Search
Search results
The Unofficial Minifigure Catalog for LEGO
Catalogs and Entertainment
App
NOTE: LEGO® is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 12, 2022
It is hard to believe it has been 25 years since “Scream” premiered and in doing so; brought new life into the slasher genre which had become stale due to an abundance of direct to DVD and cable releases combined with many uninspired and stale theatrical releases.
The movie was a massive success and launched a very successful trilogy and made the Ghostface killer and many moments from the series Pop Culture mainstays.
After a hiatus; “Scream 4” arrived and continued the series and in 2022; “Scream” has arrived which continues the story to the eager anticipation of fans.
When a young girl named Tara (Jenna Ortega); is brutally attacked in a fashion very similar to the Ghostface Killer; her sister Sam (Melissa Barrera); returns to Woodsboro to be by her side while Tara recuperates.
Sam is joined by her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid), who has no idea about the history of Woodsboro nor the popular “Stab” film series that is based on the events of the murders that have plagued the town.
Sam’s past troubles makes her return difficult and when Ghostface strikes again; she and Richie seek the help of Dewey (David Arquette); who has fallen on hard times and has split from Gayle (Courtney Cox). Despite his reluctance; Dewey gets involved and tells Sam the “rules” which would indicate the killer might be someone she knows and soon everyone in her and Tara’s circle becomes suspect even as the deaths start to increase.
This allows for some of the best moments of the film as the characters make references to several other modern and past horror franchises and discuss things from online Trolls, rabid fans, and other Pop Culture references which provides some tongue in cheek humor about the series and also establishes the world of “Scream” as one where people are well-versed in horror films old and new and have modified the rules based on sequel, prequel, and “Requel” rules for films.
As tensions and body count mounts; Gayle, Dewey, and Sidney (Neve Campbell) must face their fears to stop Ghostface before it is too late.
While the final act of the film is very over the top and at times absurd; it does provide plenty of the elements that fans have come to expect from the series. I was able to accurately see and predict almost all of the twists very early in the film and did not have many surprises as the film unfolded; I think many will still find enough enjoyment watching the tale unfold as after four films I have a pretty good idea of the formula for the series and also have many years of this as I saw the twists in “The Sixth Sense” and “The Village” very early in the films so I just seem to have a knack for this sort of thing.
While it does not break much in the way of new ground; the film does deliver what fans have come to expect and I did find in more enjoyable than “Scream 3” and there was more than enough to keep me entertained. There have been rumors that a sixth film has already been planned and if so: I will be more than ready for more.
3.5 out of 5
The movie was a massive success and launched a very successful trilogy and made the Ghostface killer and many moments from the series Pop Culture mainstays.
After a hiatus; “Scream 4” arrived and continued the series and in 2022; “Scream” has arrived which continues the story to the eager anticipation of fans.
When a young girl named Tara (Jenna Ortega); is brutally attacked in a fashion very similar to the Ghostface Killer; her sister Sam (Melissa Barrera); returns to Woodsboro to be by her side while Tara recuperates.
Sam is joined by her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid), who has no idea about the history of Woodsboro nor the popular “Stab” film series that is based on the events of the murders that have plagued the town.
Sam’s past troubles makes her return difficult and when Ghostface strikes again; she and Richie seek the help of Dewey (David Arquette); who has fallen on hard times and has split from Gayle (Courtney Cox). Despite his reluctance; Dewey gets involved and tells Sam the “rules” which would indicate the killer might be someone she knows and soon everyone in her and Tara’s circle becomes suspect even as the deaths start to increase.
This allows for some of the best moments of the film as the characters make references to several other modern and past horror franchises and discuss things from online Trolls, rabid fans, and other Pop Culture references which provides some tongue in cheek humor about the series and also establishes the world of “Scream” as one where people are well-versed in horror films old and new and have modified the rules based on sequel, prequel, and “Requel” rules for films.
As tensions and body count mounts; Gayle, Dewey, and Sidney (Neve Campbell) must face their fears to stop Ghostface before it is too late.
While the final act of the film is very over the top and at times absurd; it does provide plenty of the elements that fans have come to expect from the series. I was able to accurately see and predict almost all of the twists very early in the film and did not have many surprises as the film unfolded; I think many will still find enough enjoyment watching the tale unfold as after four films I have a pretty good idea of the formula for the series and also have many years of this as I saw the twists in “The Sixth Sense” and “The Village” very early in the films so I just seem to have a knack for this sort of thing.
While it does not break much in the way of new ground; the film does deliver what fans have come to expect and I did find in more enjoyable than “Scream 3” and there was more than enough to keep me entertained. There have been rumors that a sixth film has already been planned and if so: I will be more than ready for more.
3.5 out of 5
Fred (860 KP) rated The Producers (2005) in Movies
May 27, 2019
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The One (2001) in Movies
Apr 7, 2018
Just Bad
What if the universe was not just one universe but a multitude of parallel universes? In each universe, you exist living a different life in the universe next door. Oh, and everytime one of you dies the other yous get stronger in every way, shape, and form. What if someone with no relation to astronomy or science figured out this secret and decided to travel to every single parallel universe killing his other replicas until he basically became a god? I'm kind of getting mad just typing it out, actually. But yeah, that's The One alright. Hot mess doesn't even begin to describe it.
Acting: 1
There were honestly times where I didn't know if I was watching an action film or an afterschool special. The lowest score I've ever given Acting before this was an 8 if that gives you any indication on my thoughts of the performances, or lack thereof, that came from The One. The lines were so badly telegraphed you could see them coming from a mile away. Overreactions in abundance. It was painful to watch so I know it had to be painful to film. Actors/actresses, you have one job...Terrible film or not, at least make me believe you.
Beginning: 6
From an action standpoint, not the worst start I've seen. However, I couldn't shake the fact that there was going to be a need for a lot of explaining in the future. I also couldn't shake the fact that that explanation was probably going to be extremely disappointing. While I enjoyed the fact that it came out of the gates swinging, there was a cohesiveness that was missing. Sadly, that carried through for the rest of the film.
Characters: 5
Both the acting and the scripted characters were wildly inconsistent. I was never really intrigued by any of the characters nor carried any desire to want to know anything more about them. Watching the characters move aimlessly through the story was like watching cardboard hold up a wall. Where did the 5 come from? That's simple: Jet Li is a badass. Give me multiple Jet Li's with superhuman abilities and you definitely have my attention.
At one point in the film, Jet Li faces the other Jet Li and goes, "After this, there will only be one." Who the hell wrote that in? Are you kidding me? We know there will only be one, that's the entire point of the movie. Killing me...
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 6
Decent action sequences here. Big "HOWEVER" coming up...wait for it....However, the main problem I couldn't shake was the same problem I had with the film Lucy: If you have god-like abilities, it's never really a fair fight. If it's never really a fair fight, things get boring really fast.
I felt like the girl whose boyfriend bit off more than he could chew in a fight and is now getting manhandled while she's screaming, "Stop hitting him!" It just gets old after awhile. Imagine if Superman's greatest opponent in a film was the National Guard? Definitely skipping that film.
Genre: 6
Not the best martial arts action film I've seen. Also not the worst, far from it in fact. Credit is deserved for at least trying to do something different. The execution may have fallen short, but there are still a handful of moments that I can say I enjoyed.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 10
Plot: 4
If it doesn't look good on paper, it's definitely not going to translate well to the big screen. Not remotely believable. So many holes I don't even know where to start. Again, how does this one man learn that there are other "hims" out there he can kill and get stronger? Not buying it. I'm giving it a 4 because the foundation was there. The follow-through, unfortunately, was not.
Even if the story had been fine, it would have been done in with the endless corny moments that appear out of nowhere. There's this one gas station scene...you know what, not even going to get into it. Let's just say it's bad. Real bad.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 50
Yikes. You know what's really sad? This film actually has flashes of brilliance. I can see the areas where it could have been tweaked to create a solid film. Sadly, that will never happen. Steer clear of this grenade.
Acting: 1
There were honestly times where I didn't know if I was watching an action film or an afterschool special. The lowest score I've ever given Acting before this was an 8 if that gives you any indication on my thoughts of the performances, or lack thereof, that came from The One. The lines were so badly telegraphed you could see them coming from a mile away. Overreactions in abundance. It was painful to watch so I know it had to be painful to film. Actors/actresses, you have one job...Terrible film or not, at least make me believe you.
Beginning: 6
From an action standpoint, not the worst start I've seen. However, I couldn't shake the fact that there was going to be a need for a lot of explaining in the future. I also couldn't shake the fact that that explanation was probably going to be extremely disappointing. While I enjoyed the fact that it came out of the gates swinging, there was a cohesiveness that was missing. Sadly, that carried through for the rest of the film.
Characters: 5
Both the acting and the scripted characters were wildly inconsistent. I was never really intrigued by any of the characters nor carried any desire to want to know anything more about them. Watching the characters move aimlessly through the story was like watching cardboard hold up a wall. Where did the 5 come from? That's simple: Jet Li is a badass. Give me multiple Jet Li's with superhuman abilities and you definitely have my attention.
At one point in the film, Jet Li faces the other Jet Li and goes, "After this, there will only be one." Who the hell wrote that in? Are you kidding me? We know there will only be one, that's the entire point of the movie. Killing me...
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 6
Decent action sequences here. Big "HOWEVER" coming up...wait for it....However, the main problem I couldn't shake was the same problem I had with the film Lucy: If you have god-like abilities, it's never really a fair fight. If it's never really a fair fight, things get boring really fast.
I felt like the girl whose boyfriend bit off more than he could chew in a fight and is now getting manhandled while she's screaming, "Stop hitting him!" It just gets old after awhile. Imagine if Superman's greatest opponent in a film was the National Guard? Definitely skipping that film.
Genre: 6
Not the best martial arts action film I've seen. Also not the worst, far from it in fact. Credit is deserved for at least trying to do something different. The execution may have fallen short, but there are still a handful of moments that I can say I enjoyed.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 10
Plot: 4
If it doesn't look good on paper, it's definitely not going to translate well to the big screen. Not remotely believable. So many holes I don't even know where to start. Again, how does this one man learn that there are other "hims" out there he can kill and get stronger? Not buying it. I'm giving it a 4 because the foundation was there. The follow-through, unfortunately, was not.
Even if the story had been fine, it would have been done in with the endless corny moments that appear out of nowhere. There's this one gas station scene...you know what, not even going to get into it. Let's just say it's bad. Real bad.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 50
Yikes. You know what's really sad? This film actually has flashes of brilliance. I can see the areas where it could have been tweaked to create a solid film. Sadly, that will never happen. Steer clear of this grenade.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2019
A return to Room 237
***MINOR SPOILERS ONLY***
After the events which ruined his childhood at the Overlook Hotel, Dan Torrance has not had a profound life. He does drugs and has become addicted to alcohol. He decides to move to a small town where he tries to get his act together. He is still haunted by those events so long ago even seeing the ghost of long deceased Overlook cook Dick Hallorann who also possessed the ability to "shine". Dan always knew or assumed other in the world had the ability as well; however, had tried to lead a normal existence.
Meanwhile, a cult of soul swallowing degenerates emerges and preys on those who have the ability. Some not knowing their minor gifts are easy prey, but those who have remarkable abilities present more of a challenge. One of these such wunderkinds is 13 year old Abra Stone. Like Danny, she has had abilities all her life, her parents chose to ignore them, but now events are intensifying so profound she cannot ignore them. The cult leader, Rose The Hat, seeks out more victims for her flock to feed upon having an eventual confrontation with Abra.
***I don't want to say more so I don't ruin for anyone.***
I have decided when writing a review of a sequel of any kind, I will never refer to it as "unnecessary". I have read many recent critiques of movies like Zombieland: Double Tap or Maleficent: Mistress of Evil when this word is used and I don't agree with that as a criticism. People are only using that word if the sequel is a disappointment. Someone would never say The Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight were unnecessary because they were great films. Even mediocre sequels will get tagged with unnecessary and I guess I feel you should rate the film which was made on its own merits and not try to decide if it was worth making or not.
Much like the way 2010 tried to explain the monolith and the mystery from Kubrick's masterpiece and my favorite film of all time 2001: A Space Odyssey, Doctor Sleep explores and expands the "shining" universe and gives audiences another look into that world. I was reminded when watching for some reason the sequence in Ready Player One where the characters go back to the Overlook and interact with the unique setting and art direction the film possessed. The homages and settings in Doctor Sleep feel both modernized and a fond look back of what everyone loved from The Shining. I could tell writer/director Mike Flanagan loved this universe so intensely, he decided to adapt the Stephen King sequel novel and it is well done.
Most main characters from the original Shining film make an appearance here as well, most with smaller cameo type roles which I don't want to spoil here. The new characters of both Abra Stone and Rose The Hat are great additions and acting by Rebecca Ferguson (who is quickly becoming one of my faves) and young Kyliegh Curran really bring them to life. Other than the obvious Trainspotting, Ewan McGregor usually plays such happy and likable characters that it was interesting to see him in a darker light, especially at the beginning of the film.
The musical score felt much like The Shining at times (the best parts), but also foraged new ground and was truly haunting and beautiful throughout. The cinematography and art direction were beautiful when showing the dark forest and suburban landscapes as well as the recreation of some of the more familiar elements.
Doctor Sleep is the ceiling threshold of how good a sequel to a Kubrick classic iconic perfection piece of movie artwork onscreen. The feeling and fun of seeing new interpretations of classic characters was fine with me as the screenplay does them justice. Comparing it to The Shining is moot since Kubrick was the master and his films should be studied indefinitely by film students worldwide and Doctor Sleep is an admirable compliment to that.
I tried to find an instance where Kubrick made comment about the film 2010, but I could not other than he said he wished the director well with it. I would imagine he would have the same reaction here. I think he would feel his work stands on its own without need for further explanation or additional narrative, but that is not a criticism, just an observation.
After the events which ruined his childhood at the Overlook Hotel, Dan Torrance has not had a profound life. He does drugs and has become addicted to alcohol. He decides to move to a small town where he tries to get his act together. He is still haunted by those events so long ago even seeing the ghost of long deceased Overlook cook Dick Hallorann who also possessed the ability to "shine". Dan always knew or assumed other in the world had the ability as well; however, had tried to lead a normal existence.
Meanwhile, a cult of soul swallowing degenerates emerges and preys on those who have the ability. Some not knowing their minor gifts are easy prey, but those who have remarkable abilities present more of a challenge. One of these such wunderkinds is 13 year old Abra Stone. Like Danny, she has had abilities all her life, her parents chose to ignore them, but now events are intensifying so profound she cannot ignore them. The cult leader, Rose The Hat, seeks out more victims for her flock to feed upon having an eventual confrontation with Abra.
***I don't want to say more so I don't ruin for anyone.***
I have decided when writing a review of a sequel of any kind, I will never refer to it as "unnecessary". I have read many recent critiques of movies like Zombieland: Double Tap or Maleficent: Mistress of Evil when this word is used and I don't agree with that as a criticism. People are only using that word if the sequel is a disappointment. Someone would never say The Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight were unnecessary because they were great films. Even mediocre sequels will get tagged with unnecessary and I guess I feel you should rate the film which was made on its own merits and not try to decide if it was worth making or not.
Much like the way 2010 tried to explain the monolith and the mystery from Kubrick's masterpiece and my favorite film of all time 2001: A Space Odyssey, Doctor Sleep explores and expands the "shining" universe and gives audiences another look into that world. I was reminded when watching for some reason the sequence in Ready Player One where the characters go back to the Overlook and interact with the unique setting and art direction the film possessed. The homages and settings in Doctor Sleep feel both modernized and a fond look back of what everyone loved from The Shining. I could tell writer/director Mike Flanagan loved this universe so intensely, he decided to adapt the Stephen King sequel novel and it is well done.
Most main characters from the original Shining film make an appearance here as well, most with smaller cameo type roles which I don't want to spoil here. The new characters of both Abra Stone and Rose The Hat are great additions and acting by Rebecca Ferguson (who is quickly becoming one of my faves) and young Kyliegh Curran really bring them to life. Other than the obvious Trainspotting, Ewan McGregor usually plays such happy and likable characters that it was interesting to see him in a darker light, especially at the beginning of the film.
The musical score felt much like The Shining at times (the best parts), but also foraged new ground and was truly haunting and beautiful throughout. The cinematography and art direction were beautiful when showing the dark forest and suburban landscapes as well as the recreation of some of the more familiar elements.
Doctor Sleep is the ceiling threshold of how good a sequel to a Kubrick classic iconic perfection piece of movie artwork onscreen. The feeling and fun of seeing new interpretations of classic characters was fine with me as the screenplay does them justice. Comparing it to The Shining is moot since Kubrick was the master and his films should be studied indefinitely by film students worldwide and Doctor Sleep is an admirable compliment to that.
I tried to find an instance where Kubrick made comment about the film 2010, but I could not other than he said he wished the director well with it. I would imagine he would have the same reaction here. I think he would feel his work stands on its own without need for further explanation or additional narrative, but that is not a criticism, just an observation.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Inspired by the book of the same name, “World War Z” starring Brad Pitt has made it to theaters after several delays including seven weeks of additional shooting that was ordered by the studio after principal photography had ended. While the book covers survivor interviews in the wake of the zombie pandemic, the film covers the early days the outbreak and casts Pitt as Gerry Lane, a former U.N. troubleshooter who is left his life in the field for the ability to be a stay-at-home husband and dad to his wife and daughters. When an unexpected outbreak starts to lay waste to several cities, Gerry and his family are evacuated by his old U.N. Allies to a secure location aboard a naval flotilla and he is told that his family will remain in security providing he agrees to spearhead an investigation to determine the source of the outbreak.
With very few options Gerry leads a team to Korea in an attempt to get to the source of the outbreak and find a cure, or at the very least, a course of treatment to battle an outbreak that’s quickly is decimating the world’s population and threatening to destroy life as we know it in a very short time. The dangers are numerous and Gerry soon learns that there is a much larger puzzle to be solved which sets them on a journey around the world in a race against time to save humanity. Along the way he encounters signs of the world gone mad and utter devastation from locales ranging from Jerusalem to Cardiff as it becomes obvious that the infection has spared no region of the globe. With time running out, Gerry must find a way to turn the tide and save humanity before it is too late. With his resources dwindling he embarks on a desperate mission to test a theory and save the world.
The film does have its share of tense moments however the PG-13 rating does severely limit the amount of gore and horror that can be displayed. One key scene implied that a weapon had become imbedded in an infected enemy and that Gerry was struggling to extract it in order to use it to defend himself. Due to the limitations of the rating this had to be implied rather than shown and Pitt came across as more comical than tense and desperate.
The movie also suffers from converted 3-D which does absolutely nothing to enhance the film as there were very few moments that benefited from the 3-D technique. Perhaps if the film had been shot in 3-D the quality it would’ve been better but it was clear that several of the scenes in the film were not set up nor shot with 3-D in mind.
There are some very good effects; especially the ones were hordes of infected throw themselves recklessly like swarming insects upon barricaded survivors which really helped underscore just how hopeless and desperate the situation for the survivors was. No matter how much firepower you have, a wall of infected coming at you in endless waves is eventually going to outlast your supply of ammunition.
There had been some reported tensions on the set between Pitt and Director Marc Forster, but to me the biggest red flag was the seven additional weeks of shooting that were done after principal photography had been completed. While re-shoots are not uncommon, re-shoots of this length are, especially when it led to the film being delayed from its original planned release to the summer.
In the end what you have is an uneven effort. The film has a very good concept, good cast, and potential to be a fantastic series but suffers from a real lack of scares. It’s a sanitized look at a zombie invasion that greatly undermines the subject and the source material. The studio has hopes of doing a trilogy of films and I would definitely like to see future releases in the series provided they improve upon the original, offer films that are more in keeping with the book and are more respectful to zombie genre. As it stands now, Pitt does the best he can with the material but is let down by a script that is big on clichés and offers very little in the way of scares and originality.
http://sknr.net/2013/06/21/world-war-z/
With very few options Gerry leads a team to Korea in an attempt to get to the source of the outbreak and find a cure, or at the very least, a course of treatment to battle an outbreak that’s quickly is decimating the world’s population and threatening to destroy life as we know it in a very short time. The dangers are numerous and Gerry soon learns that there is a much larger puzzle to be solved which sets them on a journey around the world in a race against time to save humanity. Along the way he encounters signs of the world gone mad and utter devastation from locales ranging from Jerusalem to Cardiff as it becomes obvious that the infection has spared no region of the globe. With time running out, Gerry must find a way to turn the tide and save humanity before it is too late. With his resources dwindling he embarks on a desperate mission to test a theory and save the world.
The film does have its share of tense moments however the PG-13 rating does severely limit the amount of gore and horror that can be displayed. One key scene implied that a weapon had become imbedded in an infected enemy and that Gerry was struggling to extract it in order to use it to defend himself. Due to the limitations of the rating this had to be implied rather than shown and Pitt came across as more comical than tense and desperate.
The movie also suffers from converted 3-D which does absolutely nothing to enhance the film as there were very few moments that benefited from the 3-D technique. Perhaps if the film had been shot in 3-D the quality it would’ve been better but it was clear that several of the scenes in the film were not set up nor shot with 3-D in mind.
There are some very good effects; especially the ones were hordes of infected throw themselves recklessly like swarming insects upon barricaded survivors which really helped underscore just how hopeless and desperate the situation for the survivors was. No matter how much firepower you have, a wall of infected coming at you in endless waves is eventually going to outlast your supply of ammunition.
There had been some reported tensions on the set between Pitt and Director Marc Forster, but to me the biggest red flag was the seven additional weeks of shooting that were done after principal photography had been completed. While re-shoots are not uncommon, re-shoots of this length are, especially when it led to the film being delayed from its original planned release to the summer.
In the end what you have is an uneven effort. The film has a very good concept, good cast, and potential to be a fantastic series but suffers from a real lack of scares. It’s a sanitized look at a zombie invasion that greatly undermines the subject and the source material. The studio has hopes of doing a trilogy of films and I would definitely like to see future releases in the series provided they improve upon the original, offer films that are more in keeping with the book and are more respectful to zombie genre. As it stands now, Pitt does the best he can with the material but is let down by a script that is big on clichés and offers very little in the way of scares and originality.
http://sknr.net/2013/06/21/world-war-z/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019
"They said the age of heroes would never come again."
As a huge fan of Zack Snyder's first two efforts inside the DCEU and Patty Jenkins wonderful Wonder Woman, my expectations for Justice League were pretty much through the roof. After the mediocre buzz that it got and all the stuff that happened behind the scenes, I was a little skeptical but still very excited, but after getting out of the theater, one word really just describes how I felt; disappointed.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Constantine (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The battle between Heaven and Hell has been chronicled numerous times on film. Ranging from the “Omen” and “Exorcist” series to the recent “Hellboy” and “End of Days”, Hollywood has never shied away from the struggle between good and evil and audiences have usually responded by attending in droves.
The latest entry into the genre is Constantine, which chronicles the exploits of supernatural detective John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), who is tasked to walk the line between good and evil to make sure that balance is maintained. John is a very troubled individual and his transactions with angels and demons have warped his views on life, humanity, and the afterlife.
Due to things in his past, John is trying to right his wrongs so he can gain a place in heaven, toward that end, the forces of Hell are trying there best to ensure that John is unable to gain redemption so they will be able to collect his soul, and repay him for all of their minions that he has vanquished over the years.
As if this was not bad enough, the rules between Heaven and Hell seem to be blurring as there is a growing demon presence on Earth which does not bode well for the future of humanity. It is learned that there is an agreement in place that there can be no direct contact, only influence to humans giving them the freedom to pick between good and evil and thus the fate of ones soul.
When a local detective named Angela (Rachael Weisz), contacts John, she is desperate to learn the truth behind her twin sister’s apparent suicide. Although skeptical at first, John soon learns that he and Angela have become players in a much larger game with the very fate of humanity dependant upon their actions.
Before long, John and Angela are facing off against legions of Hell’s minions as they attempt to save the soul of Angela’s sister and save humanity.
The film will be different things to many viewers as on one hand; some many take exception to the story and the bland tone and mannerisms of Reeves, as well as some of the films theological stances.
That being said, the film works, the action is good without being in your face as the computer generated effects enhance the film, complimenting the story and actors rather than upstaging them. The film has a murky look to it which sets the tone perfectly as this is not a happy movie filled with lovable people, instead it is a tail of people trying to do what is right and staying true to their beliefs though surrounded by temptations and numerous chances to stray.
Reeves plays Constantine as a man who is dedicated to what he does, but also shows us that he is unhappy with his life and past choices as they have forever haunted him. John is forced to do things he would rather not do as it is the only chance he has left at redemption and this has seen him deteriorate as he feels he is a tool that is being used with no end in sight.
Weisz does a good job with a very limited role as she is able to keep up with the action without falling prey to the damsel in distress mode that haunted her character in the “Mummy Films”. Singer Gavin Rossdale does a good job as the smarmy demon Balthazar who is a constant bane to John.
Despite the occasional hiccups with the plot and Reeves inability to show range or expressions, for the most part Constantine works and looks to be a good starting point for what is likely to be a franchise series for Warner Bros.
The latest entry into the genre is Constantine, which chronicles the exploits of supernatural detective John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), who is tasked to walk the line between good and evil to make sure that balance is maintained. John is a very troubled individual and his transactions with angels and demons have warped his views on life, humanity, and the afterlife.
Due to things in his past, John is trying to right his wrongs so he can gain a place in heaven, toward that end, the forces of Hell are trying there best to ensure that John is unable to gain redemption so they will be able to collect his soul, and repay him for all of their minions that he has vanquished over the years.
As if this was not bad enough, the rules between Heaven and Hell seem to be blurring as there is a growing demon presence on Earth which does not bode well for the future of humanity. It is learned that there is an agreement in place that there can be no direct contact, only influence to humans giving them the freedom to pick between good and evil and thus the fate of ones soul.
When a local detective named Angela (Rachael Weisz), contacts John, she is desperate to learn the truth behind her twin sister’s apparent suicide. Although skeptical at first, John soon learns that he and Angela have become players in a much larger game with the very fate of humanity dependant upon their actions.
Before long, John and Angela are facing off against legions of Hell’s minions as they attempt to save the soul of Angela’s sister and save humanity.
The film will be different things to many viewers as on one hand; some many take exception to the story and the bland tone and mannerisms of Reeves, as well as some of the films theological stances.
That being said, the film works, the action is good without being in your face as the computer generated effects enhance the film, complimenting the story and actors rather than upstaging them. The film has a murky look to it which sets the tone perfectly as this is not a happy movie filled with lovable people, instead it is a tail of people trying to do what is right and staying true to their beliefs though surrounded by temptations and numerous chances to stray.
Reeves plays Constantine as a man who is dedicated to what he does, but also shows us that he is unhappy with his life and past choices as they have forever haunted him. John is forced to do things he would rather not do as it is the only chance he has left at redemption and this has seen him deteriorate as he feels he is a tool that is being used with no end in sight.
Weisz does a good job with a very limited role as she is able to keep up with the action without falling prey to the damsel in distress mode that haunted her character in the “Mummy Films”. Singer Gavin Rossdale does a good job as the smarmy demon Balthazar who is a constant bane to John.
Despite the occasional hiccups with the plot and Reeves inability to show range or expressions, for the most part Constantine works and looks to be a good starting point for what is likely to be a franchise series for Warner Bros.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Jan 16, 2019
A lush and beautiful memory
Alfonso Cuaron - the magnificent Director from Mexico who directed such big Hollywood hits as HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (the best HP flick, IMHO) and GRAVITY (one of the best films of 2013, IMHO) has made a little "personal" film that was financed and released by Netflix. Netflix, in their wisdom, realized they might have an Oscar contender on it's hands, so has released ROMA in limited release to Theaters (mostly Art Houses) and...in some instances...you can catch a 70mm print of this film. Or...you can watch it on your TV via your Netflix subscription.
I would highly recommend checking this film out at your local movie theater house and, if you are lucky enough to have a theater that is showing the 70mm print, I would tell you to run...don't walk...to check this out.
For ROMA is a beautifully filmed Black and White film, in Spanish (with English subtitles) that tells a very personal story of a family in Mexico City in the early 1970's - as seen through the eyes of their house maid. This story is based (according to what I have read) on Cuaron's own childhood and he has lovingly, beautifully recreated this world and populated it with some interesting characters/experiences.
It is also languidly paced (read: slow) and - if I am honest about it - not much happens. So if you add languid pace with black and white photography with Spanish language (and English subtitles) with not much in the way of plot or action, your attention span will be stretched and, I'm afraid, if you're home, you will be tempted to be distracted by your phone, the dog, the dishes, a magazine, etc...
And that would be a shame, for I fell in love with this film, the beauty of the cinematography and the slow pace of it all and I think you will too if you give it a chance.
Cuaron, most certainly, will be nominated for an Oscar for his writing and directing of this piece - and I am sure that this film will be nominated for Best Picture (and deservedly so), but it is in two other places that I was entranced by ROMA. I have mentioned the first - the Cinematography. This film is a shoo-in for a Best Cinematography Oscar, the black and white is lush and rich throughout the film and adds to the memory-style idealized world that Cuaron has put on screen. So, the Best Cinematography Oscar should go to...Alfonso Cuaron.
The other area that I am surprised to say worked very well for me is the performances of the cast, all Mexican actors, unknown to U.S. audiences. Standing out most notably are Marina de Tavira as the matriarch of the family, Senora Sofia and, most surprisingly, Yalitza Aparicio as the focal point of this film, Cleo. Her part is mostly mute (or at least mute for me, for I don't speak Spanish) so the emotions I felt coming from her were brought forth through her facial features, looks and reactions, much more than what she says. I would be fine with either of these two getting an Oscar nomination.
Despite a slow start - and a slow pace throughout this film - and not much going on, I was entranced and enthralled by the world that Cuaron put on screen. A world that exists, mostly, in Cuaron's memory and that, now, exists for us to see in this wonderful film.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I would highly recommend checking this film out at your local movie theater house and, if you are lucky enough to have a theater that is showing the 70mm print, I would tell you to run...don't walk...to check this out.
For ROMA is a beautifully filmed Black and White film, in Spanish (with English subtitles) that tells a very personal story of a family in Mexico City in the early 1970's - as seen through the eyes of their house maid. This story is based (according to what I have read) on Cuaron's own childhood and he has lovingly, beautifully recreated this world and populated it with some interesting characters/experiences.
It is also languidly paced (read: slow) and - if I am honest about it - not much happens. So if you add languid pace with black and white photography with Spanish language (and English subtitles) with not much in the way of plot or action, your attention span will be stretched and, I'm afraid, if you're home, you will be tempted to be distracted by your phone, the dog, the dishes, a magazine, etc...
And that would be a shame, for I fell in love with this film, the beauty of the cinematography and the slow pace of it all and I think you will too if you give it a chance.
Cuaron, most certainly, will be nominated for an Oscar for his writing and directing of this piece - and I am sure that this film will be nominated for Best Picture (and deservedly so), but it is in two other places that I was entranced by ROMA. I have mentioned the first - the Cinematography. This film is a shoo-in for a Best Cinematography Oscar, the black and white is lush and rich throughout the film and adds to the memory-style idealized world that Cuaron has put on screen. So, the Best Cinematography Oscar should go to...Alfonso Cuaron.
The other area that I am surprised to say worked very well for me is the performances of the cast, all Mexican actors, unknown to U.S. audiences. Standing out most notably are Marina de Tavira as the matriarch of the family, Senora Sofia and, most surprisingly, Yalitza Aparicio as the focal point of this film, Cleo. Her part is mostly mute (or at least mute for me, for I don't speak Spanish) so the emotions I felt coming from her were brought forth through her facial features, looks and reactions, much more than what she says. I would be fine with either of these two getting an Oscar nomination.
Despite a slow start - and a slow pace throughout this film - and not much going on, I was entranced and enthralled by the world that Cuaron put on screen. A world that exists, mostly, in Cuaron's memory and that, now, exists for us to see in this wonderful film.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)