Search
Search results
Snap2PDF - Scan Documents & Share Searchable PDF
Business and Productivity
App
* The Best Document Management App * • Snap2PDF secured a spot among the Top 10 apps in the...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Up (2009) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
Pixar Does it Again
Up is one of those films that sticks with you long after the credits are done rolling. It hits you on a number of different levels, bordering close to perfection. I don't think I've seen a film that manages to switch from hurt to hilarious in such an effortless fashion.
In the beginning you meet Ellie, a cute little girl full of adventure. Her energy and excitement bleed off the screen and you can't help but smile at her. She's perfect for Carl, an innocent kid who barely says more than a few words. Their imaginative adventures get you into the story immediately. It's a relationship that makes the first ten minutes that much harder to watch. There are moments in the film that never lose impact which is testament to the film's power to stand the test of time.
For a child's film, there are a lot of layers that really make the film special. It isn't long before we get to meet Russell, an innocent boyscout turned star of the movie. He's just trying to earn another badge by helping the elderly. Underneath this unassuming kid is hurt from all the painful things happening in his life. Each character has their own respective backstory that makes them relatable and lovable.
There's good ole Doug the runt of a talking dog pack who can't seem to do right even when he tries his best. He's an outcast amongst the other dogs while still harboring those wonderful dogs traits that humans can't help but love. And how can you not love the colorful snipe Kevin whose only goal is to take care of her kids (yes, HER name is Kevin)? All of these characters are worthy of their own standalone film which is why bringing them all together for one story makes the film spectacular.
At the core of the story is the odd couple relationship between Kevin and Russell. Young and old meet and it couldn't be funnier to see the two try and operate together. As they try and understand each other, they form an unlikely bond, a closeness that was lost from both of their lives. At the risk of sounding like a teenager, it will give you all the feels.
There could be some missteps in this wonderful adventure about a man who decides to fly away in his house using thousands of balloons, but those missteps are minute. Not only are the visuals amazing, but the message is also a strong one: Don't get stuck in the past. Live life for the now.
Up is a classic. I give it a 99.
In the beginning you meet Ellie, a cute little girl full of adventure. Her energy and excitement bleed off the screen and you can't help but smile at her. She's perfect for Carl, an innocent kid who barely says more than a few words. Their imaginative adventures get you into the story immediately. It's a relationship that makes the first ten minutes that much harder to watch. There are moments in the film that never lose impact which is testament to the film's power to stand the test of time.
For a child's film, there are a lot of layers that really make the film special. It isn't long before we get to meet Russell, an innocent boyscout turned star of the movie. He's just trying to earn another badge by helping the elderly. Underneath this unassuming kid is hurt from all the painful things happening in his life. Each character has their own respective backstory that makes them relatable and lovable.
There's good ole Doug the runt of a talking dog pack who can't seem to do right even when he tries his best. He's an outcast amongst the other dogs while still harboring those wonderful dogs traits that humans can't help but love. And how can you not love the colorful snipe Kevin whose only goal is to take care of her kids (yes, HER name is Kevin)? All of these characters are worthy of their own standalone film which is why bringing them all together for one story makes the film spectacular.
At the core of the story is the odd couple relationship between Kevin and Russell. Young and old meet and it couldn't be funnier to see the two try and operate together. As they try and understand each other, they form an unlikely bond, a closeness that was lost from both of their lives. At the risk of sounding like a teenager, it will give you all the feels.
There could be some missteps in this wonderful adventure about a man who decides to fly away in his house using thousands of balloons, but those missteps are minute. Not only are the visuals amazing, but the message is also a strong one: Don't get stuck in the past. Live life for the now.
Up is a classic. I give it a 99.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Destroyer (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
It feels like Nicole Kidman has been making a big screen comeback recently. I enjoyed Aquaman and The Upside, we're also looking forward to seeing her in Boy Erased next month. I was aware that this one was going to be a little... different shall we say? But I hadn't read up much about it. It's a very surprising role to see her in.
Days after seeing Destroyer I'm still not any clearer about the whole thing. It almost felt like it had gritty TV crime drama potential but as a film I was a little underwhelmed.
I spent a long time wondering if I had missed something, the ending caused me the following reaction... "wait... oh... huh." I'm not sure that the way it tied itself up worked. It left me a little confused, not because the story didn't make sense but because of the way the film had been organised.
The main character, Erin, takes some pretty extreme measures during the film because of our bad guy. But out bad guy doesn't seem to warrant that behaviour. Sure he's a little nuts but as a catalyst for the messed up things she does I didn't find it to be very believable.
Kidman puts on a good show as you'd expect, trying to get past that hair and make-up though... I spent the first 30 minutes getting annoyed by it. I honestly don't know if I'm annoyed because it's bad or annoyed because it feels like they've disfigured Nicole Kidman.
The story is very familiar, a cop's past comes back to haunt them isn't new territory. Kidman takes on a very strong role and I can't deny she put some oomph into it but it's just another sort of okay film. Some less dramatic hair and make-up, a more organised timeline and a little more thought for the bad guy and I think I could have seen myself giving this four stars.
[As an after thought... the guy behind me at the screening kept laughing. Proper comedy gaffawing. I have to guess he was laughing at the violence being over the top because there wasn't anything amusing in it. I've seem films that are worse in that aspect though so I'm really just shrugging my shoulders about it.]
What you should do
There are other films that do much the same as this, but seeing Nicole Kidman as Erin Bell was an eye opener that you might benefit from seeing once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like whatever Nicole Kidman has that makes her naturally look like she's no older that Sebastian Stan.
Days after seeing Destroyer I'm still not any clearer about the whole thing. It almost felt like it had gritty TV crime drama potential but as a film I was a little underwhelmed.
I spent a long time wondering if I had missed something, the ending caused me the following reaction... "wait... oh... huh." I'm not sure that the way it tied itself up worked. It left me a little confused, not because the story didn't make sense but because of the way the film had been organised.
The main character, Erin, takes some pretty extreme measures during the film because of our bad guy. But out bad guy doesn't seem to warrant that behaviour. Sure he's a little nuts but as a catalyst for the messed up things she does I didn't find it to be very believable.
Kidman puts on a good show as you'd expect, trying to get past that hair and make-up though... I spent the first 30 minutes getting annoyed by it. I honestly don't know if I'm annoyed because it's bad or annoyed because it feels like they've disfigured Nicole Kidman.
The story is very familiar, a cop's past comes back to haunt them isn't new territory. Kidman takes on a very strong role and I can't deny she put some oomph into it but it's just another sort of okay film. Some less dramatic hair and make-up, a more organised timeline and a little more thought for the bad guy and I think I could have seen myself giving this four stars.
[As an after thought... the guy behind me at the screening kept laughing. Proper comedy gaffawing. I have to guess he was laughing at the violence being over the top because there wasn't anything amusing in it. I've seem films that are worse in that aspect though so I'm really just shrugging my shoulders about it.]
What you should do
There are other films that do much the same as this, but seeing Nicole Kidman as Erin Bell was an eye opener that you might benefit from seeing once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like whatever Nicole Kidman has that makes her naturally look like she's no older that Sebastian Stan.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Luce (2019) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019
Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr) is the perfect student. Captain of the high school track team, a passionate member of the school debating society, a great writer and a polite, grown-up young man that just seems too good to be true. Luce was adopted at the age of 9 from war-torn Eritrea by white couple Amy (Naomi Watts) and Peter (Tim Roth, sporting a pretty dodgy American accent). Following years of therapy and the devoted efforts of Amy and Peter, he seems to have successfully put his horrific and traumatic childhood behind him, embracing his future in America.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Big Fish (2003) in Movies
May 1, 2020
Whimsical, Fantastical and Entrancing
Looking for a charming, fantastical diversion that will whisk you away from this world for 2 hours? Look no further than the heartwarming father/son story BIG FISH.
Set in the unmistakable stylings of idealic living from the mind of Tim Burton, BIG FISH tells the tale of a father by the name of Ed Bloom (the great Albert Finney) who's son, Will Bloom (Billy Crudup - fresh off of ALMOST FAMOUS) has separated himself from his father for he is sick of the "tall tales" that his father tells about his life. Most of the movie is the reconciliation of father and son set against the backdrop of these fantastical stories (the younger Ed Bloom is played with whimsical wonder by Ewan McGregor).
And...it is the telling of these stories where Director Tim Burton really shines. It is a perfect match of Director, tone and style to tell the story. He uses a primary color palate (much the same way he used it in Edward Scissorhands) punctuated by "steam punk blacks and grays" that creates a world that is a wonder to look at and is instantly recognizable not only by what is familiar but also by how it is UN-familiar. If overused, this type of stylings could be a detriment to the storytelling, but in BIG FISH, Burton paints the canvas perfectly.
As I stated, McGregor is whimsical as the young Ed Bloom. You can see a young man exploring and drinking in all the world has to offer. On the other side, Albert Finney shows that he has a twinkle in his eye (even though the older Ed Bloom is battling a chronic disease). He sparkles when he tells his stories. Finney's performance draws you in while McGregor's keeps you there.
As does the performances of such terrific actors like Steve Buscemi, Helena Bonham Carter and Danny DeVito (as individuals that Ed meets along the way). They "get" what Burton is going for and embrace the charm and whimsy of it all. "Back in the real world" - a (then) unknown Marion Cotillard is engaging as Will Bloom's pregnant wife and Jessica Lange shines as Ed's wife who has "heard it all" and is still charmed by it all after all these years. There is a scene later in the film between Finney and Lange (and a bathtub) that shows that these 2 veteran actors can throw their fastball when asked.
I was entranced by the tall tales told in this film and I think you will be to.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in the unmistakable stylings of idealic living from the mind of Tim Burton, BIG FISH tells the tale of a father by the name of Ed Bloom (the great Albert Finney) who's son, Will Bloom (Billy Crudup - fresh off of ALMOST FAMOUS) has separated himself from his father for he is sick of the "tall tales" that his father tells about his life. Most of the movie is the reconciliation of father and son set against the backdrop of these fantastical stories (the younger Ed Bloom is played with whimsical wonder by Ewan McGregor).
And...it is the telling of these stories where Director Tim Burton really shines. It is a perfect match of Director, tone and style to tell the story. He uses a primary color palate (much the same way he used it in Edward Scissorhands) punctuated by "steam punk blacks and grays" that creates a world that is a wonder to look at and is instantly recognizable not only by what is familiar but also by how it is UN-familiar. If overused, this type of stylings could be a detriment to the storytelling, but in BIG FISH, Burton paints the canvas perfectly.
As I stated, McGregor is whimsical as the young Ed Bloom. You can see a young man exploring and drinking in all the world has to offer. On the other side, Albert Finney shows that he has a twinkle in his eye (even though the older Ed Bloom is battling a chronic disease). He sparkles when he tells his stories. Finney's performance draws you in while McGregor's keeps you there.
As does the performances of such terrific actors like Steve Buscemi, Helena Bonham Carter and Danny DeVito (as individuals that Ed meets along the way). They "get" what Burton is going for and embrace the charm and whimsy of it all. "Back in the real world" - a (then) unknown Marion Cotillard is engaging as Will Bloom's pregnant wife and Jessica Lange shines as Ed's wife who has "heard it all" and is still charmed by it all after all these years. There is a scene later in the film between Finney and Lange (and a bathtub) that shows that these 2 veteran actors can throw their fastball when asked.
I was entranced by the tall tales told in this film and I think you will be to.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Documents Pro by Olive Toast
Business and Productivity
App
Store and view your documents, transferring them easily from any Mac or PC. Full integration with...
Files Pro : Document Viewer
Productivity and Business
App
Store and view your documents, transferring them easily from any Mac or PC. Full integration with...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Gal Gadot returns as Diana Prince in “Wonder Woman 1984” which has seen its release date shift a few times due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The film has started to open overseas and will arrive in the U.S. on Christmas day with a limited debut on HBO Max as well.
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
Feb 13, 2019
A classic in every sense of the word
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine."
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Light and breezy but utterly forgettable
It’s a peculiar state of affairs, the film industry that is. While reboots, remakes, prequels and sequels seem to be garnering much disdain from the movie-going audience of late, studios still push ahead with them regardless.
I mean, look at poor Disney and the performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story if you need any indication of a tiring audience. Female-led reboots are all the rage now too with Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters being met with a dreadful run at the box office despite decent critical responses. Next up, we’ve got Ocean’s 8, a sequel no-one was really asking for but got anyway. Is it worth a watch?
Five years, eight months, 12 days and counting – that’s how long Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) has been devising the biggest heist of her life. She knows what it’s going to take – a team of the best people in the field, starting with her partner-in-crime Lou Miller (Cate Blanchett). Together, they recruit a crew of specialists, including jeweller Amita, street con Constance, suburban mom Tammy (Sarah Paulson), hacker Nine Ball (Rihanna), and fashion designer Rose (Helena Bonham Carter). Their target: a necklace that’s worth more than $150 million.
Gary Ross, director of the first Hunger Games movie, takes over from Steven Soderbergh to helm a film that is perfectly passable popcorn fodder, but sadly nothing more. But, for the sake of this review, let’s start with the positives.
The cast is by far, the biggest selling point for this film. Filled to the brim with talent like Bullock, Blanchett and Paulson, it was always going to be a win-win situation pulling an ensemble like this together. Bullock is absolutely fabulous from the minute the film begins and Anne Hathaway is clearly having a ball playing an over-the-top version of herself. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly good as a failing Irish fashion designer and it’s always a joy seeing Sarah Paulson’s understated performances grace the big screen.
What’s not so good is the way the film treats its stars from different ethnicities however. Rihanna, Mindy Kaling (Amita) and Awkwafina (Constance) are sorely underused throughout. In fact, outside of Paulson, Awkwafina and Kaling provide the film with its most intriguing characters – but we learn very little about them apart from a few scenes studying their personal/professional lives.
It’s also best not to talk about James Corden and his hideously over-acted performance as fraud investigator John. Filled with cringeworthy dialogue, it’s a miracle his part is relatively short. Like a bad smell however, he lingers for much too long.
The biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility
Then there’s the plot, or rather the script. In making these women the absolute best-of-the-best, there are no high stakes, no tension to be had or anything remotely resembling a narrow-escape.
There’s the obligatory ‘oh no’ moment as something looks like it’s going to go wrong, but it’s rectified so suddenly that any joy in watching the heist unfold is completely lost. Where the previous Ocean’s movies were riddled with tension, Ocean’s 8 is devoid of it.
Thankfully, the plan is fun if a little uninspiring to behold, filled with bland cinematography very similar to what was seen in the first Hunger Games film way back in 2012. It’s all just very staid, like the studio was simply ticking boxes on a checklist to make sure they got a film that would make them money, but was lacking anything in the way of originality.
But perhaps the biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility. Article upon article has already been created in which writers dissect the film’s heist plan and come up with the same conclusion: it can’t be done. You don’t need those articles though, because the plot holes are big enough for anyone to see and that’s a real shame. This becomes increasingly evident in the film’s final 10 minutes which makes a mockery of everything that came before.
Overall, Ocean’s 8 is your typical summer blockbuster. It’s light, breezy and like a big tub of cottage cheese, devoid of any personality whatsoever. It’s saving grace is the cast. Managing to pull together an ensemble this good takes a lot of effort, and for that, it deserves some praise – faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/21/oceans-8-review-light-and-breezy-but-utterly-forgettable/
I mean, look at poor Disney and the performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story if you need any indication of a tiring audience. Female-led reboots are all the rage now too with Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters being met with a dreadful run at the box office despite decent critical responses. Next up, we’ve got Ocean’s 8, a sequel no-one was really asking for but got anyway. Is it worth a watch?
Five years, eight months, 12 days and counting – that’s how long Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) has been devising the biggest heist of her life. She knows what it’s going to take – a team of the best people in the field, starting with her partner-in-crime Lou Miller (Cate Blanchett). Together, they recruit a crew of specialists, including jeweller Amita, street con Constance, suburban mom Tammy (Sarah Paulson), hacker Nine Ball (Rihanna), and fashion designer Rose (Helena Bonham Carter). Their target: a necklace that’s worth more than $150 million.
Gary Ross, director of the first Hunger Games movie, takes over from Steven Soderbergh to helm a film that is perfectly passable popcorn fodder, but sadly nothing more. But, for the sake of this review, let’s start with the positives.
The cast is by far, the biggest selling point for this film. Filled to the brim with talent like Bullock, Blanchett and Paulson, it was always going to be a win-win situation pulling an ensemble like this together. Bullock is absolutely fabulous from the minute the film begins and Anne Hathaway is clearly having a ball playing an over-the-top version of herself. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly good as a failing Irish fashion designer and it’s always a joy seeing Sarah Paulson’s understated performances grace the big screen.
What’s not so good is the way the film treats its stars from different ethnicities however. Rihanna, Mindy Kaling (Amita) and Awkwafina (Constance) are sorely underused throughout. In fact, outside of Paulson, Awkwafina and Kaling provide the film with its most intriguing characters – but we learn very little about them apart from a few scenes studying their personal/professional lives.
It’s also best not to talk about James Corden and his hideously over-acted performance as fraud investigator John. Filled with cringeworthy dialogue, it’s a miracle his part is relatively short. Like a bad smell however, he lingers for much too long.
The biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility
Then there’s the plot, or rather the script. In making these women the absolute best-of-the-best, there are no high stakes, no tension to be had or anything remotely resembling a narrow-escape.
There’s the obligatory ‘oh no’ moment as something looks like it’s going to go wrong, but it’s rectified so suddenly that any joy in watching the heist unfold is completely lost. Where the previous Ocean’s movies were riddled with tension, Ocean’s 8 is devoid of it.
Thankfully, the plan is fun if a little uninspiring to behold, filled with bland cinematography very similar to what was seen in the first Hunger Games film way back in 2012. It’s all just very staid, like the studio was simply ticking boxes on a checklist to make sure they got a film that would make them money, but was lacking anything in the way of originality.
But perhaps the biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility. Article upon article has already been created in which writers dissect the film’s heist plan and come up with the same conclusion: it can’t be done. You don’t need those articles though, because the plot holes are big enough for anyone to see and that’s a real shame. This becomes increasingly evident in the film’s final 10 minutes which makes a mockery of everything that came before.
Overall, Ocean’s 8 is your typical summer blockbuster. It’s light, breezy and like a big tub of cottage cheese, devoid of any personality whatsoever. It’s saving grace is the cast. Managing to pull together an ensemble this good takes a lot of effort, and for that, it deserves some praise – faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/21/oceans-8-review-light-and-breezy-but-utterly-forgettable/