Search
Search results
123 Coloring Book for children age 1-10: Games free for Learn to write the Spanish numbers and words while coloring with each coloring pages
Games and Education
App
Write & Color Spanish numbers 123 numbers Coloring Book | Coloring Free Games for Kids Boy and Girls...
Wedding Makeover Beauty Salon
Games
App
A wedding is a special day of life when everyone wants to look flawless, and for this what could be...
VideoShow PRO - Video Editor
Photo & Video and Utilities
App
VideoShow - The Best Video Editor and Movie Maker App Available VideoShow is ranked as the No.1...
Handy Photo
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
***** “What does it do? Everything… quickly and easily. It’s really awesome!“ – Life In...
Piconic - Photo Editor&Collage
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
8.0
Rate It
App
The BEST Photo Editor & Collage Maker, all at one time! Perfect your pics into your own ICONIC...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lady Bird (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“What if this is the best version”.
When did you grow up? I am now 57, and I’m still “working towards”! I remember distinctly though at the age of 16 thinking “I’ve got there”. And then again at 18. And then again at 21. And then again at 25…. There is something sweet about the certainty of youth that only life’s ultimate experiences can roughen the edges of.
“Lady Bird”, the directorial debut of Greta Gerwig, features one such teen who thinks she knows it all. Looking and acting for all the world like a 15 year old (something that Margot Robbie really can’t pull off in “I, Tonya”) Saoirse Ronan plays Christine McPherson who has the given name (“I gave the name to myself”) of ‘Lady Bird’. She is struggling with a lot of issues: an unreasonable and overbearing (parents: read ‘perfectly reasonably but firm’) mother (Laurie Metcalf, “Roseanne”); the issues of puberty and young love; the constrictions of a Catholic school she despises; and her inability to perform to the grades she needs to get into a college of her choice. That choice being on the East coast as far away from the backwater of Sacremento (“the mid-west of California” – LoL) as she can get.
Love comes in the form of two serial male fixations: the gorgeous and artistic Danny (Lucas Hedges, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”, “Manchester By The Sea”) and the aloof and enigmatic Kyle (Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name”).
This is a near perfect coming of age film. The plot, while fairly superficial and covering ground well-trodden before, fully engages you and makes the running time just fly by. And there is just so much talent on show. The script by Gerwig is chocker-block full of great and memorable lines; Ronan is pitch-perfect as the irascible and cock-sure teen; Tracy Letts (“The Post“) is magnificent in the less showy role as the “good cop” dad, struggling invisibly with his own demons; and Metcalf gives an Oscar-nominated performance that really should give Alison Janney a run for her money… a drive away from an airport conveys just perfectly every college-age parent’s emotional low-point.
Where perhaps the film overplays its hand a bit is in the “wrong side of the tracks” line. The household while struggling is by no means trailer-park poor (compare and contrast with “I, Tonya”): perhaps this is the depths of financial desperation found in Sacremento? But I doubt it… there still seems to be money available for fancy cowgirl outfits.
Which leads me to the rating, which seems to have been a common rant in the last few weeks. I would have thought that there was nothing like this film to turn the mirror of reasonableness on a young teen, perhaps helping them to treat their parents better, work harder for college or make better choices. Yet it has a UK 15 certificate. And for what? There is a full frontal male photo-spread in “Playgirl” (I want to say “it’s a penis, get over it”, but if forced I would have frankly just snipped the 50 milliseconds out to get the lower rating). And there are a few (only a few) F- and C- words. I have the same problem here as with “Phantom Thread” – here is a high-class film that a young teen audience would absolutely love to see. I think the BBFC have got it wrong again here.
I cannot recommend this film enough: a tale of teenage life love and resolution that is hard to beat. Possibly one of the best coming of age tales I’ve ever seen. On the basis that it looks like I will never get to see “Call Me By Your Name” – the only major one I’ve missed – before this Sunday’s Oscar ceremony, what a great way to round off my Oscar-viewing season.
“Lady Bird”, the directorial debut of Greta Gerwig, features one such teen who thinks she knows it all. Looking and acting for all the world like a 15 year old (something that Margot Robbie really can’t pull off in “I, Tonya”) Saoirse Ronan plays Christine McPherson who has the given name (“I gave the name to myself”) of ‘Lady Bird’. She is struggling with a lot of issues: an unreasonable and overbearing (parents: read ‘perfectly reasonably but firm’) mother (Laurie Metcalf, “Roseanne”); the issues of puberty and young love; the constrictions of a Catholic school she despises; and her inability to perform to the grades she needs to get into a college of her choice. That choice being on the East coast as far away from the backwater of Sacremento (“the mid-west of California” – LoL) as she can get.
Love comes in the form of two serial male fixations: the gorgeous and artistic Danny (Lucas Hedges, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”, “Manchester By The Sea”) and the aloof and enigmatic Kyle (Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name”).
This is a near perfect coming of age film. The plot, while fairly superficial and covering ground well-trodden before, fully engages you and makes the running time just fly by. And there is just so much talent on show. The script by Gerwig is chocker-block full of great and memorable lines; Ronan is pitch-perfect as the irascible and cock-sure teen; Tracy Letts (“The Post“) is magnificent in the less showy role as the “good cop” dad, struggling invisibly with his own demons; and Metcalf gives an Oscar-nominated performance that really should give Alison Janney a run for her money… a drive away from an airport conveys just perfectly every college-age parent’s emotional low-point.
Where perhaps the film overplays its hand a bit is in the “wrong side of the tracks” line. The household while struggling is by no means trailer-park poor (compare and contrast with “I, Tonya”): perhaps this is the depths of financial desperation found in Sacremento? But I doubt it… there still seems to be money available for fancy cowgirl outfits.
Which leads me to the rating, which seems to have been a common rant in the last few weeks. I would have thought that there was nothing like this film to turn the mirror of reasonableness on a young teen, perhaps helping them to treat their parents better, work harder for college or make better choices. Yet it has a UK 15 certificate. And for what? There is a full frontal male photo-spread in “Playgirl” (I want to say “it’s a penis, get over it”, but if forced I would have frankly just snipped the 50 milliseconds out to get the lower rating). And there are a few (only a few) F- and C- words. I have the same problem here as with “Phantom Thread” – here is a high-class film that a young teen audience would absolutely love to see. I think the BBFC have got it wrong again here.
I cannot recommend this film enough: a tale of teenage life love and resolution that is hard to beat. Possibly one of the best coming of age tales I’ve ever seen. On the basis that it looks like I will never get to see “Call Me By Your Name” – the only major one I’ve missed – before this Sunday’s Oscar ceremony, what a great way to round off my Oscar-viewing season.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Elvis (2022) in Movies
Jun 28, 2022
Butler Shines
Director Baz Luhrmann is one of those artists that I always keep an eye out for. His artistic vision is unique and while the films he directs don’t always work - MOULIN ROUGE is on of my all-time favorites, AUSTRALIA is a mess and his take on the GREAT GATSBY works…mostly - but the one thing that can be said about him is that his projects are always interesting (especially visually). So when he decided to create a bio-pic of “The King”, Elvis Presley, I was intrigued.
And…the resulting film - appropriately called ELVIS - works very well, but not because of Luhrmann’s Direction/Style but more because of the TERRIFIC performance at the center of this picture - and, no, I’m not talking about Tom Hanks as Col. Parker.
ELVIS follows - with the usual Luhrmann quick/cut, flashy style - the rise, fall, rise and (ultimately) death of Elvis Presley. Starting with his boyhood in Tupelo, Mississippi - where he found his rhythm in the roots of African-American Gospel/Spirituals - to his ascension to superstar, this films tries to tell it all, mostly through the shadowy viewpoint of Elvis’ Manager, Col. Tom Parker (a heavily made-up Tom Hanks).
And that is part of the problem with this film - it tries to tell TOO big a story, so while some items are covered in slow, glowing detail (like Elvis’ discovery of the music that will be his trademark), while other items (his movie career) are glossed over quickly in a montage. This is out of necessity, for this film is already 2 hours and 40 minutes long, but it does make this film feel somewhat disjointed - especially when you add Luhrmann’s trademark disorienting quick/cut, stylistic directing style. At times I just wanted to yell at Lurhman to lock his camera down in one position so my eyes (and brain) can settle down and watch what’s going on.
The other issue is the viewpoint of this film - it isn’t consistent. Is this a movie about Elvis? Is this a movie about a conman manipulating Elvis? It starts out following Col. Parker as he discovers Elvis and manipulates him to be his exclusive act, but then we leave Col. Tom and follow Elvis for long periods of time before being drawn back into Col’s Parker’s web, so there is confusion as to who’s story we are telling. In the end we tell both, and each one suffers a little bit because of this.
HOWEVER - and this is an important point - these issues are pushed to the back as minor flaws as the central performance of Austin Butler (Wil Ohmsford in the terrible adaption of THE SHANNARA CHRONICLES on TV) as Elvis is AMAZING. It is a captivating, multi-layered performance both on-stage and off. He has created a character that you are drawn to watch and the off-stage Elvis sets the stage for the charismatic, on-stage Elvis that we all know. Butler did his own singing/performing in this film and it is much, much more that “just” an Elvis impersonation. He personifies “The King” and Butler’s name better be called at Awards time. It is that good of a performance, one that should catapult this young man to stardom.
Fairing less well is Tom Hanks as Col. Parker. While he is game under all that make-up, the character is just not written with any nuance and comes off as a one-dimensional villain, constantly lurking in the background. This character just wasn’t interesting enough to hold the screen - especially against Butler.
But see this film to rekindle the spirit of Elvis through the interpretation of Butler, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the resulting film - appropriately called ELVIS - works very well, but not because of Luhrmann’s Direction/Style but more because of the TERRIFIC performance at the center of this picture - and, no, I’m not talking about Tom Hanks as Col. Parker.
ELVIS follows - with the usual Luhrmann quick/cut, flashy style - the rise, fall, rise and (ultimately) death of Elvis Presley. Starting with his boyhood in Tupelo, Mississippi - where he found his rhythm in the roots of African-American Gospel/Spirituals - to his ascension to superstar, this films tries to tell it all, mostly through the shadowy viewpoint of Elvis’ Manager, Col. Tom Parker (a heavily made-up Tom Hanks).
And that is part of the problem with this film - it tries to tell TOO big a story, so while some items are covered in slow, glowing detail (like Elvis’ discovery of the music that will be his trademark), while other items (his movie career) are glossed over quickly in a montage. This is out of necessity, for this film is already 2 hours and 40 minutes long, but it does make this film feel somewhat disjointed - especially when you add Luhrmann’s trademark disorienting quick/cut, stylistic directing style. At times I just wanted to yell at Lurhman to lock his camera down in one position so my eyes (and brain) can settle down and watch what’s going on.
The other issue is the viewpoint of this film - it isn’t consistent. Is this a movie about Elvis? Is this a movie about a conman manipulating Elvis? It starts out following Col. Parker as he discovers Elvis and manipulates him to be his exclusive act, but then we leave Col. Tom and follow Elvis for long periods of time before being drawn back into Col’s Parker’s web, so there is confusion as to who’s story we are telling. In the end we tell both, and each one suffers a little bit because of this.
HOWEVER - and this is an important point - these issues are pushed to the back as minor flaws as the central performance of Austin Butler (Wil Ohmsford in the terrible adaption of THE SHANNARA CHRONICLES on TV) as Elvis is AMAZING. It is a captivating, multi-layered performance both on-stage and off. He has created a character that you are drawn to watch and the off-stage Elvis sets the stage for the charismatic, on-stage Elvis that we all know. Butler did his own singing/performing in this film and it is much, much more that “just” an Elvis impersonation. He personifies “The King” and Butler’s name better be called at Awards time. It is that good of a performance, one that should catapult this young man to stardom.
Fairing less well is Tom Hanks as Col. Parker. While he is game under all that make-up, the character is just not written with any nuance and comes off as a one-dimensional villain, constantly lurking in the background. This character just wasn’t interesting enough to hold the screen - especially against Butler.
But see this film to rekindle the spirit of Elvis through the interpretation of Butler, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
There was some genuine surprise when I saw this had been made as an Amazon Original. I thought the character of Borat was old news, there certainly couldn’t be anyone left, in America or otherwise, that wasn’t wise to the joke by now, and aware of Sasha Baron Cohen’s desire to satirise the hell out of everything dumb folk may stand for. For it to work people have to believe 100% that he is a real person, this is what made the first film so incredible to watch – the opened mouthed awe at the pure audacity of the performer and the pure stupidity of the “victims”. But, I guess he figured a way around it, and also realised that no one but Borat could better lampoon the very worst aspects of the America the Trump era has created.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
Nail Art Games for Girls: Top Star Manicure Salon
Lifestyle and Games
4.0
Rate It
App
*** Create fantastic nail designs with this amazing new nail art game! *** ** Are you searching for...
Timeline Cover Photo Maker Free - Design and create your own custom Facebook profile page covers that reflects your personality!
Photo & Video and Social Networking
App
The App Store's most popular Cover Photo Making App for your Timeline now has a FREE version! ...