Search
John Roope (4 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Feb 12, 2019
A mixed bag of a film, both engaging and tiresome
Dan Gilroys teams up again with jake Gyllenhaal but this time with far less success than 2014's nightcrawler. Velvet Buzzsaw follows a small group of the LA art world as the mysterious paintings of dease are released into the world. As seen in the trailer the paintings are able to move and even come out and grab you and here is where my issues with the film start.
In my opinion in horror it's best to have some kind of rules so you know what to be scared of. Even the slightest hint of ghosts or the supernatural will do at separating horror from something more psychological. Here it's unclear as to why these paintings have these properties as everything feels like the real world and for the first act the film it balances on this in between of something psychological and actual physically alive paintings. And for the most part these horror sections are terribly predictable as soon as we see a main character alone with one of the paintings it's pretty clear as to what's gonna happen.
Where the movie excels is in between these horror parts when we get more of Morf(played by gyllenhaal in scintillating form) trying to figure out what's going on while experiencing haunting visual and auditory hallucinations. This descent into paranoia and almost madness is far more engaging than the cheap thrills the film seems more eager to give us. More of these characters being entranced yet horrified by these pictures and subtle things going wrong would have made for a far creepier experience.
Overall what could have been a really interesting psychological thriller ended up being a slightly above par horror movie with good performances all round and a interesting premise and while the horror elements were my least favourite part they were very creative and any horror fan would be sure to get a kick out of it
In my opinion in horror it's best to have some kind of rules so you know what to be scared of. Even the slightest hint of ghosts or the supernatural will do at separating horror from something more psychological. Here it's unclear as to why these paintings have these properties as everything feels like the real world and for the first act the film it balances on this in between of something psychological and actual physically alive paintings. And for the most part these horror sections are terribly predictable as soon as we see a main character alone with one of the paintings it's pretty clear as to what's gonna happen.
Where the movie excels is in between these horror parts when we get more of Morf(played by gyllenhaal in scintillating form) trying to figure out what's going on while experiencing haunting visual and auditory hallucinations. This descent into paranoia and almost madness is far more engaging than the cheap thrills the film seems more eager to give us. More of these characters being entranced yet horrified by these pictures and subtle things going wrong would have made for a far creepier experience.
Overall what could have been a really interesting psychological thriller ended up being a slightly above par horror movie with good performances all round and a interesting premise and while the horror elements were my least favourite part they were very creative and any horror fan would be sure to get a kick out of it
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Julie & Julia (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Julie & Julia’ is an intertwined tale based on the two true stories of cooking legend Julia Child (Meryl Streep) and that of author Julie Powell (Amy Adams). It is a story of non-traditional mentoring and the value of hard work and dedication, covering the process Child went through creating the 1961 classic Mastering the Art of French Cooking alongside the tale of Powell who was made famous when she blogged her way through Child’s book.
The films leads do nothing but deliver. Amy Adams, sporting a spunky new haircut, creates a character that is both soul searching and fun to watch. Meryl Streep amazingly transforms into Child, having perfected the subtleties of her personality so well that I found myself remising back to my single digit years.
The costumes are delightful and manage to seamlessly separate the two women’s tales while uniting them into a bigger story. The use of color and pacing make this a film that displays not only a change in time and lifestyle, but also the uniting human values that are entirely timeless.
A story of relationships and personal growth, combined with moments of laughter and hardship, I found myself in the mood I enjoyed through ‘Chocolat’ and ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’.
The film could have used more food imagery and I felt like the character of Eric Powell (Chris Messina) could have been better developed. But the delightful relationship between Julia and her husband Paul Child, played by the ever-enchanting Stanley Tucci, made this film a wildly entertaining journey.
On top of being a well-told tale, ‘Julie & Julia’ has that je ne sais quoi which make it a truly exceptional piece of film, and I know this because even my action loving husband enjoyed it. Well worth the price of admission ‘Julie & Julia’ is a time traveling felicity that is sure to win your heart, as it has mine.
The films leads do nothing but deliver. Amy Adams, sporting a spunky new haircut, creates a character that is both soul searching and fun to watch. Meryl Streep amazingly transforms into Child, having perfected the subtleties of her personality so well that I found myself remising back to my single digit years.
The costumes are delightful and manage to seamlessly separate the two women’s tales while uniting them into a bigger story. The use of color and pacing make this a film that displays not only a change in time and lifestyle, but also the uniting human values that are entirely timeless.
A story of relationships and personal growth, combined with moments of laughter and hardship, I found myself in the mood I enjoyed through ‘Chocolat’ and ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’.
The film could have used more food imagery and I felt like the character of Eric Powell (Chris Messina) could have been better developed. But the delightful relationship between Julia and her husband Paul Child, played by the ever-enchanting Stanley Tucci, made this film a wildly entertaining journey.
On top of being a well-told tale, ‘Julie & Julia’ has that je ne sais quoi which make it a truly exceptional piece of film, and I know this because even my action loving husband enjoyed it. Well worth the price of admission ‘Julie & Julia’ is a time traveling felicity that is sure to win your heart, as it has mine.
JT (287 KP) rated Headhunters (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Roger Brown (Hennie) has it all, a gorgeous wife a beautiful house and lots of money. As a headhunter for a recruitment company he supplements this lifestyle by stealing rare and expensive paintings and replacing them with perfect copies.
At his wife Diana’s art gallery he is introduced to Clas (Coster-Waldau) who he lines up for a potential job with a big client. When Roger discovers that Clas is in possession of a rare painting he takes the opportunity to steal it, not realizing however that his actions will be traced back to him.
It’s clear that Roger’s flamboyant lifestyle and trophy wife is compensation for his own inferiority complex, as he explains in the opening monologue of the film. Filled with paranoia he soon believes that Clas is out to kill him, either for stealing the painting or to get rid of him so Clas can have Diana for his own.
It’s a simple game of cat and mouse between Roger and Clas that escalates into epic proportions as Roger goes on the run. Clas is extremely cool and calculated in his approach and toys with Roger, it’s a film that will keep you on the edge of your seat, tension that foreign film is seemingly well known for.
It’s adapted from the Jo Nesbø novel of the same name, and to be honest once Roger goes on the run it turns from thriller to black comedy and back again in an instant. Some scenes have shock value, others will turn your head away from the screen no sooner look at it but it’s all good fun.
Roger is put through the wringer as he’s slowly hunted down, avoiding capture by hiding in human faeces, trying to escape on the slowest form of transport imaginable and driven off the end of a cliff. At the end of all this the sympathy for Roger is overwhelming.
It’s a comically engaging film with twists and turns, gruesome in parts which you won’t expect.
At his wife Diana’s art gallery he is introduced to Clas (Coster-Waldau) who he lines up for a potential job with a big client. When Roger discovers that Clas is in possession of a rare painting he takes the opportunity to steal it, not realizing however that his actions will be traced back to him.
It’s clear that Roger’s flamboyant lifestyle and trophy wife is compensation for his own inferiority complex, as he explains in the opening monologue of the film. Filled with paranoia he soon believes that Clas is out to kill him, either for stealing the painting or to get rid of him so Clas can have Diana for his own.
It’s a simple game of cat and mouse between Roger and Clas that escalates into epic proportions as Roger goes on the run. Clas is extremely cool and calculated in his approach and toys with Roger, it’s a film that will keep you on the edge of your seat, tension that foreign film is seemingly well known for.
It’s adapted from the Jo Nesbø novel of the same name, and to be honest once Roger goes on the run it turns from thriller to black comedy and back again in an instant. Some scenes have shock value, others will turn your head away from the screen no sooner look at it but it’s all good fun.
Roger is put through the wringer as he’s slowly hunted down, avoiding capture by hiding in human faeces, trying to escape on the slowest form of transport imaginable and driven off the end of a cliff. At the end of all this the sympathy for Roger is overwhelming.
It’s a comically engaging film with twists and turns, gruesome in parts which you won’t expect.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Ethan Hawke (2 more)
Madeleine McGraw
Leaves much of the horror to the audience's imagination
Writing is a bit silly at times (1 more)
Teases more story elements and horror than it reveals
A Juvenile Curtain Call of Death
Somewhere in North Denver in 1978, The Black Phone sees Finney (Mason Thames) and his sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) attempting to survive constant bullying at school and the abuse of an alcoholic father (played by Jeremy Davies). The missing kids in town are said to be a result of The Grabber (Ethan Hawke); a man who drives around in a black van with black balloons kidnapping and eventually killing kids. When Finney is suddenly taken by The Grabber, he’s told that the black phone in his room doesn’t work but then the phone rings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Monuments Men (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As children, we all imagine going on a treasure hunt or adventure. In The Monuments Men, we bear witness to one of the greatest treasure hunts in recent history. The Monuments Men is based on the true story of a team of Art Historians and Architects who are tasked by President Roosevelt during WWII with locating and rescuing pieces of art from the Nazis. The challenge for these men is that they are put upon this task to search for these artifacts, many of which are trapped behind enemy lines.
It becomes a race not only to find the pieces but to prevent their destruction at the hands of the German Army under orders of Hitler himself. The film demonstrates that culture and history are vital to civilization’s memory. With a war of this scale, The Monuments Men demonstrates one of the many aspects of humanity that was endangered. It also reminds audiences that there are many stories still be told from the World War II era. The performances of Bill Murray, John Goodman, and Bob Balaban outshine that of George Clooney Matt Damon and Cate Blanchett. Despite this being an all-star cast, it does not detract from the story and the way that it is portrayed on screen. Audiences will find themselves emotionally connected to some of the characters, images, and the overall story.
It becomes a race not only to find the pieces but to prevent their destruction at the hands of the German Army under orders of Hitler himself. The film demonstrates that culture and history are vital to civilization’s memory. With a war of this scale, The Monuments Men demonstrates one of the many aspects of humanity that was endangered. It also reminds audiences that there are many stories still be told from the World War II era. The performances of Bill Murray, John Goodman, and Bob Balaban outshine that of George Clooney Matt Damon and Cate Blanchett. Despite this being an all-star cast, it does not detract from the story and the way that it is portrayed on screen. Audiences will find themselves emotionally connected to some of the characters, images, and the overall story.
The Rough Guide to Italy
Book
Now in its twelfth edition, The Rough Guide to Italy is full of painstakingly researched information...
OE
Olafur Eliasson: Reality Machines
Daniel Birnbaum, Matilda Olof-Ors and Ann-Sofi Noring
Book
Olafur Eliasson: Reality machines was conceived and designed by Irma Boom, one of the world's most...
Photographer's Market: 2015
Book
The Successful Photographer's Secret! Thousands of successful photographers have trusted...