Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Three Chords and the Truth.
BAFTA named Jessie Buckley as one of their “Rising Stars” for 2019, and here she proves why.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated BEING THE RICARDOS (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Superb "A" plot, Boring "B" plot
When I first heard that Nicole Kidman (of all people) was set to play Lucille Ball in a bio-pic (of sorts), I was suspect over the casting.
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Booksmart (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A raunchy but extremely funny teen-sex comedy.
A panda’s eye view of teenage life.
I tend to struggle to find a really good comedy to add to my top 10 of the year. Last year it was “Game Night” that made my list. One that is definitely heading there this year is “Booksmart”.
A retread on a well-travelled tyre.
The coming of age school comedy has been rehashed multiple times. These include films as varied as “Napoleon Dynamite”, “Superbad”, “Easy A”, “Mean Girls”, “Never Been Kissed” and “10 Things I Hate About You”. In tone, “Booksmart” is probably closest to “Superbad”, but it manages – under the direction of actress Olivia Wilde, in her debut feature – to establish a quirky likeability all of its own. An instant classic in the making.
Not for the prudish.
The story concerns two BFF’s – Molly (Beanie Feldstein, sister of Jonah Hill) and Amy (Kaitlyn Dever). They have both spent their young lives trying to score A’s at school in lieu of all other distractions. On the eve of their graduation, Molly realises that this was not a binary option. Her school companions have managed to get all of the success without any of the self-sacrifice! She calls “Malala”! And the duo proceed on a drink and drug-fuelled night to catch up on all the school social life they have missed out on!
Part of this catching up includes sex, and with Amy as a naive wannabe lesbian, in awe of tom-boy skateboarder Ryan (Victoria Ruesga), coming out has never seemed so painful.
I first saw this on a plane and guffawed so much that I went out to buy the DVD for a family viewing. Watching it again though, it is really very, very rude. If you were to categorize it, I think “sex comedy” would be a primary tag. A clumsy but realistic scene between Amy and the “hot girl” Hope (Diana Silvers… who really is) is excruciatingly hard to watch. This can therefore prove an uncomfortable co-watch for ‘young folks’ who – despite all the obvious evidence! – assume their parents / in-laws have done nothing in the past other than hold hands!! 🙂
In a great ensemble cast, Kaitlyn Dever is a revelation.
Kaitlyn Dever has cut her teeth with supporting roles on a few B-grade movies this year including “Beautiful Boy” and “The Front Runner“. But here she takes centre stage and is an absolute revelation as the sexually bemused teen. While Beanie Feldstein has the more obvious comic lead role, it is Dever who continually grabbed my attention with her acting skills. This young lady is added to my “one to watch” list.
This is not to decry the rest of the cast. For this is a great ensemble performance from a pretty unknown cast. The only familiar faces are Lisa Kudrow and Jason Sudeikis, but they only have bit parts.
The only role that didn’t quite work for me was that of the kooky drugged out hippie Gigi (Billie Lourd). It was all a bit too over-the-top for me in a movie that didn’t really need that sort of manic angle. (However, this did set up a Marwen-style drug scene that made me snort… with laughter).
As a comedy, will this by the whole you think it is?
I think this will prove to be a firm young person’s favourite for many years to come. Whether you will find it funny or not will probably depend on the setting of your ‘crudometer’ and your resilience to bad language on screen.
For me, personally, I am clearly still 17 on the inside! I loved it. Not only do I think it a good comedy. It is also a feel-good movie about best friends; a coming of age lesbian adventure; and a film that treats the multi-coloured spectrum of modern sexual variety as something entirely normal and to be celebrated.
I tend to struggle to find a really good comedy to add to my top 10 of the year. Last year it was “Game Night” that made my list. One that is definitely heading there this year is “Booksmart”.
A retread on a well-travelled tyre.
The coming of age school comedy has been rehashed multiple times. These include films as varied as “Napoleon Dynamite”, “Superbad”, “Easy A”, “Mean Girls”, “Never Been Kissed” and “10 Things I Hate About You”. In tone, “Booksmart” is probably closest to “Superbad”, but it manages – under the direction of actress Olivia Wilde, in her debut feature – to establish a quirky likeability all of its own. An instant classic in the making.
Not for the prudish.
The story concerns two BFF’s – Molly (Beanie Feldstein, sister of Jonah Hill) and Amy (Kaitlyn Dever). They have both spent their young lives trying to score A’s at school in lieu of all other distractions. On the eve of their graduation, Molly realises that this was not a binary option. Her school companions have managed to get all of the success without any of the self-sacrifice! She calls “Malala”! And the duo proceed on a drink and drug-fuelled night to catch up on all the school social life they have missed out on!
Part of this catching up includes sex, and with Amy as a naive wannabe lesbian, in awe of tom-boy skateboarder Ryan (Victoria Ruesga), coming out has never seemed so painful.
I first saw this on a plane and guffawed so much that I went out to buy the DVD for a family viewing. Watching it again though, it is really very, very rude. If you were to categorize it, I think “sex comedy” would be a primary tag. A clumsy but realistic scene between Amy and the “hot girl” Hope (Diana Silvers… who really is) is excruciatingly hard to watch. This can therefore prove an uncomfortable co-watch for ‘young folks’ who – despite all the obvious evidence! – assume their parents / in-laws have done nothing in the past other than hold hands!! 🙂
In a great ensemble cast, Kaitlyn Dever is a revelation.
Kaitlyn Dever has cut her teeth with supporting roles on a few B-grade movies this year including “Beautiful Boy” and “The Front Runner“. But here she takes centre stage and is an absolute revelation as the sexually bemused teen. While Beanie Feldstein has the more obvious comic lead role, it is Dever who continually grabbed my attention with her acting skills. This young lady is added to my “one to watch” list.
This is not to decry the rest of the cast. For this is a great ensemble performance from a pretty unknown cast. The only familiar faces are Lisa Kudrow and Jason Sudeikis, but they only have bit parts.
The only role that didn’t quite work for me was that of the kooky drugged out hippie Gigi (Billie Lourd). It was all a bit too over-the-top for me in a movie that didn’t really need that sort of manic angle. (However, this did set up a Marwen-style drug scene that made me snort… with laughter).
As a comedy, will this by the whole you think it is?
I think this will prove to be a firm young person’s favourite for many years to come. Whether you will find it funny or not will probably depend on the setting of your ‘crudometer’ and your resilience to bad language on screen.
For me, personally, I am clearly still 17 on the inside! I loved it. Not only do I think it a good comedy. It is also a feel-good movie about best friends; a coming of age lesbian adventure; and a film that treats the multi-coloured spectrum of modern sexual variety as something entirely normal and to be celebrated.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Curvature (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
If there’s any particular genre i’m particularly keen too, it’s science fiction. Books, movies, television, comics, you name it. I’ve been watching the old school versions of ‘The Twilight Zone’ and ‘The Outer Limits’ since I was like 5 years old (that could explain quite a few things actually). As far as movies? That’s going to lead only to the past, the future, other dimensions, etc. If you had to nail it down even further within the genre of science fiction, I’d have to go right to anything revolving around time travel. That’s where today’s film for your consideration comes in. This one in particular doesn’t seem to be getting the credit it deserves and although it’s a bit rough around the edges, I think it also deserves a shot.
‘Curvature’ is a 2017 science fiction/thriller film (released on February 23rd of this year) written by Brian DeLeeuw and directed by Diego Hallivis. The film stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Noah Bean, Glenn Morshower, Zach Avery, Alex Lanipekun, and Linda Hamilton (yes … THEE Linda Hamilton as in ‘Sarah Conner’).
Helen (Fonseca) is grieving the lose of her husband Wells (Bean) in the aftermath of his suicide. Not long after, Wells’s colleague Tomas (Morshower) seeks her out and asks for her blessing to continue the research project that he and Wells were involved in. Being an engineer and a scientist herself, she agrees and not long after returns to work trying to confront the grief as best she can with the guidance and help of her mentor Florence (Hamilton). Without warning, Helen succumbs to a blackout and awakens several days later. Upon awakening at home, she learns that several days have passed and receives a phone call …. from HERSELF. Helen warns herself to get out of the house as soon as possible as a man in a black BMW is coming to the house to kill her. In the confusion that follows, she manages to barely escape and seek out her friend Alex. What follows is a story of deceit, betrayal, and a conspiracy that goes beyond what Helen could imagine where she can’t trust anyone … not even her future self.
Obviously, i’m biased her being partial to the genre. That being said .. this movie is was, is, and will be excellent. 4 out of 5 stars. What impressed me about the film was how well the writing went with the talent of all the actors involved. My only real complaint, is that I wish they had incorporated more dialogue into the 90 minute movie. It’s almost like they sacrificed time between characters for the special effects which I will say, were absolutely awesome for an independent film. The film fell somewhere between a movie and a television episode as far as the experience. I would’ve preferred it to be one or the other and not in between if that makes any sense. However, I was still blown away by the film and will gladly watch it again and add it to my library at the first opportunity. Not to give too much of the film away, one thing I found unique about this particular time-travel film is how the writer came up with the concept that the nature of the ‘experiment’ allowed for someone to only go back so far into the past between a few hours and a few days limiting how far back you could alter history so-to-speak. The intent wasn’t necessarily to save because too much time had passed … but to ‘stop’. As for the ‘star power of the film’, I saw it as a tip of the hat to other films in the time travel genre. This film definitely deserves a place in the science fiction/time travel library. Take my suggestion and give it a look.
‘Curvature’ is a 2017 science fiction/thriller film (released on February 23rd of this year) written by Brian DeLeeuw and directed by Diego Hallivis. The film stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Noah Bean, Glenn Morshower, Zach Avery, Alex Lanipekun, and Linda Hamilton (yes … THEE Linda Hamilton as in ‘Sarah Conner’).
Helen (Fonseca) is grieving the lose of her husband Wells (Bean) in the aftermath of his suicide. Not long after, Wells’s colleague Tomas (Morshower) seeks her out and asks for her blessing to continue the research project that he and Wells were involved in. Being an engineer and a scientist herself, she agrees and not long after returns to work trying to confront the grief as best she can with the guidance and help of her mentor Florence (Hamilton). Without warning, Helen succumbs to a blackout and awakens several days later. Upon awakening at home, she learns that several days have passed and receives a phone call …. from HERSELF. Helen warns herself to get out of the house as soon as possible as a man in a black BMW is coming to the house to kill her. In the confusion that follows, she manages to barely escape and seek out her friend Alex. What follows is a story of deceit, betrayal, and a conspiracy that goes beyond what Helen could imagine where she can’t trust anyone … not even her future self.
Obviously, i’m biased her being partial to the genre. That being said .. this movie is was, is, and will be excellent. 4 out of 5 stars. What impressed me about the film was how well the writing went with the talent of all the actors involved. My only real complaint, is that I wish they had incorporated more dialogue into the 90 minute movie. It’s almost like they sacrificed time between characters for the special effects which I will say, were absolutely awesome for an independent film. The film fell somewhere between a movie and a television episode as far as the experience. I would’ve preferred it to be one or the other and not in between if that makes any sense. However, I was still blown away by the film and will gladly watch it again and add it to my library at the first opportunity. Not to give too much of the film away, one thing I found unique about this particular time-travel film is how the writer came up with the concept that the nature of the ‘experiment’ allowed for someone to only go back so far into the past between a few hours and a few days limiting how far back you could alter history so-to-speak. The intent wasn’t necessarily to save because too much time had passed … but to ‘stop’. As for the ‘star power of the film’, I saw it as a tip of the hat to other films in the time travel genre. This film definitely deserves a place in the science fiction/time travel library. Take my suggestion and give it a look.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
I firmly believe that this is one of the best movies on the face of the planet. Anyone who knows me and knows my reviews knows how much it bothers me when film adaptations are so bad or so off or they just lose everything the book had. The exact opposite happens here. I think what makes this movie so good and so well put together is that it's still Stephen's story. He wrote the book, then the screenplay, then he directed it so it was his entire vision coming to life on screen and it worked. I think if anyone else would've directed or wrote the script, it wouldn't have translated so well.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"Bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from the ships, 'cause they knew death was better than bondage"
Full of life, joy, sorrow, and hilarity; Ryan Coogler's Black Panther just has a vibrancy you rarely find in the superhero scene, let alone blockbusters. Enriched with a deep, abiding love for African culture and Afrofuturism; the movie just feels purposeful. Important. Meaningful. Context matters here, as Black Panther will become one of very few films populated by African Americans not dealing with slavery or black history to thrive financially. And that cast is phenomenal. Boseman's soft-spoken panther-of-few-words is the rare MCUer to opt for a moment of silence rather than a snarky comment. Michael B Jordan brings an unmistakable swagger to the perpetually weak slate of Marvel villains, conveying a crushingly sad and challenging story that could just as easily be regarded as the true hero of the film. Letitia Wright as the genius tech maestro was a blast, a character who could give Tony Stark a run for his money both technologically and charismatically. And these are just three of Coogler's creations; drawn from a slate of inspired, unique and wonderfully represented roles for black actors...many of whom will deservingly use this as a career springboard of sorts.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mad Max (1979) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Decent
Guilty confession: Typically when I watch a "classic" or a film I've really been looking forward to, I go into it expecting to like it. In other words, the film is already ahead of the curve when it comes to my grading scale. It has to do a lot to let me down. I hate to say it, but Mad Max? It let me down. Not in the sense that it was bad, but rather in the sense that I was hoping for more.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Dawn of the Dead (1978) in Movies
Oct 27, 2020
Dawn of the Dead is considered by many to be the cream of the crop when it comes to zombie movies.
George Romero upped the ante with his second entry into the Living Dead series - bigger set pieces, more gore, more zombies (this time in colour!)
The true star of Dawn is the setting for a couple of reasons. The shopping mall is a fun and striking place to set a zombie film in, and plays a huge part in this films classic status, but most importantly, it's the epicenter of commentary running through the narrative, pointing fingers at capitalism and consumerism. A friend of mine (who deeply loves this movie) rightly pointed out that there's more to it than that, with the opening dealing with classism, and ultimately leading to discontent after the characters are comfortable in their situation, and have all they need. They're left with nothing left to do, nowhere to go, and it's genuinely quite bleak in that respect.
One of the greatest things for me about Dawn is the screenplay. It's pretty much air tight, it's clever, and has a handful of all time great lines. It also has some fine performances from the main cast, in particular Ken Foree. That dude is great in pretty much anything.
Also, the practical effects on display are fantastic (the zombie walking under the helicopter blades is a highlight) and is another example at Tom Savini's prowess.
However, despite all the positives, I just LIKE Dawn of the Dead, but I don't LOVE it. The main thing that turns me off is how goofy it is in parts. It verges on comedy at times (which I get, this being a semi-satire after all) but the silly music is a bit much for me. The film drags a fair bit during the mid section, and although I like all the actors, I find the characters they play hard to care about. I just don't think it's aged particularly well (although the message it carries is still as relevant as ever) and it's my least favourite of the original trilogy.
Although I have reservations, I still recognise how seminal Dawn of the Dead is. Without it, so many great movies wouldn't exist today, and it's easy to see why it was so groundbreaking at the time. I'm thankful it's exists, but it's ultimately a mixed bag for me (and I desperately hope my aformentioned friend doesn't hate me forever for feeling this way!)
George Romero upped the ante with his second entry into the Living Dead series - bigger set pieces, more gore, more zombies (this time in colour!)
The true star of Dawn is the setting for a couple of reasons. The shopping mall is a fun and striking place to set a zombie film in, and plays a huge part in this films classic status, but most importantly, it's the epicenter of commentary running through the narrative, pointing fingers at capitalism and consumerism. A friend of mine (who deeply loves this movie) rightly pointed out that there's more to it than that, with the opening dealing with classism, and ultimately leading to discontent after the characters are comfortable in their situation, and have all they need. They're left with nothing left to do, nowhere to go, and it's genuinely quite bleak in that respect.
One of the greatest things for me about Dawn is the screenplay. It's pretty much air tight, it's clever, and has a handful of all time great lines. It also has some fine performances from the main cast, in particular Ken Foree. That dude is great in pretty much anything.
Also, the practical effects on display are fantastic (the zombie walking under the helicopter blades is a highlight) and is another example at Tom Savini's prowess.
However, despite all the positives, I just LIKE Dawn of the Dead, but I don't LOVE it. The main thing that turns me off is how goofy it is in parts. It verges on comedy at times (which I get, this being a semi-satire after all) but the silly music is a bit much for me. The film drags a fair bit during the mid section, and although I like all the actors, I find the characters they play hard to care about. I just don't think it's aged particularly well (although the message it carries is still as relevant as ever) and it's my least favourite of the original trilogy.
Although I have reservations, I still recognise how seminal Dawn of the Dead is. Without it, so many great movies wouldn't exist today, and it's easy to see why it was so groundbreaking at the time. I'm thankful it's exists, but it's ultimately a mixed bag for me (and I desperately hope my aformentioned friend doesn't hate me forever for feeling this way!)
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Road House (1989) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Very underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
So what kind of film do you get when you have great one liners, bar fights, guns, knives, egos, strippers, blues music, a polar bear and a monster truck? You get one of the most enjoyable and entertaining films of the late 80's, Road House. The film follows James Dalton (Patrick Swayze) a cooler (bouncer) and the best in the business, as he takes employment with Frank Tilghman (Kevin Tighe) the owner of the Double Deuce in Jasper, Missouri. The bar is the roughest in town and he needs Dalton to clean it up. However corrupt business man and crime boss Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara) stands in his way. After the classic "chick flick" Dirty Dancing, Patrick Swayze was Hollywood gold. Women loved him and men wanted to be him. The film was full of romance. Then along came Road House, a complete opposite to Dirty Dancing, a little romance and loads of action. The film has a great cast including Patrick Swayze, Kevin Tighe, Ben Gazzara, Kelly Lynch, Marshall R. Teague, Red West, Kathleen Wilhoite, John William Young, John Doe, Kurt James Stefka, Keith David & Terry Funk. The cast works well together and it is full of great performances. Naturally Patrick Swayze at the height of his career stands miles apart from the rest of the cast as Dalton. A character that can hurt you with his words just as much as his fists. Tragically, 20 years later Swayze had his life cut short by cancer. His death is still a major loss to the entertainment industry, but his legacy will live on in the great performances and memorable characters he played. The film also a features a great performance by the late great blues guitarist Jeff Healey as Cody. It's the music in the film that goes a long way to achieving the right feel for the film. Everything works well from the characters, the music to the setting. Set in a rural area the scenery is breath-taking and it is used to great effect. But it's the fight choreography that stands out from many other films. Great bar fights are pretty much a thing of the past, but here they are full of action and humour just like the classic westerns. The one on one fights are brutal, mainly for the realism they portray. The script is awesome and full of classic lines mainly from Dalton and although many are cheesy, when he says it, it feels right. The director surprisingly hasn't made many films but the ones I have seen of his I really like and I know I am in the minority. See my review of Gladiator (1992) for more by this director. This is truly a great film, although very underrated. It is also one of my personal all-time favourites. There are a couple of versions of this so ensure that you see the USA or UK version released after 2002 as these are the uncut editions. So grab a few beers and a few friends, but this on a big screen and turn the sound way up for a really great movie experience.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Midway (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
The events of December 7th 1941 left an indelible mark on the psyche of America and became a date that truly has lived in infamy. Though historians, authors, and filmmakers have attempted to analyze the events during and leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor; there is still a great deal of interest about the attack and the aftermath.
While Pearl Harbor was for many the opening shots of the U.S. entry into World War II; some would say that the stage was set earlier when the United States attempted to curtail what they saw as an aggressive and Imperialistic Japan by placing restrictions on their vital resources such as oil and the tonnage of their Navy.
In the new film “Midway” we are given a glimpse into this when four years before the attack, when Edwin Layton (Patrick Wilson) meets with Admiral Nagumo (Jun Kunimura) who lets him know that hardline factions in his government have been buoyed by their invasion of China and will do what is needed to make sure the vital oil that is supplied by the U.S. remains constant.
Flash forward to the day of the attack and Layton who has warned that an attack was possible at Pearl Harbor is seeing his worst predictions come true. In the aftermath he is assigned to Admiral Nimitz (Woody Harrelson); who has been given the thankless task of taking charge of what is left of the Pacific Fleet and finding a way to stop the Japanese fleet.
The U.S. finds themselves outnumbered, outgunned, and waging war with ships and planes that are inferior to the Japanese but they must find a way to overcome the great obstacles before them and defeat a relentless enemy.
Layton and a team of code breakers are convinced the Japanese intend to attack the island of Midway and go all in to set a trap with the goal of destroying the enemy carriers so the U.S. can gain an aerial advantage in the Pacific.
With a strong cast which features Luke Evans, Dennis Quaid, Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and a fine supporting cast, Director Roland Emmerich has given audiences a gripping war movie that despite the impressive visual effects; never loses site of the fact that this is a story of real people who found themselves in pivotal moments of history.
The film also shows how the Japanese commanders had differing views of the Americans they fought. Some considered them to lack braveness while others admired their tenacity and were grateful that they had what they saw as inferior and outdated planes to attack them in.
The film also does a great job showing the Doolittle Raid and how what from a military standpoint caused minor damage yet was a huge psychological boost as Japan believed they were immune from attack yet the American forces found a way to bomb Tokyo by the impossible task of using land based bombers off a carrier.
The film is a great mix of human drama that shows not only the terrible toll of war but how a group of extraordinary individuals gave their all.
While Pearl Harbor was for many the opening shots of the U.S. entry into World War II; some would say that the stage was set earlier when the United States attempted to curtail what they saw as an aggressive and Imperialistic Japan by placing restrictions on their vital resources such as oil and the tonnage of their Navy.
In the new film “Midway” we are given a glimpse into this when four years before the attack, when Edwin Layton (Patrick Wilson) meets with Admiral Nagumo (Jun Kunimura) who lets him know that hardline factions in his government have been buoyed by their invasion of China and will do what is needed to make sure the vital oil that is supplied by the U.S. remains constant.
Flash forward to the day of the attack and Layton who has warned that an attack was possible at Pearl Harbor is seeing his worst predictions come true. In the aftermath he is assigned to Admiral Nimitz (Woody Harrelson); who has been given the thankless task of taking charge of what is left of the Pacific Fleet and finding a way to stop the Japanese fleet.
The U.S. finds themselves outnumbered, outgunned, and waging war with ships and planes that are inferior to the Japanese but they must find a way to overcome the great obstacles before them and defeat a relentless enemy.
Layton and a team of code breakers are convinced the Japanese intend to attack the island of Midway and go all in to set a trap with the goal of destroying the enemy carriers so the U.S. can gain an aerial advantage in the Pacific.
With a strong cast which features Luke Evans, Dennis Quaid, Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and a fine supporting cast, Director Roland Emmerich has given audiences a gripping war movie that despite the impressive visual effects; never loses site of the fact that this is a story of real people who found themselves in pivotal moments of history.
The film also shows how the Japanese commanders had differing views of the Americans they fought. Some considered them to lack braveness while others admired their tenacity and were grateful that they had what they saw as inferior and outdated planes to attack them in.
The film also does a great job showing the Doolittle Raid and how what from a military standpoint caused minor damage yet was a huge psychological boost as Japan believed they were immune from attack yet the American forces found a way to bomb Tokyo by the impossible task of using land based bombers off a carrier.
The film is a great mix of human drama that shows not only the terrible toll of war but how a group of extraordinary individuals gave their all.
