Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I saw Alita twice in two days, once in 3D and once in 2D. As far as I'm concerned it's another Valerian... where there's a lot of detail on the screen the 3D makes it unwatchable. There are also several artsy shots that have characters in the foreground and scenery to look at in the background but finding something to easily rest your eye on is challenging, your focus is drawn backwards and forwards and it became a little frustrating.
There was one major problem for me, it's quite a big problem... Alita. Firstly I really don't like the animation of her, I was hoping it was just the trailer but there wasn't really any change between that and the final version. They've tried to keep the manga characteristics, specifically her large eyes that are popular for the style, but what works for illustration and regular animation doesn't have the same effect in this "realistic" animation.
Secondly, I find her character to be chaotic? I think that's the word I'm looking for. Despite her body knowing she's a warrior it somehow doesn't remember that she's not a petulant teenager? She has also lost any common sense when it comes to boundaries and verges on being a stalker in her relationship with Hugo. He's definitely got an overly attached girlfriend problem.
I was particularly impressed with Mahershala Ali who was clearly channelling some vintage Wesley Snipes from Blade. He plays the bad guy, technically two bad guys, and his last scene of the film was quite an amusing affair... maybe that's just me thinking that though.
The action side of the film is exciting to watch, if it hadn't been then there would have been something seriously wrong. Fight scenes are occasionally interrupted by flashes of Alita's previous life, and yet that doesn't phase her at all. Maybe I'm just assuming that's the way it should be having seen it so often in other films.
Motorball is great fun to watch (although I keep wanting to call it murderball) and I'm glad that they mixed up some of the Alita manga to get this in here. It's lined up to be quite an important plot point so I'm a little nervous about how they might go forward with this if they make a second film.
Those last words are what give me reservations though, "if they make a second film". It leaves a very obvious opportunity at the end for the next instalment and they've spoken about wanting more films to happen. In my opinion it's not a film that can stand on its own, we're either going to be disappointed by no second film or have to wait years for the next one. Had it been condensed down into one film we'd have been presented with a much more satisfying production.
What you should do
It's a good bit of sci-fi action and worth seeing in 2D. I'm not sure how I feel about the 12A rating though, that's potentially something to think about if you're taking your kids to see it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'm totally here for some cybernetic enhancements, I can't quite decide which ones but I don't think I need to go full motorball.
There was one major problem for me, it's quite a big problem... Alita. Firstly I really don't like the animation of her, I was hoping it was just the trailer but there wasn't really any change between that and the final version. They've tried to keep the manga characteristics, specifically her large eyes that are popular for the style, but what works for illustration and regular animation doesn't have the same effect in this "realistic" animation.
Secondly, I find her character to be chaotic? I think that's the word I'm looking for. Despite her body knowing she's a warrior it somehow doesn't remember that she's not a petulant teenager? She has also lost any common sense when it comes to boundaries and verges on being a stalker in her relationship with Hugo. He's definitely got an overly attached girlfriend problem.
I was particularly impressed with Mahershala Ali who was clearly channelling some vintage Wesley Snipes from Blade. He plays the bad guy, technically two bad guys, and his last scene of the film was quite an amusing affair... maybe that's just me thinking that though.
The action side of the film is exciting to watch, if it hadn't been then there would have been something seriously wrong. Fight scenes are occasionally interrupted by flashes of Alita's previous life, and yet that doesn't phase her at all. Maybe I'm just assuming that's the way it should be having seen it so often in other films.
Motorball is great fun to watch (although I keep wanting to call it murderball) and I'm glad that they mixed up some of the Alita manga to get this in here. It's lined up to be quite an important plot point so I'm a little nervous about how they might go forward with this if they make a second film.
Those last words are what give me reservations though, "if they make a second film". It leaves a very obvious opportunity at the end for the next instalment and they've spoken about wanting more films to happen. In my opinion it's not a film that can stand on its own, we're either going to be disappointed by no second film or have to wait years for the next one. Had it been condensed down into one film we'd have been presented with a much more satisfying production.
What you should do
It's a good bit of sci-fi action and worth seeing in 2D. I'm not sure how I feel about the 12A rating though, that's potentially something to think about if you're taking your kids to see it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'm totally here for some cybernetic enhancements, I can't quite decide which ones but I don't think I need to go full motorball.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Pretty in Punxsutawney in Books
Jan 25, 2019
Pretty in Punxsutawney
What happens when you get stuck in time, re-living the first day in your new school?
Andie is a teenage girl, who loves movies. She is the type of person that knows exactly what to say… after it’s too late to say it. She is quirky, cutishly nerdy, and adorable in a silly way. And when she moves to Punxsutawney (I don’t think I’ll ever pronounce this town correctly), on the first day in her new school, she gets caught up in an endless loop of having to re-live those 24 hours again and again.
As in the movies, she is convinced that the curse can be broken with a true love’s kiss, she goes on a mission to get the boy. But is he the right one? And is true love what breaks the curse?
Not knowing how to end the loop, Andie tries to get first kiss with a guy she thinks is her true love, and when that doesn’t work, she suddenly tries to make the different types of people hang out together and realise that it doesn’t matter how you look like, to be a good person.
I really loved the idea of the loop in a high-school theme, and that was the main reason that I wanted to read this book really badly. I also loved that the main idea of this book was that looks don’t matter, and don’t judge a book by its cover, but I think that the author took this meaning way too far into the book, and it became too unrealistic, that it was laughable.
I enjoyed the layout of the different types of kids in the school, the jocks, the cheerleaders, the goths, the school-paper girls, the nerds. They were all described very realistically, and I enjoyed the times when we would realise that prejudice doesn’t matter. I can relate to a lot of this, because I was hanging out with both nerds and jocks in my high-school times, being a sports person and being a ‘’weirdo’’ that wants to read at the same time.
I also somehow managed to like the movie references, even though at moments, they are too overwhelming, and sometimes completely unrelated to the plot in place.
What I didn’t like, is how Andie kept changing in order to fit, how her behaviour changed, and her mindset during different days. I did not like this at all. I think that a person should always keep being themselves, no matter who they talk to. Doing the thinks she kept doing, only to be liked by one guy was miserable. Ladies – you are beautiful, no matter what you wear or how you do your hair. If that guy really likes you, he wouldn’t care about all these things and he would see within.
In retrospective, this was an enjoyable read. I am glad I read it, but somehow I think I might’ve been too old to read it now. But for you guys that are still in high-school, or love reading about high-school, this one is definitely worth your time.
Thank you to Netgalley and Blink, for providing me a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Andie is a teenage girl, who loves movies. She is the type of person that knows exactly what to say… after it’s too late to say it. She is quirky, cutishly nerdy, and adorable in a silly way. And when she moves to Punxsutawney (I don’t think I’ll ever pronounce this town correctly), on the first day in her new school, she gets caught up in an endless loop of having to re-live those 24 hours again and again.
As in the movies, she is convinced that the curse can be broken with a true love’s kiss, she goes on a mission to get the boy. But is he the right one? And is true love what breaks the curse?
Not knowing how to end the loop, Andie tries to get first kiss with a guy she thinks is her true love, and when that doesn’t work, she suddenly tries to make the different types of people hang out together and realise that it doesn’t matter how you look like, to be a good person.
I really loved the idea of the loop in a high-school theme, and that was the main reason that I wanted to read this book really badly. I also loved that the main idea of this book was that looks don’t matter, and don’t judge a book by its cover, but I think that the author took this meaning way too far into the book, and it became too unrealistic, that it was laughable.
I enjoyed the layout of the different types of kids in the school, the jocks, the cheerleaders, the goths, the school-paper girls, the nerds. They were all described very realistically, and I enjoyed the times when we would realise that prejudice doesn’t matter. I can relate to a lot of this, because I was hanging out with both nerds and jocks in my high-school times, being a sports person and being a ‘’weirdo’’ that wants to read at the same time.
I also somehow managed to like the movie references, even though at moments, they are too overwhelming, and sometimes completely unrelated to the plot in place.
What I didn’t like, is how Andie kept changing in order to fit, how her behaviour changed, and her mindset during different days. I did not like this at all. I think that a person should always keep being themselves, no matter who they talk to. Doing the thinks she kept doing, only to be liked by one guy was miserable. Ladies – you are beautiful, no matter what you wear or how you do your hair. If that guy really likes you, he wouldn’t care about all these things and he would see within.
In retrospective, this was an enjoyable read. I am glad I read it, but somehow I think I might’ve been too old to read it now. But for you guys that are still in high-school, or love reading about high-school, this one is definitely worth your time.
Thank you to Netgalley and Blink, for providing me a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Taxi Driver (1976) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Perfect blend of Director, Star and Place
Dark, dirty, rainy, dangerous, foggy, grimy, glorious - all words that would describe New York City in the late 1960's/early 1970's.
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hitman: Agent 47 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Clinical and incomprehensible
The transition from video game to movie is notoriously difficult to get right. From box-office disasters like Super Mario Bros. to the poorly received Resident Evil franchise, it appears no film is spared from either financial woe or critically panning.
Hitman has become one of the most popular game series’ ever but the 2007 film of the same name failed to kick-start the franchise’s transition to the silver screen. Now, eight years later, Rupert Friend stars as the red tie-wearing assassin in Hitman: Agent 47, but does it succeed as a reboot?
Friend stars as the titular character, an emotionless killer hell-bent on tracking down the creator of the ‘Agent Program’ from which he was created. Alongside him for the ride is Hannah Ware’s Katia Van Dees, a young fearful woman searching for a man she does not know.
The usually excellent Zachary Quinto (Star Trek) also stars as a clichéd villain in a thankless role blighted by stilted dialogue and cardboard emotions. This most certainly isn’t his finest work.
The story is incredibly simple, barely fitting into the film’s slender 96 minute running time and the clinical filming style of director Aleksander Bach really doesn’t help. Beautiful locations like Berlin and Singapore are wasted in favour of sleek office sets, populated by one-dimensional characters that we couldn’t care less about.
Nevertheless, Friend plays the emotionless Agent 47 with ease and is one of the highlights in a film lacking in any real punch – it’s all been done before, and better.
Ware is disappointingly wooden, though her veneer seems to crack towards the finale and we get to see the character she could have played. It’s a shame that for the majority of Hitman’s running time we see no real prowess in her performance.
The action sequences are slick and nicely choreographed but Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation did them only last month and in a more detailed and ultimately successful style.
However, clever gun-work is mixed nicely with the film’s 15 certificate and each barrel discharge feels much more real. It’s certainly more interesting than the two sequels to Taken and many other action thrillers that sport the 12A rating.
The climax leaves things wide open for a sequel, but the ending is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t played the games and leaves a bad taste in the mouth – probably not a great thing when trying to get audiences excited for a follow up.
Overall, Hitman: Agent 47 is much like its titular character. A slick outer shell hides not a lot underneath with a cast of wasted talent and a been-there-done-that attitude to the stunts. There’s some great sequences, but you’ll have to dig deep to find any real merit here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/30/clinical-and-incomprehensible-hitman-agent-47-review/
Hitman has become one of the most popular game series’ ever but the 2007 film of the same name failed to kick-start the franchise’s transition to the silver screen. Now, eight years later, Rupert Friend stars as the red tie-wearing assassin in Hitman: Agent 47, but does it succeed as a reboot?
Friend stars as the titular character, an emotionless killer hell-bent on tracking down the creator of the ‘Agent Program’ from which he was created. Alongside him for the ride is Hannah Ware’s Katia Van Dees, a young fearful woman searching for a man she does not know.
The usually excellent Zachary Quinto (Star Trek) also stars as a clichéd villain in a thankless role blighted by stilted dialogue and cardboard emotions. This most certainly isn’t his finest work.
The story is incredibly simple, barely fitting into the film’s slender 96 minute running time and the clinical filming style of director Aleksander Bach really doesn’t help. Beautiful locations like Berlin and Singapore are wasted in favour of sleek office sets, populated by one-dimensional characters that we couldn’t care less about.
Nevertheless, Friend plays the emotionless Agent 47 with ease and is one of the highlights in a film lacking in any real punch – it’s all been done before, and better.
Ware is disappointingly wooden, though her veneer seems to crack towards the finale and we get to see the character she could have played. It’s a shame that for the majority of Hitman’s running time we see no real prowess in her performance.
The action sequences are slick and nicely choreographed but Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation did them only last month and in a more detailed and ultimately successful style.
However, clever gun-work is mixed nicely with the film’s 15 certificate and each barrel discharge feels much more real. It’s certainly more interesting than the two sequels to Taken and many other action thrillers that sport the 12A rating.
The climax leaves things wide open for a sequel, but the ending is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t played the games and leaves a bad taste in the mouth – probably not a great thing when trying to get audiences excited for a follow up.
Overall, Hitman: Agent 47 is much like its titular character. A slick outer shell hides not a lot underneath with a cast of wasted talent and a been-there-done-that attitude to the stunts. There’s some great sequences, but you’ll have to dig deep to find any real merit here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/30/clinical-and-incomprehensible-hitman-agent-47-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Broken Hearts Gallery (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Lucy (Geraldine Viswanathan) works in a very well-known art gallery owned by the ever so extraordinary Eva Woolf (Bernadette Peters). It has been a dream of hers since she was very young to work as a curator in a gallery and she is starting as an assistant at “The Woolf”.
She has been seeing Max (Utkarsh Ambudkar), the gallery curator for a while. Helping him with information on the artists as well as the likes and dislikes of Eva. On the night of the latest show launch, Eva asks Lucy to step to the podium and introduce Max so he could open the show. In a matter of minutes, Lucy loses her job and is dumped.
Lucy, having been through a traumatic loss, mistakenly hops into a stranger’s car under the assumption that it was her uber. She then proceeds to tell the driver of her night of disaster without registering that she is in the car of a stranger that is not her uber driver. Come to find out, the driver, Nick (Dacre Montgomery) is a budding hotelier trying to build a small boutique hotel.
He drops her off at the apartment, where her roommates immediately cocoon her in a dance that they have done oh so many times.
She has known Nadine (Phillipa Soo) and Amanda (Molly Gordon) since they were in high school. This trio is the partner in crime type of best friends. The interactions between them is so well coordinated I believed that they have been the closest of friends for ages. The same goes for Nick and his best friend Marcos (Arturo Castro).
.This film is the perfect Romantic Comedy that is very well suited for this moment in time.
It is a well-deserved salve on the dearth of darkness in cinema as of late. The lines are funny, the timing of the responses, quick and clever. It is also quirky and charming as well as emotional and sweet.
Natalie Krinsky, the Writer and Director had cast the characters perfectly. The actors drew me into the film as I laughed at their escapades, vicariously experienced celebrations. This movie was a joy to watch. It was sweet, funny, clever, and heartwarming.
Viswanathan embodied Lucy. The character is of the modern twenty something woman in hipsterville. She showed that Lucy is intelligent, imperfect and at times, insecure, but she is brave and willing to forge through anything.
The soundtrack is fantastic, the songs support the scenes and it is a veritable list of the current pop artists that are played in daily rotation.
Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Halsey, Rita Ora, Ariana Grande, and Selena Gomez who is an executive producer on the film.
If this is the direction of the modern romantic comedy, I look forward to the development of this genre as it grows. I rarely want to watch most films a second time. If you like the Romcom, this is one that is thoroughly enjoyable. Well worth the time and the ticket.
She has been seeing Max (Utkarsh Ambudkar), the gallery curator for a while. Helping him with information on the artists as well as the likes and dislikes of Eva. On the night of the latest show launch, Eva asks Lucy to step to the podium and introduce Max so he could open the show. In a matter of minutes, Lucy loses her job and is dumped.
Lucy, having been through a traumatic loss, mistakenly hops into a stranger’s car under the assumption that it was her uber. She then proceeds to tell the driver of her night of disaster without registering that she is in the car of a stranger that is not her uber driver. Come to find out, the driver, Nick (Dacre Montgomery) is a budding hotelier trying to build a small boutique hotel.
He drops her off at the apartment, where her roommates immediately cocoon her in a dance that they have done oh so many times.
She has known Nadine (Phillipa Soo) and Amanda (Molly Gordon) since they were in high school. This trio is the partner in crime type of best friends. The interactions between them is so well coordinated I believed that they have been the closest of friends for ages. The same goes for Nick and his best friend Marcos (Arturo Castro).
.This film is the perfect Romantic Comedy that is very well suited for this moment in time.
It is a well-deserved salve on the dearth of darkness in cinema as of late. The lines are funny, the timing of the responses, quick and clever. It is also quirky and charming as well as emotional and sweet.
Natalie Krinsky, the Writer and Director had cast the characters perfectly. The actors drew me into the film as I laughed at their escapades, vicariously experienced celebrations. This movie was a joy to watch. It was sweet, funny, clever, and heartwarming.
Viswanathan embodied Lucy. The character is of the modern twenty something woman in hipsterville. She showed that Lucy is intelligent, imperfect and at times, insecure, but she is brave and willing to forge through anything.
The soundtrack is fantastic, the songs support the scenes and it is a veritable list of the current pop artists that are played in daily rotation.
Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Halsey, Rita Ora, Ariana Grande, and Selena Gomez who is an executive producer on the film.
If this is the direction of the modern romantic comedy, I look forward to the development of this genre as it grows. I rarely want to watch most films a second time. If you like the Romcom, this is one that is thoroughly enjoyable. Well worth the time and the ticket.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated House of Frankenstein (1944) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020 (Updated Jun 18, 2020)
Get The Gang All Together: The Crossover
House of Frankenstein- is the ultimate monster crossover. It has Frankenstein, Dracula played by John Carradine, the Hunchback and the Wolf-Man played by Lon Chaney Jr. and a mad scientist played by Boris Karloff.
This "monster rally" approach would continue in the following film, House of Dracula, as well as the 1948 comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.
The plot: After escaping from prison, the evil Dr. Niemann (Boris Karloff) and his hunchbacked assistant, Daniel (J. Carrol Naish), plot their revenge against those who imprisoned them. For this, they recruit the powerful Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) and even Dracula himself (John Carradine). Niemann pursues those who wrong him, sending each monster out to do his dirty work. But his control on the monsters is weak at best and may prove to be his downfall.
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) had been the first on-screen pairing of two Universal Studios monsters, but The House of Frankenstein was the first multi-monster movie. Early drafts of the story reportedly involved more characters from the Universal stable, including the Mummy, the Ape Woman, the Mad Ghoul, and possibly the Invisible Man. Working titles—which included Chamber of Horrors (a reference to Lampini's travelling horror show) and The Devil's Brood—emphasized the multi-monster nature of the story.
The multi-monster approach, which emphasized box office appeal over continuity, was used in House of Dracula the following year and later in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. The House of Frankenstein marked Glenn Strange's debut as the monster. Strange, a former cowboy, had been a minor supporting player in dozens of low-budget Westerns over the preceding 15 years. He reprised the role in House of Dracula and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, and cemented the popular image of the monster as shambling, clumsy, and inarticulate. Boris Karloff, who had moved on from playing the monster to playing the mad scientist, reportedly coached Strange on how to play the role.
Some continuity errors are evident in the finished film. After Dracula is thrown from the carriage, he looks over to where his coffin has landed; in a close-up, part of his mustache is gone. Also, when Talbot transforms into the Wolf Man for the final time, his hands lack fur.
Karloff's performance in this film is his last in Universal's classic horror cycle.
Its a fun entertaining movie starring the uninversal monsters.
This "monster rally" approach would continue in the following film, House of Dracula, as well as the 1948 comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.
The plot: After escaping from prison, the evil Dr. Niemann (Boris Karloff) and his hunchbacked assistant, Daniel (J. Carrol Naish), plot their revenge against those who imprisoned them. For this, they recruit the powerful Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) and even Dracula himself (John Carradine). Niemann pursues those who wrong him, sending each monster out to do his dirty work. But his control on the monsters is weak at best and may prove to be his downfall.
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) had been the first on-screen pairing of two Universal Studios monsters, but The House of Frankenstein was the first multi-monster movie. Early drafts of the story reportedly involved more characters from the Universal stable, including the Mummy, the Ape Woman, the Mad Ghoul, and possibly the Invisible Man. Working titles—which included Chamber of Horrors (a reference to Lampini's travelling horror show) and The Devil's Brood—emphasized the multi-monster nature of the story.
The multi-monster approach, which emphasized box office appeal over continuity, was used in House of Dracula the following year and later in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. The House of Frankenstein marked Glenn Strange's debut as the monster. Strange, a former cowboy, had been a minor supporting player in dozens of low-budget Westerns over the preceding 15 years. He reprised the role in House of Dracula and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, and cemented the popular image of the monster as shambling, clumsy, and inarticulate. Boris Karloff, who had moved on from playing the monster to playing the mad scientist, reportedly coached Strange on how to play the role.
Some continuity errors are evident in the finished film. After Dracula is thrown from the carriage, he looks over to where his coffin has landed; in a close-up, part of his mustache is gone. Also, when Talbot transforms into the Wolf Man for the final time, his hands lack fur.
Karloff's performance in this film is his last in Universal's classic horror cycle.
Its a fun entertaining movie starring the uninversal monsters.
Writing (3 more)
Characters
Inconsistencies
Not a horror book, as marketed
What if a powerful virus was released in the air? What if you had to be tested for it every time you tried to walk into a building? Does this sound a little familiar? What if I told you this scenario was written about back in 2010?
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The long journey to bring “The Meg” to the big screen is finally over as Author Steve Alten’s classic book series has arrived.
The film stars Jason Statham as Jonas Taylor, an expert in underwater rescues who has to makes a very difficult choice when a rescue goes bad after suffering a very unexpected encounter mid-rescue.
Five years later Jonas is out of the rescue game as he has been labeled as unreliable and prone to PTSD so he drinks his time away in Thailand working on local boats.
200 miles off the coasts of China is an advanced research lab which is the pet project of a Billionaire named Morris (Rainn Wilson), who arrives in time to witness an attempt by the crew to go deeper than ever thought possible by going through a layer that was previously believed to be the ocean floor. The experiment works and the crew is amazed by their new discoveries until something violently attacks their ship leaving them stranded on the bottom of the ocean.
With a limited amount of air and time ticking away, Jonas is recruited despite his numerous refusals as not only is one of the stranded people his ex; but the last transmission sent by the sub mentions how Jonas had been right all along when he had years early claimed they were not alone during the rescue attempt gone bad.
Jonas is teamed with a spirited member of the team named Suyin (Bingbing Li), who has taken a sub down ahead of Jonas as she was not willing to wait for outside help to arrive. She locates her comrades and is attacked by a massive shark long thought extinct.
The harrowing rescue goes off but again Jonas is faced with a no-win situation and is blamed by a former colleague for the issues.
While Morris is eager to exploit the new find for the huge financial opportunity it presents, their plans change when the creature emerges from its contained area and threatens a level of carnage on the seas the likes of which society and the ecosystem are very unprepared for.
What follows is a frantic and often intense series of engagements as Jonas and the crew must battle the massive and deadly creature and find a way to survive.
The film has some very solid effects and the intensity at times had people in the press screening partially covering their eyes during some of the more harrowing moments.
The cast is solid and work well with one another as the film does what it can to keep some of the characters from being little more than generic victims for the Meg.
The movie does differ from the book in terms of being set off China versus California but this was largely due to the joint-production with Chinese owned Gravity Pictures. The film is also much less gory than the book as Director Jon Turteltaub was mandated to deliver a PG-13 film by the studio to improve the odds of returning on the $150.00 million invested in the film.
The dialogue is also a bit stilted and formulaic in parts but action films are not known for their complex plots or advanced dialogue and I attributed this largely to the challenges of a blended cast; many of whom do not speak English as their primary language.
Despite a delay from its planned 2017 release date, “The Meg” is a solid and fun action-thriller that gives audiences one of the best excuses not to go swimming since “Jaws”. While there have been numerous Shark films over the years, “The Meg” deftly weaves good sets and production values with a top-notch cast and lavish visuals to bring the film to life.
With several other books in the series already available, I hope we see the next film surface in a few years as I cannot wait to see what comes next.
http://sknr.net/2018/08/08/the-meg/
The film stars Jason Statham as Jonas Taylor, an expert in underwater rescues who has to makes a very difficult choice when a rescue goes bad after suffering a very unexpected encounter mid-rescue.
Five years later Jonas is out of the rescue game as he has been labeled as unreliable and prone to PTSD so he drinks his time away in Thailand working on local boats.
200 miles off the coasts of China is an advanced research lab which is the pet project of a Billionaire named Morris (Rainn Wilson), who arrives in time to witness an attempt by the crew to go deeper than ever thought possible by going through a layer that was previously believed to be the ocean floor. The experiment works and the crew is amazed by their new discoveries until something violently attacks their ship leaving them stranded on the bottom of the ocean.
With a limited amount of air and time ticking away, Jonas is recruited despite his numerous refusals as not only is one of the stranded people his ex; but the last transmission sent by the sub mentions how Jonas had been right all along when he had years early claimed they were not alone during the rescue attempt gone bad.
Jonas is teamed with a spirited member of the team named Suyin (Bingbing Li), who has taken a sub down ahead of Jonas as she was not willing to wait for outside help to arrive. She locates her comrades and is attacked by a massive shark long thought extinct.
The harrowing rescue goes off but again Jonas is faced with a no-win situation and is blamed by a former colleague for the issues.
While Morris is eager to exploit the new find for the huge financial opportunity it presents, their plans change when the creature emerges from its contained area and threatens a level of carnage on the seas the likes of which society and the ecosystem are very unprepared for.
What follows is a frantic and often intense series of engagements as Jonas and the crew must battle the massive and deadly creature and find a way to survive.
The film has some very solid effects and the intensity at times had people in the press screening partially covering their eyes during some of the more harrowing moments.
The cast is solid and work well with one another as the film does what it can to keep some of the characters from being little more than generic victims for the Meg.
The movie does differ from the book in terms of being set off China versus California but this was largely due to the joint-production with Chinese owned Gravity Pictures. The film is also much less gory than the book as Director Jon Turteltaub was mandated to deliver a PG-13 film by the studio to improve the odds of returning on the $150.00 million invested in the film.
The dialogue is also a bit stilted and formulaic in parts but action films are not known for their complex plots or advanced dialogue and I attributed this largely to the challenges of a blended cast; many of whom do not speak English as their primary language.
Despite a delay from its planned 2017 release date, “The Meg” is a solid and fun action-thriller that gives audiences one of the best excuses not to go swimming since “Jaws”. While there have been numerous Shark films over the years, “The Meg” deftly weaves good sets and production values with a top-notch cast and lavish visuals to bring the film to life.
With several other books in the series already available, I hope we see the next film surface in a few years as I cannot wait to see what comes next.
http://sknr.net/2018/08/08/the-meg/
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Wow!
Contains spoilers, click to show
First of all I will not be referring to this film by the crap UK name of Avengers Assembled. The film is The Avengers and that all it needs to be called.
This is biggest and most anticipated film from the last few years. It is a sequel to the Marvel films Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America (2011) and The Incredible Hulk (2008). But is it possible to make one film starring them all? Would it work with all of them in lead roles? The film brings together Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans) & The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) along with S.H.I.E.L.D. agents Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). They join forces against Thor's Brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) who has unleashed an alien race upon the Earth so he can conquer it.
As many of you will know by now, I am a huge action movie and comic adaption fan, so this film exactly what I was looking for. I kept away from many reviews and possible spoilers. However I had to see the trailers. After seeing them and being blown away I got a little worried for the film. Many trailers use so much of the action and plot that they show most of the good parts of the film. I really hoped that this wouldn't happen with this one. I wanted this film to be good.
After the first 5 minutes I was worried. The film started out well but there was a really really bad camera cut/edit. For a film fan it stood out and slapped me in the face. I started to worry that it was a sign of things to come. However my fears were soon dispelled as the film sucked me in with outstanding direction, visuals and 3D effects like I have never seen before. The way the film was prepared starting out with Iron Man in 2008 and then tying in all the following films together are a big lead up to this one. A huge gamble but it really paid off. The outstanding cast work so well together. With all these larger than life characters already having their own individual stories told, all what was left was to bring them together. But first they start out against each other. Their individual egos explode as they battle each other with explosive devastation. Soon they all share a common goal and start to band together. Then the film really lets to. Up until this point it was amazing. When they finally start working together that's when an amazing movie exceeds all expectations and takes the superhero genre to a level never before seen. This is also the point then the 3D effects take on a whole new level. Prior to this they were used for depth and clarity of the film very well, but now it bring you in to the film and doesn't let go. The greatest effect is an alien ship appearing from over your head. It actually startled me as it appeared above my head before it was on the screen. Never before outside of a theme park has a 3D film managed this.
Fortunately it didn't just meet my expectations, it exceeded them more than I ever thought possible. I really can't find the right words to convey how good this film really is. It has moments where you laugh so hard you cry, amazingly the best of these involve The Hulk! There are moments where you find yourself holding your breath at the sheer scope of what you are seeing. The action raises the bar for the genre to maybe unattainable heights. This film is so very good.
I usually rate films on a scale of 1-10 but 10 feels inadequate for this. So for this one I am using 1-100. This film scores a 99. Only losing out on 100 due to the single bad edit at the start of the film. Joss Whedon has managed the impossible with this film and pulled of a film no one expected to be so good. For this reason and for the first time my stand out performance is the director Joss Whedon, for creating a perfect superhero movie.
You have to see this on the biggest screen you can find and in 3D
This is biggest and most anticipated film from the last few years. It is a sequel to the Marvel films Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America (2011) and The Incredible Hulk (2008). But is it possible to make one film starring them all? Would it work with all of them in lead roles? The film brings together Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans) & The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) along with S.H.I.E.L.D. agents Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). They join forces against Thor's Brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) who has unleashed an alien race upon the Earth so he can conquer it.
As many of you will know by now, I am a huge action movie and comic adaption fan, so this film exactly what I was looking for. I kept away from many reviews and possible spoilers. However I had to see the trailers. After seeing them and being blown away I got a little worried for the film. Many trailers use so much of the action and plot that they show most of the good parts of the film. I really hoped that this wouldn't happen with this one. I wanted this film to be good.
After the first 5 minutes I was worried. The film started out well but there was a really really bad camera cut/edit. For a film fan it stood out and slapped me in the face. I started to worry that it was a sign of things to come. However my fears were soon dispelled as the film sucked me in with outstanding direction, visuals and 3D effects like I have never seen before. The way the film was prepared starting out with Iron Man in 2008 and then tying in all the following films together are a big lead up to this one. A huge gamble but it really paid off. The outstanding cast work so well together. With all these larger than life characters already having their own individual stories told, all what was left was to bring them together. But first they start out against each other. Their individual egos explode as they battle each other with explosive devastation. Soon they all share a common goal and start to band together. Then the film really lets to. Up until this point it was amazing. When they finally start working together that's when an amazing movie exceeds all expectations and takes the superhero genre to a level never before seen. This is also the point then the 3D effects take on a whole new level. Prior to this they were used for depth and clarity of the film very well, but now it bring you in to the film and doesn't let go. The greatest effect is an alien ship appearing from over your head. It actually startled me as it appeared above my head before it was on the screen. Never before outside of a theme park has a 3D film managed this.
Fortunately it didn't just meet my expectations, it exceeded them more than I ever thought possible. I really can't find the right words to convey how good this film really is. It has moments where you laugh so hard you cry, amazingly the best of these involve The Hulk! There are moments where you find yourself holding your breath at the sheer scope of what you are seeing. The action raises the bar for the genre to maybe unattainable heights. This film is so very good.
I usually rate films on a scale of 1-10 but 10 feels inadequate for this. So for this one I am using 1-100. This film scores a 99. Only losing out on 100 due to the single bad edit at the start of the film. Joss Whedon has managed the impossible with this film and pulled of a film no one expected to be so good. For this reason and for the first time my stand out performance is the director Joss Whedon, for creating a perfect superhero movie.
You have to see this on the biggest screen you can find and in 3D
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
Well Acted Scenes Do Not A Good Movie Make
Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers that is highly regarded in the "Art House" community for his semi-autobiographical humanistic films. These are domestic dramas heavy on dialogue - the type of film that "A-List" Actors swarm to perform in for the acting challenges it brings. His latest, MARRIAGE STORY, is no exception as it follows the dissolution of a marriage and the struggles of the 2 main players involved. The husband and wife are written realistically (according to Baumbach) with moments of pathos and moments of repulsion thrown in at equal measure.
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)