Search
Animation: A World History: Volume I: Foundations - The Golden Age
Book
A continuation of 1994's groundbreaking Cartoons, Giannalberto Bendazzi's Animation: A World History...
Collaborative Arts-Based Research for Social Justice
Book
This book provides a thought-provoking guide to conducting collaborative arts-based research....
David Lynch
8.0
Rate It
Book
A key figure in the ongoing legacy of modern cinema, David Lynch designs environments for...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Limehouse Golem (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The community of Limehouse in Victorian London have been rocked by a series of murders. They have called the mudered the Golem, as only such a creature could have done these heinous acts.
Elizabeth Cree, the music hall star, has been arrested for the poisoning of her husband John Cree on the same night as the last Golem murder. But when evidence is found by Inspector John Kildare that links John Cree to the murders, he sets about trying to solve both cases so that he might save Elizabeth from hanging for her crime.
Their investigation leads them to an exclusive reading room at the library, and a book on the art of murder. Within its pages are hand written notes chronicling the Golem murders to date. Only four men entered the reading room when the last entry was made; Dan Leno, Karl Marx, George Gissing and John Cree. Can the inspector eliminate the other three men and prove Cree is the Golem in order to save Elizabeth?
I was looking forward to this one. Some top actors were involved, and I love a bit of Victorian era murder. The film itself was good throughout, I can't fault it for the scenery and acting.
But...
Those of you that know me, know that I don't think about films. I'm sure I keep saying this. I watch them to have some fun, to escape reality, so what's the point in picking apart something that's made as a fiction to entertain you?
Even with me suspending my brain function for the duration of the film, I paused and thought... oh, this is what's going to happen... and it did. It felt a bit cliche, like the twist had been overused in every film like this that I'd seen. I don't think it was designed that way though. There was a clear moment in the film where they want you to know what is happening, but the realisation of the ending cam much earlier than this. And it was disappointing. I was enjoying the film a lot until I realised what was coming. Talking to my movie buddy I discovered that I wasn't the only one who had this feeling. It's such a shame, but the twist felt so obvious to me that I was suddenly very disappointed.
I have taken to looking at Rotten Tomatoes after seeing a film, and this one is currently sitting at 77% with critics and 61% with the audience. I'd say that's about right. I've left the major spoiler out of here, but if you're familiar with this sort of story then I don't think you'd be hard pressed to work it out. It is an excellent film in it's genre, but it was let down, for me, by the obvious direction it went in.
Elizabeth Cree, the music hall star, has been arrested for the poisoning of her husband John Cree on the same night as the last Golem murder. But when evidence is found by Inspector John Kildare that links John Cree to the murders, he sets about trying to solve both cases so that he might save Elizabeth from hanging for her crime.
Their investigation leads them to an exclusive reading room at the library, and a book on the art of murder. Within its pages are hand written notes chronicling the Golem murders to date. Only four men entered the reading room when the last entry was made; Dan Leno, Karl Marx, George Gissing and John Cree. Can the inspector eliminate the other three men and prove Cree is the Golem in order to save Elizabeth?
I was looking forward to this one. Some top actors were involved, and I love a bit of Victorian era murder. The film itself was good throughout, I can't fault it for the scenery and acting.
But...
Those of you that know me, know that I don't think about films. I'm sure I keep saying this. I watch them to have some fun, to escape reality, so what's the point in picking apart something that's made as a fiction to entertain you?
Even with me suspending my brain function for the duration of the film, I paused and thought... oh, this is what's going to happen... and it did. It felt a bit cliche, like the twist had been overused in every film like this that I'd seen. I don't think it was designed that way though. There was a clear moment in the film where they want you to know what is happening, but the realisation of the ending cam much earlier than this. And it was disappointing. I was enjoying the film a lot until I realised what was coming. Talking to my movie buddy I discovered that I wasn't the only one who had this feeling. It's such a shame, but the twist felt so obvious to me that I was suddenly very disappointed.
I have taken to looking at Rotten Tomatoes after seeing a film, and this one is currently sitting at 77% with critics and 61% with the audience. I'd say that's about right. I've left the major spoiler out of here, but if you're familiar with this sort of story then I don't think you'd be hard pressed to work it out. It is an excellent film in it's genre, but it was let down, for me, by the obvious direction it went in.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Hereditary (2018) in Movies
May 14, 2019
Its all in the family
#Hereditary is a strange/uncomfortable visual bombardment & for a directorial debut its almost stunningly perfect too.For those of you looking for jump scares, a scary #nun or a haunted doll you may want to avoid Hereditary as this is a different kind of horror film & its all the better for it. Sitting comfortably in between #thewitch & #itcomesatnight this is a multi layered film about loss, grieving, mental heath & loneliness & how they slowly bring about the destruction of a #family. Shot flawlessly the film sinks its teeth into your nerves instantly with #beautiful slow camera pans & rotations mixed with eerie lingering shots & overlapping scene fades. It really is a work of #art visually & every location feels like a character its self. Sound design is perfect too with great use of silence to build dread/tension, a fantastic & beautifuly somber score & great use of clicking, chopping, cracking & snapping sounds that constantly keep you feeling #anxious & on edge. Acting is also flawless with #ToniCollette absolutely knocking it out of the park as Annie a character Toni plays so well you cant help but get lost in the intricacy of her personality. While containing horror elements Hereditary plays out more along the lines of a #psychological drama with a plot so multi layered, intricate & intelligent multiple viewings will be necessary to fully understand all of what its truly about & what it really has to say (that's not to say its an easy watch however, at times the film created a tension & atmosphere so unpleasant & unnerving this accompanied by some startling & #dark imagery I found myself feeling very uncomfortable at times). My only gripe stopping it being a 10 is the strange comedy surrounding some scenes which I found immersion breaking (this may be intentional but for me it didnt work). Hereditary really is something special/unique & although not for everyone its certainly destined to win an award or become a #cultclassic. With a fresh take on its subject matter & truly #disturbing imagery this is a must for film #fans. #odeon #odeonlimitless #horror #scary #gore #terror #anxiety #mentalhealthawareness #mentalhealth #filmcritic #filmbuff #filmreview
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Monster Hunter (2020) in Movies
Feb 24, 2021
Absolutely Disastrous
Monster Hunter is the 15th feature film directed by Paul WS Anderson and is based on a popular gaming franchise of the same name. This is not Anderson’s first attempt at a video game movie, as he is arguably best known for giving us the Resident Evil movie series and the 1995 version of Mortal Kombat.
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Sherlock Holmes (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) has developed a reputation for having one of the most brilliant crime solving minds of his time. Along with his partner, Dr. John Watson (Jude Law), there is rarely ever a time when a case goes unsolved or a suspect is able to get the best of the two of them. However, that very well may be the case this time around. Holmes and Watson were able to apprehend Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who is believed to be a master of black magic. Blackwood is hanged and that is thought to be the end of it until he returns from the grave. Somehow Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), an adversary of Holmes who he not only has feelings for but has gotten the best of him on more than one occasion, is wrapped up in all of this. Not to mention that the Blackwood case was supposed to be Watson's last as he settles down to get married. So Holmes takes the case to try and solve Blackwood's resurrection, figure out how Irene is involved, and convince Watson to stay on as his partner. What he doesn't count on is walking away from this case with an adversary that's just as cunning and brilliant as he is.
As a fan of the majority of Guy Ritchie's previous works (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Revolver, RocknRolla) and the incredible streak Robert Downey Jr has of impressive performances that have turned him into one of the most entertaining and profitable leading actors of today, you could say the anticipation and expectations for this film were fairly high. Other reviews for the film seemed to be mixed as a lot of them mentioned the writing for the film being lackluster and most complained that Sherlock Holmes wasn't an action star, but the film still brought in around $65 million its opening weekend. So is Ritchie's version of Sherlock Holmes worth seeing? If you're looking for one final film to make you laugh, have hard-hitting action, have a great cast, and have a fairly well-written story, then look no further than Sherlock Holmes.
The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law is the main reason to see this film. Robert Downey Jr puts in another top notch performance as Sherlock Holmes. Despite Holmes being a rather selfish individual, you can't help but find his antics entertaining. It became easier to sympathize with him as the film went on since how much Watson means to him as a friend and as his partner is revealed in the latter half of the film. As impressive as Robert Downey Jr was, Jude Law as just as entertaining. The way Holmes and Watson argue with each other and the way Watson thinks Holmes guilts him into coming along on each case is pure delight to the audience. That's partially due to the impeccable comedic timing the two have, but also due to the fact that they're both extremely talented actors at the top of their game in this film.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the way the film seemed to allow its viewers inside the mind of Sherlock Holmes at times. There's two occasions where Holmes is dissecting the moves he's about to make in a fight before he makes them as he announces each blow and the damage each blow does to his opponent. As he's narrating, the film plays in slow motion. When he's done, we jump back to the moment before he started narrating and see the entire situation play out in real time. There were other times, like the time in the restaurant when he's waiting to meet Watson's fiancé, Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), and when he's sitting in Blackwood's jail cell where it seemed like Holmes heard absolutely everything that was going on. It was as if he was aware of everything that was going on around him. Those parts of the film established just how adept Holmes really was.
The one flaw the film may have may be tucked away in the storyline somewhere. It felt convoluted at times. It may just need a repeat viewing or two to process everything rationally. So while just about everything is explained in full by Sherlock Holmes and everything is wrapped up by the time the credits roll (other than the open-ended finale that leaves it wide open for a sequel), it did seem like the writers were trying too hard or that they were reaching out too far for explanations or something.
Sherlock Holmes is Guy Ritchie's biggest box office success to date and it's safe to say that Robert Downey Jr has jumpstarted another successful and entertaining franchise. If you're familiar with Ritchie's previous works, then this film almost feels like the Sherlock Holmes character being thrown into the same world Ritchie established in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch if they took place in the late nineteenth century. The film centers on Holmes' anti-social behavior, is inspired heavily by the martial art Bartitsu mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes story from 1901 entitled The Adventure of the Empty House, and focuses on Holmes' brilliant analytical mind. Sherlock Holmes is full of high octane-fueled action, entertaining comedy, and witty dialogue.
As a fan of the majority of Guy Ritchie's previous works (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Revolver, RocknRolla) and the incredible streak Robert Downey Jr has of impressive performances that have turned him into one of the most entertaining and profitable leading actors of today, you could say the anticipation and expectations for this film were fairly high. Other reviews for the film seemed to be mixed as a lot of them mentioned the writing for the film being lackluster and most complained that Sherlock Holmes wasn't an action star, but the film still brought in around $65 million its opening weekend. So is Ritchie's version of Sherlock Holmes worth seeing? If you're looking for one final film to make you laugh, have hard-hitting action, have a great cast, and have a fairly well-written story, then look no further than Sherlock Holmes.
The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law is the main reason to see this film. Robert Downey Jr puts in another top notch performance as Sherlock Holmes. Despite Holmes being a rather selfish individual, you can't help but find his antics entertaining. It became easier to sympathize with him as the film went on since how much Watson means to him as a friend and as his partner is revealed in the latter half of the film. As impressive as Robert Downey Jr was, Jude Law as just as entertaining. The way Holmes and Watson argue with each other and the way Watson thinks Holmes guilts him into coming along on each case is pure delight to the audience. That's partially due to the impeccable comedic timing the two have, but also due to the fact that they're both extremely talented actors at the top of their game in this film.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the way the film seemed to allow its viewers inside the mind of Sherlock Holmes at times. There's two occasions where Holmes is dissecting the moves he's about to make in a fight before he makes them as he announces each blow and the damage each blow does to his opponent. As he's narrating, the film plays in slow motion. When he's done, we jump back to the moment before he started narrating and see the entire situation play out in real time. There were other times, like the time in the restaurant when he's waiting to meet Watson's fiancé, Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), and when he's sitting in Blackwood's jail cell where it seemed like Holmes heard absolutely everything that was going on. It was as if he was aware of everything that was going on around him. Those parts of the film established just how adept Holmes really was.
The one flaw the film may have may be tucked away in the storyline somewhere. It felt convoluted at times. It may just need a repeat viewing or two to process everything rationally. So while just about everything is explained in full by Sherlock Holmes and everything is wrapped up by the time the credits roll (other than the open-ended finale that leaves it wide open for a sequel), it did seem like the writers were trying too hard or that they were reaching out too far for explanations or something.
Sherlock Holmes is Guy Ritchie's biggest box office success to date and it's safe to say that Robert Downey Jr has jumpstarted another successful and entertaining franchise. If you're familiar with Ritchie's previous works, then this film almost feels like the Sherlock Holmes character being thrown into the same world Ritchie established in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch if they took place in the late nineteenth century. The film centers on Holmes' anti-social behavior, is inspired heavily by the martial art Bartitsu mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes story from 1901 entitled The Adventure of the Empty House, and focuses on Holmes' brilliant analytical mind. Sherlock Holmes is full of high octane-fueled action, entertaining comedy, and witty dialogue.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hudson Hawk (1991) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Hudson Hawk starts when Hudson (Willis) is released from prison, only to be drawn into committing one more burglary with his partner in crime Tommy Five-Tone (Aiello). The next day Hudson learns that not everything was as simple as just stealing a horse figure.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Inherit the Wind (1960) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
I found this movie incredibly interesting. Not only is it based on a true story, I think it's a film that transcends time because of its themes. All of the issues discussed in this movie are ones that we still talk about today. We see all the time arguments for more religion in schools or less, and religion itself is argued and where its place is in our lives. I think this movie does a beautiful job of pushing those boundaries and causing you to question why it is we believe what we do and why we're so set on others believing it too.
As far as the cast and the acting, I think it's phenomenal. Obviously, with powerhouses like Gene Kelly, Spencer Tracy, and Fredric March, their performances are incredible. I find the women in the film to be less believable but I think it's more the time and the way women acted in the '60s and less to do with the women themselves. The overdramatic, falling after their husband or fiancé, in one case, is just played out - but that also might just be me speaking from my own experience.
Overall, I think this movie is great. It holds up 60 years after its initial release and I'm sure it will hold up for another 60 years. I think it pushes positive conversations and forces you to think outside of your own experiences and your own life and in general, I think that's what art (in any form) should do. Would definitely recommend this film.
As far as the cast and the acting, I think it's phenomenal. Obviously, with powerhouses like Gene Kelly, Spencer Tracy, and Fredric March, their performances are incredible. I find the women in the film to be less believable but I think it's more the time and the way women acted in the '60s and less to do with the women themselves. The overdramatic, falling after their husband or fiancé, in one case, is just played out - but that also might just be me speaking from my own experience.
Overall, I think this movie is great. It holds up 60 years after its initial release and I'm sure it will hold up for another 60 years. I think it pushes positive conversations and forces you to think outside of your own experiences and your own life and in general, I think that's what art (in any form) should do. Would definitely recommend this film.