Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyder’s sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The timeless children’s tale of Jack and the Beanstalk gets a high-tech update in the new film Jack the Giant Slayer. Directed by Bryan Singer, the new version mixes in special effects with romance, action, and humor to provide a refreshing update of a fairytale that should appeal to adults and children alike. Nicholas Hoult stars as Jack, a simple farmer who’s raised by his uncle after the passing of his father. As a boy, Jack enjoyed the tales of long ago, especially those of the time when giants came down from the sky and attacked the earth before being thwarted by King Eric and his magical crown.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Alison Pink (7 KP) rated Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in Books
Jan 15, 2018
I have never been a big fan of history. There have been events in history which have captured my attention...the Holocaust, JFK's assassination, the Civil Rights movement, the Beatles. I think my issue with history is just that, its history. I had no connection to it. All of that changed on September 11, 2001, my generation's version of the day that will live in infamy. Like most everyone who was old enough to remember, I remember that day like it were yesterday...where I was when I heard, what it was like to watch those massive building collapse, the fear, the uncertainty, the need to have those I loved close to me, how I knew it was real but just not being able to comprehend that I was watching the news & not some movie. I didn't have a personal connection with losing someone that day thank God.
Jonathan Safran Foer's book gave me that personal connection. While I know it is fiction, it felt SO incredibly real. His writing was very heartfelt...funny, depressing, hopeful, and heartbreaking all at once. It tells the story of Oskar Schell who lost his father on that horrible day. It tells the tale of the aftermath for those left behind, those who still today stuggle to get a handle on wrapping their minds around their loved one being gone, even though there is nothing to put closure to their loss.
Oskar spends months a searching for an explanation to a key he found at the bottom of a vase in his father's closet after he died. He embarks on the search hoping to feel close to his dad, if only for a little while longer. That search leads him all through New York and into the homes of a very eclectic group of people who are all dealing with some kind of tragedy. In the end, what he finds surprises Oskar, but also manages to pull him back to his mother and deal with his anger at the same time.
I'm not sure what I was expecting, but this book was a pleasant surprise. I laughed & cried, often times all from just one page of text. The story is accompanied by photos that just add to the personal nature of the story. I don't do this often if ever really, but I think this is a book I will read more than once.
Jonathan Safran Foer's book gave me that personal connection. While I know it is fiction, it felt SO incredibly real. His writing was very heartfelt...funny, depressing, hopeful, and heartbreaking all at once. It tells the story of Oskar Schell who lost his father on that horrible day. It tells the tale of the aftermath for those left behind, those who still today stuggle to get a handle on wrapping their minds around their loved one being gone, even though there is nothing to put closure to their loss.
Oskar spends months a searching for an explanation to a key he found at the bottom of a vase in his father's closet after he died. He embarks on the search hoping to feel close to his dad, if only for a little while longer. That search leads him all through New York and into the homes of a very eclectic group of people who are all dealing with some kind of tragedy. In the end, what he finds surprises Oskar, but also manages to pull him back to his mother and deal with his anger at the same time.
I'm not sure what I was expecting, but this book was a pleasant surprise. I laughed & cried, often times all from just one page of text. The story is accompanied by photos that just add to the personal nature of the story. I don't do this often if ever really, but I think this is a book I will read more than once.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Dec 24, 2018
Great Mystery
A photojournalist is wheelchair-ridden, watching people in his apartment complex from his window for hours. He’s thrown for a loop when he witnesses what he thinks is a murder. He wants to get to the bottom of it or die trying.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I’ll start with Stella (Thelma Ritter) who is easily my favorite character in the entire movie. She is an in-home nurse who is taking care of main character L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart). Out of all the characters in the story, she has the brightest sense of humor. I also loved that she takes zero guff from L.B., sometimes even making it seem like he works for her. She was stern and went beyond the parameters of her job doing everything from offering love advice to helping L.B. dive into the murder.
Of course I appreciated a number of the other characters as well, including the creepy Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr). He is the object of L.B.’s accusation. Lars does a great job of making you think L.B. could be right. At other times, Lars seems like just a normal guy going about his daily routine. He takes strange to new heights. Each of the characters, the important ones anyway, help to frame the story and keep you intrigued.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 5
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Rear Window succeeds with a script that’s extremely crisp and engaging. Mystery and tension abound as you try and figure out what’s going to happen next. The story is simple, yet is peeled back in layers. Very well done.
Resolution: 10
I won’t dive in too much here but I will say that the ending is perfect to the point that it answers all the right questions. It doesn’t overdo things and try and unnecessarily put a bow on things. We find out what we need to know and that’s that.
Overall: 92
Alfred Hitchcock puts together stories like a boxer puts together a fight. He hits you with little jabs that wake you up. Eventually he goes in for the kill with harder punches that you’re not ready for. He is definitely one of the greats and Rear Window is yet another one of his classics to show for it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I’ll start with Stella (Thelma Ritter) who is easily my favorite character in the entire movie. She is an in-home nurse who is taking care of main character L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart). Out of all the characters in the story, she has the brightest sense of humor. I also loved that she takes zero guff from L.B., sometimes even making it seem like he works for her. She was stern and went beyond the parameters of her job doing everything from offering love advice to helping L.B. dive into the murder.
Of course I appreciated a number of the other characters as well, including the creepy Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr). He is the object of L.B.’s accusation. Lars does a great job of making you think L.B. could be right. At other times, Lars seems like just a normal guy going about his daily routine. He takes strange to new heights. Each of the characters, the important ones anyway, help to frame the story and keep you intrigued.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 5
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Rear Window succeeds with a script that’s extremely crisp and engaging. Mystery and tension abound as you try and figure out what’s going to happen next. The story is simple, yet is peeled back in layers. Very well done.
Resolution: 10
I won’t dive in too much here but I will say that the ending is perfect to the point that it answers all the right questions. It doesn’t overdo things and try and unnecessarily put a bow on things. We find out what we need to know and that’s that.
Overall: 92
Alfred Hitchcock puts together stories like a boxer puts together a fight. He hits you with little jabs that wake you up. Eventually he goes in for the kill with harder punches that you’re not ready for. He is definitely one of the greats and Rear Window is yet another one of his classics to show for it.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Echoes in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Author in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><strong>Three words: Hackers. Go. Missing.</strong></h2>
I'm not talking baby hackers who have no clue what they're doing and slipped up badly I'm talking top of the ladder ones.
Mallory Park is a hacker who moderates The Forum, a message board where hackers are anonymous, crack down on the dirty secrets of companies, and leak them out to the world anonymously. She's extremely motivated and passionate about her work, and likes to have control she's independent, wants to do her own thing, and based on her background, it definitely fits her character. Mallory, however...
Just comes out cold. Apathetic. Indifferent. She doesn't really have any clue what to do with herself because hacking IS who she is. She is also extremely brilliant (I would love to have her math skills right now in Calculus...), hates being touched (much like me...), and is as awkward as David 1 and David 2 (one of them is a <a title="The Sorcerer's Apprentice review" href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/movie-review-the-sorcerers-apprentice"; target="_blank" rel="noopener tag">Physics major</a> and the other is <a title="Steelheart by Brandon Sanderson review" href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-steelheart-by-brandon-sanderson"; target="_blank" rel="noopener tag">terrible with metaphors</a>).
While I like Mallory, I think Mallory came more out of her shell when she meets Warden. Warden is very cheery, optimistic, and hilarious he's really just one of those adorable nerds who would love to squish hug. And despite the fact he is introduced as Mallory's online friend from The Forum, I can hear his voice and see his facial expressions leaping off the screen at Mallory.
There's so much anticipation and danger (and Warden's humor laced throughout) as Mallory gets closer to finding out about the missing hackers, but in the long run, <em>Echoes</em> really just teaches about online safety in a similar, yet different way compared to other books related to online safety.
But you should really just read it for Warden's humor.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-echoes-by-laura-tisda/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><strong>Three words: Hackers. Go. Missing.</strong></h2>
I'm not talking baby hackers who have no clue what they're doing and slipped up badly I'm talking top of the ladder ones.
Mallory Park is a hacker who moderates The Forum, a message board where hackers are anonymous, crack down on the dirty secrets of companies, and leak them out to the world anonymously. She's extremely motivated and passionate about her work, and likes to have control she's independent, wants to do her own thing, and based on her background, it definitely fits her character. Mallory, however...
Just comes out cold. Apathetic. Indifferent. She doesn't really have any clue what to do with herself because hacking IS who she is. She is also extremely brilliant (I would love to have her math skills right now in Calculus...), hates being touched (much like me...), and is as awkward as David 1 and David 2 (one of them is a <a title="The Sorcerer's Apprentice review" href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/movie-review-the-sorcerers-apprentice"; target="_blank" rel="noopener tag">Physics major</a> and the other is <a title="Steelheart by Brandon Sanderson review" href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-steelheart-by-brandon-sanderson"; target="_blank" rel="noopener tag">terrible with metaphors</a>).
While I like Mallory, I think Mallory came more out of her shell when she meets Warden. Warden is very cheery, optimistic, and hilarious he's really just one of those adorable nerds who would love to squish hug. And despite the fact he is introduced as Mallory's online friend from The Forum, I can hear his voice and see his facial expressions leaping off the screen at Mallory.
There's so much anticipation and danger (and Warden's humor laced throughout) as Mallory gets closer to finding out about the missing hackers, but in the long run, <em>Echoes</em> really just teaches about online safety in a similar, yet different way compared to other books related to online safety.
But you should really just read it for Warden's humor.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-echoes-by-laura-tisda/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Hard Cake
The personal history of david copperfield really disappointed me especially after such a cracking trailer and while no means a bad film it just really wasnt a film I enjoyed. What I was expecting was a sharply written, quirky yet dry and playful adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel something similar to a yorgos lanthimos film like the favorite for instance but sadly I found this movie to be extreamly dull, uninteresting and severely lacking overall. I wouldnt say its necessarily bad however it all just felt very flat to me. Characters didnt feel believable, humour seemed forced and while david patel burts at the seemes constantly with energy the film around him didnt seem to follow along the same. Very interesting ideas are present here and the emphases is on life almost being like a stage play with people we meet being the characters in it. See everyone in life is unique and has their own distinctive traits/interesting stories and no matter what happenes in our lives neither one is no less meaningless or important than the other. This does come across brilliantly and shows the bad traits of human nature, see everyone is on the path to happiness its just what they do and who they exploit or how much they choose to lie to get there and achieve sucess is diffrent from person to person. Then on a positive side it also shows how we should all realise where we have come from, to be greatful for what we have, to let our creativity flow and to appreciate these characters that enter our lives and inspire/care for us. So heres where I feel conflicted as much as I like these great ideas I feel they they just aren't integrated well enough with the dull story or the forced comedy and sure the film is well made but to watch its just not exciting or that engaging and the characters all became forgettable once off screen just like when watching a sketch show. Failing to keep my intrest constantly made the runtime feel a drag too and by the time I left I struggled to remember much of what had just happened infront of me wishing I'd of just stayed home and watched Perfume or The Favorite instead in the warm. No doubt some will enjoy this but will they be talking about it in a month? I highly doubt it.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Falcon and the Winter Soldier in TV
Apr 24, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
Contains spoilers, click to show
On the surface, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier starts off in a familiar fashion. The first couple of episodes feel like a (welcome) return to the earlier days of the MCU, but as the story develops, it just blossoms into so much more.
The narrative mainly focuses on the two titular Avengers taking on a revolutionary group, hell bent on returning to a post snap world. It deals head first with the fallout of Thanos' devastating blow in Infinity War, and the subsequent return of the 3.5 billion people who re-materialised after Endgame, and the issues that came with them. It's good to see that Marvel Studios aren't avoiding these complicated plot points that could have potentially just been swept under the rug.
The series also develops the John Walker/U.S. Agent comic story. Its well realised and Wyatt Russell is fantastic in the role. Daniel Brühl returns as Baron Zemo after an underwhelming narrative in Civil War, and unexpectedly is plain hilarious (and finally in full costume, even if it is for one scene).
As well as all this, fans of the comics are treated to a plethora of potential future stories - The introduction of Madripoor marks the first proper acknowledgement of X-Men material. Lesser known comic characters such as Isiah Bradley, Madame Hydra, Battlestar, Batroc, and Ayo are given screentime. There's even some carrots dangled for a potential Young Avengers adaption with the appearance of Eli Bradley/Patriot (and with Kate Bishop incoming, surely this is a thing)
Perhaps most importantly, TFATWS doesn't shy away from tackling race issues, touching upon real world events, and developing them into the plot. This spills over into the future of Captain America, and what the shield represents to the black community. There are some truly powerful moments of dialogue, especially between Isiah and Sam. It's all handled respectfully, and brings new depth the MCU, as they stride into a more diverse future.
With this series, and the preceding WandaVision, this new phase for the MCU is off to an incredibly strong start, and I'm so excited to see where they take it. Between Falcon rightfully taking the reigns as Captain America, the upcoming Shang Chi movie finally adapting the martial arts corner of Marvel for the MCU, and the tantalising promise of the multiverse, it's a good time to be a Marvel fan.
The narrative mainly focuses on the two titular Avengers taking on a revolutionary group, hell bent on returning to a post snap world. It deals head first with the fallout of Thanos' devastating blow in Infinity War, and the subsequent return of the 3.5 billion people who re-materialised after Endgame, and the issues that came with them. It's good to see that Marvel Studios aren't avoiding these complicated plot points that could have potentially just been swept under the rug.
The series also develops the John Walker/U.S. Agent comic story. Its well realised and Wyatt Russell is fantastic in the role. Daniel Brühl returns as Baron Zemo after an underwhelming narrative in Civil War, and unexpectedly is plain hilarious (and finally in full costume, even if it is for one scene).
As well as all this, fans of the comics are treated to a plethora of potential future stories - The introduction of Madripoor marks the first proper acknowledgement of X-Men material. Lesser known comic characters such as Isiah Bradley, Madame Hydra, Battlestar, Batroc, and Ayo are given screentime. There's even some carrots dangled for a potential Young Avengers adaption with the appearance of Eli Bradley/Patriot (and with Kate Bishop incoming, surely this is a thing)
Perhaps most importantly, TFATWS doesn't shy away from tackling race issues, touching upon real world events, and developing them into the plot. This spills over into the future of Captain America, and what the shield represents to the black community. There are some truly powerful moments of dialogue, especially between Isiah and Sam. It's all handled respectfully, and brings new depth the MCU, as they stride into a more diverse future.
With this series, and the preceding WandaVision, this new phase for the MCU is off to an incredibly strong start, and I'm so excited to see where they take it. Between Falcon rightfully taking the reigns as Captain America, the upcoming Shang Chi movie finally adapting the martial arts corner of Marvel for the MCU, and the tantalising promise of the multiverse, it's a good time to be a Marvel fan.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Saw III (2006) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
The first Saw film is genuinely great. The second I can tolerate. Saw III however is where the franchise started to lose me.
At this point, it's still not as convoluted as the series eventually gets, but it's here where you can clearly see the cracks start to appear, where every entry going forwards tries to ape what made the first film a success, whilst simultaneously becoming increasingly mean spirited - it's the first entry that really hints at the gore and viscera being more important than a decent plot.
The main positive of Saw III is the sheer amount of Tobin Bell we're treated to. Even on his death bed, Jigsaw is still appropriately sinister, and it's hard to see the role belonging to any other actor.
It's also nice to see Dina Meyer back for another turn, but her role here is all too brief.
Unfortunately, everyone else I can take or leave. Shawnee Smith returns as Jigsaws' apprentice, and her character is just so damn unlikable with no redeemable features, and is a far cry from her more compelling teacher, who always had a reason for doing what he did.
Then there's Jeff (Slow Ass Motherfuckin' Jeff to some) played by Angus Macfadyen. Honestly, I struggle to recall a protagonist in a horror movie that is quite as useless as this guy. He's insufferable to the point of sheer frustration.
Everyone else is just hugely forgettable, even Costas Mandylor who would go on to have a bigger role in the series moving forward.
The mixture of these non characters makes for a boring narrative, that ends up relying on gore for any worth.
The various Jigsaw traps seen in these films become more ambitious, theatrical, and disgusting as the franchise waddles along, and that's not necessarily a good thing. With each film, the more minimalist approach to the first film seems further and further out of reach.
As I mentioned, some of the deaths in Saw III are just plain mean spirited. Gore in horror movies really works when the film still manages to be entertaining, something that the bleak Saw III just isn't.
It's still not a terrible film, but honestly, the series just nosedives from here on out in my opinion, and this third entry is the jumping point.
At this point, it's still not as convoluted as the series eventually gets, but it's here where you can clearly see the cracks start to appear, where every entry going forwards tries to ape what made the first film a success, whilst simultaneously becoming increasingly mean spirited - it's the first entry that really hints at the gore and viscera being more important than a decent plot.
The main positive of Saw III is the sheer amount of Tobin Bell we're treated to. Even on his death bed, Jigsaw is still appropriately sinister, and it's hard to see the role belonging to any other actor.
It's also nice to see Dina Meyer back for another turn, but her role here is all too brief.
Unfortunately, everyone else I can take or leave. Shawnee Smith returns as Jigsaws' apprentice, and her character is just so damn unlikable with no redeemable features, and is a far cry from her more compelling teacher, who always had a reason for doing what he did.
Then there's Jeff (Slow Ass Motherfuckin' Jeff to some) played by Angus Macfadyen. Honestly, I struggle to recall a protagonist in a horror movie that is quite as useless as this guy. He's insufferable to the point of sheer frustration.
Everyone else is just hugely forgettable, even Costas Mandylor who would go on to have a bigger role in the series moving forward.
The mixture of these non characters makes for a boring narrative, that ends up relying on gore for any worth.
The various Jigsaw traps seen in these films become more ambitious, theatrical, and disgusting as the franchise waddles along, and that's not necessarily a good thing. With each film, the more minimalist approach to the first film seems further and further out of reach.
As I mentioned, some of the deaths in Saw III are just plain mean spirited. Gore in horror movies really works when the film still manages to be entertaining, something that the bleak Saw III just isn't.
It's still not a terrible film, but honestly, the series just nosedives from here on out in my opinion, and this third entry is the jumping point.