity to make this bleak anti-war film.
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Dec 20, 2017 (Updated Dec 21, 2017)
Excellent performances (2 more)
Standout awesome moments
SFX
Huge plot holes (1 more)
Wasted potential
Not Your Grandpa's Star Wars
Contains spoilers, click to show
DISCLAIMER: This review will contain spoilers from the start and throughout. If you haven't seen the movie yet, then go read someone else's review and come back to mine once you have seen it.
This is a year for great controversies and Star Wars is not exempt from this rule. I get that Rian Johnson was going for something different, but damn! This movie was not what I expected. In a way, this is a good thing, as fans were left surprised at the decisions made in the movie, however not all of the surprising decisions were made for the better.
Let's go through what I did like. First off, the performances all around were brilliant, with the stand outs being Adam Driver and Mark Hamill. Adam driver plays a conflicted and tortured, yet exceedingly powerful Kylo Ren. His performance is electric throughout the movie and as an actor, his range is extremely impressive. Although this is probably my least favourite portrayal of Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars movie, it is probably my favourite performance of Mark Hamill playing the iconic character. He commits to the odd decisions that Johnson makes with integrity and grit and it is clear that he has honed his skills as an actor in the 30+ years since the original trilogy.
The special effects and CGI work in the movie was astonishing and breath-taking, the movie is a joy to look at on a visual level and the technical achievement of some of the shots featured is nothing short of incredible. There were also several moments throughout the film where I was on the edge of my seat, moments that were so cool to see unfold that I felt like a kid again watching Star Wars for the very first time.
Okay, now onto the issues I had with the movie. First off, the whole Casino planet section of the movie, you can just remove it. Ignore it, it has no bearing to the overall plot and if it wasn't included, the movie would still play out in the exact same way. The entire segment is a waste of time and the end result isn't even worth the hassle. Finn was one of my favourite character in Force Awakens, so it was good to see him get his own storyline here, but the awkward moments and lack of payoff made it such a waste of time for the audience. Rose, the new character that they introduced to be Finn's sidekick and potential love interest was god-awful. Hers was probably the single worst performance in the entire movie. The shoehorned message about animal cruelty also felt too forced and cringe-inducing and that's coming from an animal lover. The whole sequence also brought back horrible memories of the prequels, which is something that I never want to be reminded of again.
The other dumb subplot in this movie revolves around Poe and a new character played by Laura Dern called Admiral Holdo. At the start of the movie the Rebels are shocked to discover that the Empire can track them through light speed and then the slowest space chase ever ensues, with the Empire waiting until the Rebels to run out of fuel before blowing them up. In the meantime, Kylo Ren and a squad of bombers attack the rebel ship up close. During the attack, the control deck that Leia is on is blown up. Leia survives, but is incapacitated for the middle act of the movie and Admiral Holdo is put in charge. Poe asks her over and over what the plan is and she refuses to tell him, labelling him as a hothead flyboy. He eventually decides he can't just sit around and do nothing while their ship is destroyed, (this is also the catalyst for Finn and Rose going on their dumb mission to the casino planet,) and so he enacts a mutiny on Holdo. Then Leia wakes up and reveals that the plan all along was to take the escape pods to a nearby planet containing an old rebel base and attempt a last stand there. This whole mutiny could have been avoided with a simple conversation, or even a goddamn post-it note.
The other thing that bothered me was the lack of scenes showing Rey being trained by Luke. There are two brief scenes of her training and that is apparently enough to allow her to become a 'jedi.' Instead of following Finn and Rose on their pointless adventure, or Poe and his pointless mutiny, we should have spent the majority of the movie on Luke's island. I also don't know why they chose to portray Luke as such a slob. This is the guy that blew up the Death Star and spearheaded the rebellion that changed the tide of war across the entire galaxy and now he's milking weird sloth creatures for food.
I didn't hate the reveal that Rey's parents were nobodies that came from nothing, but it just makes all of the set up in Force Awakens and in the first half of this movie seem like such a waste of everyone's time. I also thought that they squandered something that could have been interesting with how they just nonchalantly killed Snoke. With the age he looked and his torn up face, this guy has clearly been around for a long time, like probably as long as Yoda or Vader, so how come we have we never seen him over the course of the previous eight films? Was he in hiding? If so, then why was he in hiding? Why did he come out of hiding after the Empire fell and why was he appointed as Supreme Leader? I guess we will never know the answer to these questions after he was unceremoniously cut in half, or maybe we will find out in a comic or a novel. Not quite the epic revelation we expected for this character.
Lastly, I want to talk about Phasma. Rian Johnson has joked that she is like this trilogy's version of Kenny from South Park at this point and frankly I think that this is a valid comparison and I don't think that it's something to joke about. Gwendoline Christie is a phenomenal actress and she is so wasted in these movies. Her Bulletproof armour was pretty cool, but even that opens a ton of plot holes: why isn't all of the Stormtrooper armour made from the same stuff? If her armour is bulletproof, then why did she go along with Finn and Han's plan to shut down the shields on Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens? Sure Finn had a blaster pointed at her head, but we know now that the bolt would have just bounced off.
Overall, there was so much wasted potential in this movie. Rey's potentially interesting heritage was wasted, Snoke's potentially interesting backstory was wasted, Phasma was wasted again. Fiin and Poe were wasted on pointless side-quests and we should have seen Rey's awesome training montage to become a master jedi. Also, with Luke's lacklustre death at the end of the film, it feels like he was wasted too. There were some great moments in the film and I feel like I have to see it again to solidify my opinions, but to be honest, I can totally see why this movie is dividing fans.
This is a year for great controversies and Star Wars is not exempt from this rule. I get that Rian Johnson was going for something different, but damn! This movie was not what I expected. In a way, this is a good thing, as fans were left surprised at the decisions made in the movie, however not all of the surprising decisions were made for the better.
Let's go through what I did like. First off, the performances all around were brilliant, with the stand outs being Adam Driver and Mark Hamill. Adam driver plays a conflicted and tortured, yet exceedingly powerful Kylo Ren. His performance is electric throughout the movie and as an actor, his range is extremely impressive. Although this is probably my least favourite portrayal of Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars movie, it is probably my favourite performance of Mark Hamill playing the iconic character. He commits to the odd decisions that Johnson makes with integrity and grit and it is clear that he has honed his skills as an actor in the 30+ years since the original trilogy.
The special effects and CGI work in the movie was astonishing and breath-taking, the movie is a joy to look at on a visual level and the technical achievement of some of the shots featured is nothing short of incredible. There were also several moments throughout the film where I was on the edge of my seat, moments that were so cool to see unfold that I felt like a kid again watching Star Wars for the very first time.
Okay, now onto the issues I had with the movie. First off, the whole Casino planet section of the movie, you can just remove it. Ignore it, it has no bearing to the overall plot and if it wasn't included, the movie would still play out in the exact same way. The entire segment is a waste of time and the end result isn't even worth the hassle. Finn was one of my favourite character in Force Awakens, so it was good to see him get his own storyline here, but the awkward moments and lack of payoff made it such a waste of time for the audience. Rose, the new character that they introduced to be Finn's sidekick and potential love interest was god-awful. Hers was probably the single worst performance in the entire movie. The shoehorned message about animal cruelty also felt too forced and cringe-inducing and that's coming from an animal lover. The whole sequence also brought back horrible memories of the prequels, which is something that I never want to be reminded of again.
The other dumb subplot in this movie revolves around Poe and a new character played by Laura Dern called Admiral Holdo. At the start of the movie the Rebels are shocked to discover that the Empire can track them through light speed and then the slowest space chase ever ensues, with the Empire waiting until the Rebels to run out of fuel before blowing them up. In the meantime, Kylo Ren and a squad of bombers attack the rebel ship up close. During the attack, the control deck that Leia is on is blown up. Leia survives, but is incapacitated for the middle act of the movie and Admiral Holdo is put in charge. Poe asks her over and over what the plan is and she refuses to tell him, labelling him as a hothead flyboy. He eventually decides he can't just sit around and do nothing while their ship is destroyed, (this is also the catalyst for Finn and Rose going on their dumb mission to the casino planet,) and so he enacts a mutiny on Holdo. Then Leia wakes up and reveals that the plan all along was to take the escape pods to a nearby planet containing an old rebel base and attempt a last stand there. This whole mutiny could have been avoided with a simple conversation, or even a goddamn post-it note.
The other thing that bothered me was the lack of scenes showing Rey being trained by Luke. There are two brief scenes of her training and that is apparently enough to allow her to become a 'jedi.' Instead of following Finn and Rose on their pointless adventure, or Poe and his pointless mutiny, we should have spent the majority of the movie on Luke's island. I also don't know why they chose to portray Luke as such a slob. This is the guy that blew up the Death Star and spearheaded the rebellion that changed the tide of war across the entire galaxy and now he's milking weird sloth creatures for food.
I didn't hate the reveal that Rey's parents were nobodies that came from nothing, but it just makes all of the set up in Force Awakens and in the first half of this movie seem like such a waste of everyone's time. I also thought that they squandered something that could have been interesting with how they just nonchalantly killed Snoke. With the age he looked and his torn up face, this guy has clearly been around for a long time, like probably as long as Yoda or Vader, so how come we have we never seen him over the course of the previous eight films? Was he in hiding? If so, then why was he in hiding? Why did he come out of hiding after the Empire fell and why was he appointed as Supreme Leader? I guess we will never know the answer to these questions after he was unceremoniously cut in half, or maybe we will find out in a comic or a novel. Not quite the epic revelation we expected for this character.
Lastly, I want to talk about Phasma. Rian Johnson has joked that she is like this trilogy's version of Kenny from South Park at this point and frankly I think that this is a valid comparison and I don't think that it's something to joke about. Gwendoline Christie is a phenomenal actress and she is so wasted in these movies. Her Bulletproof armour was pretty cool, but even that opens a ton of plot holes: why isn't all of the Stormtrooper armour made from the same stuff? If her armour is bulletproof, then why did she go along with Finn and Han's plan to shut down the shields on Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens? Sure Finn had a blaster pointed at her head, but we know now that the bolt would have just bounced off.
Overall, there was so much wasted potential in this movie. Rey's potentially interesting heritage was wasted, Snoke's potentially interesting backstory was wasted, Phasma was wasted again. Fiin and Poe were wasted on pointless side-quests and we should have seen Rey's awesome training montage to become a master jedi. Also, with Luke's lacklustre death at the end of the film, it feels like he was wasted too. There were some great moments in the film and I feel like I have to see it again to solidify my opinions, but to be honest, I can totally see why this movie is dividing fans.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Station Eleven in Books
May 30, 2017
Horrifyingly Plausible
This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
The dystopian idea of a virus wiping out most of the world’s human inhabitants is not a new concept. It has be done and retold over and over again. Emily St. John Mandel’s invention of the Georgian Flu is no different from these. Brought to Canada and the USA by a passenger on a plane from Russia, the highly contagious virus spreads quickly from person to person, town to town, and once caught you are dead within forty-eight hours.
The difference between Station Eleven and other novels of apocalyptic themes is that the story takes place primarily in two time periods – pre-Georgian Flu and twenty years post-Georgian flu – rather than during the outbreak and the immediate days after (although there are a few scenes written within that timeframe). It is difficult to explain the storyline without giving too much away. Although the death of millions of people is a vital feature, it is the lives of the characters that are important. All the significant characters are in some way linked to one man, Arthur Leander, and, particularly in the case of one individual, a graphic novel titled Station Eleven.
The book opens in Toronto with Arthur, a Hollywood actor, starring in a stage production of King Lear. Despite the quick reaction of trainee paramedic Jeevan, Arthur dies of a heart attack after suddenly collapsing during the forth act. Then suddenly, that same night, the Georgian flu makes its first appearance in Canada. Despite this occurring right at the beginning, it is not the last the reader sees of Arthur. Throughout the story the author returns to Arthur, recounting scenes of his life from acting career to his three ex-wives and only child.
Twenty years after the Georgian flu, Kirsten Raymonde, who starred as a child in the same production of King Lear, is part of the Traveling Symphony: a group of actors and musicians walking from decaying-town-to-town performing a number of Shakespeare plays as they go. With her she carries two Station Eleven comics that Arthur gave her before he died – incidentally written and drawn by his first wife. Most people that the Symphony encounter are accommodating and are trying their best to live in a world of no electricity or health care, but then they meet a man who calls himself the Prophet. Believing that he has been given a duty by God to repopulate the world he preaches to the people telling them that everything happens for a reason, likening the epidemic to Noah’s flood in the Bible. However it soon becomes clear that he is a dangerous character.
In a way it is heartening to imagine that high culture (such as Shakespeare and orchestral music) survives in a world that has been destroyed. Shakespeare was born in a time before all the modern inventions relied upon today, and now, in this novel, it is once again an electricity-less era yet these historical things live on.
One problem with Station Eleven is that it is hard to pinpoint the exact plot line. There is the life story of Arthur Leander, his wives and a close friend. Then there is Kirsten living a completely different life. Nonetheless it is still an incredibly fascinating book. Although it flits between time periods it is thankfully not as confusing as some may imagine it would be.
Even though dystopian novels of this nature have been done before, Station Eleven is definitely a book to read; and through it all it poses the question of how you, the reader, would survive in such a world.
The dystopian idea of a virus wiping out most of the world’s human inhabitants is not a new concept. It has be done and retold over and over again. Emily St. John Mandel’s invention of the Georgian Flu is no different from these. Brought to Canada and the USA by a passenger on a plane from Russia, the highly contagious virus spreads quickly from person to person, town to town, and once caught you are dead within forty-eight hours.
The difference between Station Eleven and other novels of apocalyptic themes is that the story takes place primarily in two time periods – pre-Georgian Flu and twenty years post-Georgian flu – rather than during the outbreak and the immediate days after (although there are a few scenes written within that timeframe). It is difficult to explain the storyline without giving too much away. Although the death of millions of people is a vital feature, it is the lives of the characters that are important. All the significant characters are in some way linked to one man, Arthur Leander, and, particularly in the case of one individual, a graphic novel titled Station Eleven.
The book opens in Toronto with Arthur, a Hollywood actor, starring in a stage production of King Lear. Despite the quick reaction of trainee paramedic Jeevan, Arthur dies of a heart attack after suddenly collapsing during the forth act. Then suddenly, that same night, the Georgian flu makes its first appearance in Canada. Despite this occurring right at the beginning, it is not the last the reader sees of Arthur. Throughout the story the author returns to Arthur, recounting scenes of his life from acting career to his three ex-wives and only child.
Twenty years after the Georgian flu, Kirsten Raymonde, who starred as a child in the same production of King Lear, is part of the Traveling Symphony: a group of actors and musicians walking from decaying-town-to-town performing a number of Shakespeare plays as they go. With her she carries two Station Eleven comics that Arthur gave her before he died – incidentally written and drawn by his first wife. Most people that the Symphony encounter are accommodating and are trying their best to live in a world of no electricity or health care, but then they meet a man who calls himself the Prophet. Believing that he has been given a duty by God to repopulate the world he preaches to the people telling them that everything happens for a reason, likening the epidemic to Noah’s flood in the Bible. However it soon becomes clear that he is a dangerous character.
In a way it is heartening to imagine that high culture (such as Shakespeare and orchestral music) survives in a world that has been destroyed. Shakespeare was born in a time before all the modern inventions relied upon today, and now, in this novel, it is once again an electricity-less era yet these historical things live on.
One problem with Station Eleven is that it is hard to pinpoint the exact plot line. There is the life story of Arthur Leander, his wives and a close friend. Then there is Kirsten living a completely different life. Nonetheless it is still an incredibly fascinating book. Although it flits between time periods it is thankfully not as confusing as some may imagine it would be.
Even though dystopian novels of this nature have been done before, Station Eleven is definitely a book to read; and through it all it poses the question of how you, the reader, would survive in such a world.
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Apartment (1960) in Movies
May 11, 2018
A true classic in every sense of the word
My local cinema does "Secret Movie Night" once a month, you just show up and watch a "classic" of their choosing, you just don't know what it is until it starts.
One of the reasons that I enjoy this is that I end up viewing films that I might not, otherwise, choose to watch. Case in point is the selection for May - the 1960 Oscar winner for Best Picture, THE APARTMENT - a "love story" with some comedy and some dark dramatic moments and themes. A very tricky combination of items that are bundled together, brilliantly, by a master of the craft.
THE APARTMENT tells the story of nebbish office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon in an Oscar nominated performance, more on that later) who is talked into lending his apartment to higher-ups in his company so they can carry out extra-marital affairs. When one of the affairs goes wrong, Baxter is forced to "clean up the mess".
Written and Directed by the GREAT Billy WIlder (SOME LIKE IT HOT, SUNSET BOULEVARD), The Apartment is more than a love story, more than a look into the vacuous lives of those anonymous office workers, it is a look into the lives of those who are victims of abuse of power. Wilder, rightfully so, won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Screenplay for this film. The Apartment is strongly written and directed not flinching at the deep subject matter while also balancing things out with moments of comedy and joy, turning what could have been a dour, dark subject into a more joyous exploration of true humanity and love rising through the corruption and abuse of power heaped upon them.
In the lead role of CC Baxter, Lemmon is perfectly cast. Starting as a pure comedic character who is set upon by a world too strong for him, his character slowly turns sharper, deeper, more serious and more real as the film progresses. Lemmon was nominated for the Oscar for his performance - and rightfully so. I had to look up who beat him out for the statue and found out it was Burt Lancaster's powerhouse performance in ELMER GANTRY, so I can't really argue about this (but I digress).
Matching Lemmon beat for beat is Shirley MacLaine, the wronged girl who's "issues" (I'm not going to spoil what happens, if you haven't seen this) are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of Lemmon's character. MacLaine is charming and tragic in this role and she, too, was nominated for an Oscar (for Best Actress losing to Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8). Rounding out the cast was a pre-MY 3 SONS Fred MacMurray (as the Exec who abuses both Lemmon's and MacLaine's characters). He was terrific as this cad, and thought for sure that he would have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but that honor went to Jack Kruschen as Lemmon's neighbor in the apartment building where they both lived. I am fine with that but preferred MacMurray's performance. Also showing up are such great character actors as Ray Walston (MY FAVORITE MARTIAN), David Lewis (GENERAL HOSPITAL), Willard Waterman (THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE) and David White (Larry Tate in BEWITCHED) as other Execs using The Apartment for their purposes.
This is a terrific motion picture and if you haven't seen it (or if you haven't seen it in quite sometime), I highly recommend you check it out (it is shown on the Turner Classic Movie channel on a fairly regular basis). It certainly shows a slice of life during the MAD MEN days that just doesn't exist anymore - and also presents a type of film, and a type of filmmaker, that just doesn't exist today.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
One of the reasons that I enjoy this is that I end up viewing films that I might not, otherwise, choose to watch. Case in point is the selection for May - the 1960 Oscar winner for Best Picture, THE APARTMENT - a "love story" with some comedy and some dark dramatic moments and themes. A very tricky combination of items that are bundled together, brilliantly, by a master of the craft.
THE APARTMENT tells the story of nebbish office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon in an Oscar nominated performance, more on that later) who is talked into lending his apartment to higher-ups in his company so they can carry out extra-marital affairs. When one of the affairs goes wrong, Baxter is forced to "clean up the mess".
Written and Directed by the GREAT Billy WIlder (SOME LIKE IT HOT, SUNSET BOULEVARD), The Apartment is more than a love story, more than a look into the vacuous lives of those anonymous office workers, it is a look into the lives of those who are victims of abuse of power. Wilder, rightfully so, won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Screenplay for this film. The Apartment is strongly written and directed not flinching at the deep subject matter while also balancing things out with moments of comedy and joy, turning what could have been a dour, dark subject into a more joyous exploration of true humanity and love rising through the corruption and abuse of power heaped upon them.
In the lead role of CC Baxter, Lemmon is perfectly cast. Starting as a pure comedic character who is set upon by a world too strong for him, his character slowly turns sharper, deeper, more serious and more real as the film progresses. Lemmon was nominated for the Oscar for his performance - and rightfully so. I had to look up who beat him out for the statue and found out it was Burt Lancaster's powerhouse performance in ELMER GANTRY, so I can't really argue about this (but I digress).
Matching Lemmon beat for beat is Shirley MacLaine, the wronged girl who's "issues" (I'm not going to spoil what happens, if you haven't seen this) are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of Lemmon's character. MacLaine is charming and tragic in this role and she, too, was nominated for an Oscar (for Best Actress losing to Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8). Rounding out the cast was a pre-MY 3 SONS Fred MacMurray (as the Exec who abuses both Lemmon's and MacLaine's characters). He was terrific as this cad, and thought for sure that he would have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but that honor went to Jack Kruschen as Lemmon's neighbor in the apartment building where they both lived. I am fine with that but preferred MacMurray's performance. Also showing up are such great character actors as Ray Walston (MY FAVORITE MARTIAN), David Lewis (GENERAL HOSPITAL), Willard Waterman (THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE) and David White (Larry Tate in BEWITCHED) as other Execs using The Apartment for their purposes.
This is a terrific motion picture and if you haven't seen it (or if you haven't seen it in quite sometime), I highly recommend you check it out (it is shown on the Turner Classic Movie channel on a fairly regular basis). It certainly shows a slice of life during the MAD MEN days that just doesn't exist anymore - and also presents a type of film, and a type of filmmaker, that just doesn't exist today.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)