Search
Search results
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Border (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
If you’re a fan of the original super dark fairy tales, you’re probably going to love Border. But be warned, it contains some incredibly disturbing content that I wasn’t prepared for. This film is not an easy watch, and I found myself thinking about it for a long time afterwards. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it just isn’t for the faint of heart.
The film follows Tina (Eva Melander), a woman who works for the Swedish Border Control. She has a unique talent to sniff out contraband, so she’s an asset to the rest of the team. This ability confuses many around her, and this becomes a central part of Tina’s self-discovery later on in the film. Alongside her ability, Tina suffers from facial deformities which makes her an outcast in society.
Tina’s life changes when she meets a man named Vore (Eero Milonoff), who looks just like her. At first, she suspects him of something, but following an inspection, lets him pass through. The two of them have frequent encounters throughout the film, with Vore helping Tina to understand who she is. As she’s embarking on this journey, Tina is assigned to a child pornography case, with the authorities believing her ability can help them find the perpetrator.
Border is dark both in its narrative and its visuals, as you seldom see the sunlight throughout the entire film. It feels gritty, dirty and bleak, reflecting this incredibly harrowing case that Tina has to try and solve. Even her own home is depressing; living in a tiny cabin-like home with a man named Roland who trains dogs. Tina’s relationship with Roland is confusing to the audience, and she barely spends any time at home, opting to take walks outside instead. She is an incredibly lonely, isolated character until Vore comes along.
The film’s visuals really stood out to me, I loved the ethereal fantasy elements even when bad things are happening. Since Tina spends a lot of her time outdoors, her encounters with wildlife and nature are beautifully shot. These moments seem to be the only ones that bring Tina real joy, and the cinematography reflects this. The film’s bleakness can often feel too much at times, but it’s entirely appropriate given the story. Despite Tina’s eventual self-discovery, this is not a happy film.
Tina and Vore’s animalistic behaviour may be uncomfortable for some audiences, and it was for me too. The film relies on long, purely diegetic scenes that bring us closer to the action than we may have liked. Their relationship is raw, functional and sometimes aggressive, often making it difficult to like the characters. Despite this, I still liked Tina as a character and wanted her to find happiness.
Border is just under two hours in length, but feels much longer due to Abbasi’s use of lingering shots. I did find myself feeling a little frustrated with this at times, but the beauty of the cinematography made up for it. The story is as twisted as it is captivating, and by the end of the film you’re left in a stunned silence trying to process what you just saw. It’s the kind of film that leaves you feeling exhausted afterwards.
This happened to be my first real exploration of Nordic cinema, and I’m certainly interested to see what other films are out there. Border is a unique and harrowing story that points fun at Nordic relations, and is certainly worth the watch. Having said that, I’m not sure I could go through it again.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-border-2019/
The film follows Tina (Eva Melander), a woman who works for the Swedish Border Control. She has a unique talent to sniff out contraband, so she’s an asset to the rest of the team. This ability confuses many around her, and this becomes a central part of Tina’s self-discovery later on in the film. Alongside her ability, Tina suffers from facial deformities which makes her an outcast in society.
Tina’s life changes when she meets a man named Vore (Eero Milonoff), who looks just like her. At first, she suspects him of something, but following an inspection, lets him pass through. The two of them have frequent encounters throughout the film, with Vore helping Tina to understand who she is. As she’s embarking on this journey, Tina is assigned to a child pornography case, with the authorities believing her ability can help them find the perpetrator.
Border is dark both in its narrative and its visuals, as you seldom see the sunlight throughout the entire film. It feels gritty, dirty and bleak, reflecting this incredibly harrowing case that Tina has to try and solve. Even her own home is depressing; living in a tiny cabin-like home with a man named Roland who trains dogs. Tina’s relationship with Roland is confusing to the audience, and she barely spends any time at home, opting to take walks outside instead. She is an incredibly lonely, isolated character until Vore comes along.
The film’s visuals really stood out to me, I loved the ethereal fantasy elements even when bad things are happening. Since Tina spends a lot of her time outdoors, her encounters with wildlife and nature are beautifully shot. These moments seem to be the only ones that bring Tina real joy, and the cinematography reflects this. The film’s bleakness can often feel too much at times, but it’s entirely appropriate given the story. Despite Tina’s eventual self-discovery, this is not a happy film.
Tina and Vore’s animalistic behaviour may be uncomfortable for some audiences, and it was for me too. The film relies on long, purely diegetic scenes that bring us closer to the action than we may have liked. Their relationship is raw, functional and sometimes aggressive, often making it difficult to like the characters. Despite this, I still liked Tina as a character and wanted her to find happiness.
Border is just under two hours in length, but feels much longer due to Abbasi’s use of lingering shots. I did find myself feeling a little frustrated with this at times, but the beauty of the cinematography made up for it. The story is as twisted as it is captivating, and by the end of the film you’re left in a stunned silence trying to process what you just saw. It’s the kind of film that leaves you feeling exhausted afterwards.
This happened to be my first real exploration of Nordic cinema, and I’m certainly interested to see what other films are out there. Border is a unique and harrowing story that points fun at Nordic relations, and is certainly worth the watch. Having said that, I’m not sure I could go through it again.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-border-2019/
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated George's Marvellous Medicine in Books
Jan 2, 2019
This was always my favourite Roald Dahl book, and I’ve re-remembered why now! It’s deliciously naughty, and everybody can imagine gleefully mixing up a concoction to make a disliked person yell “Oweeeee!”
A couple of years ago, I was an au pair in France for three children: a boy aged 9 and two girls, aged 5 years and 9 months old, respectively. I remember I had a little bit of trouble getting the children to settle down and listen to me reading a book, and alas, with the girls, I wasn’t actually successful. They were really intelligent kids, speaking French and German, with English as their third language. With the boy though – I’ll call him L, as I haven’t asked permission to use his name – he ended up loving this book. While there were some words I thought it necessary to replace so that he’d understand, he got really into it, and every day was asking me to read him another chapter.
It’s all slightly cheeky, and very funny. There have certainly been people over the years I’d love to make a magical medicine for, and I remember L getting more and more excited as he firstly wondered what was going to happen to Grandma, and then was fascinated by all the effects the medicine had.
There’s a real childish logic to how George goes about concocting his marvellous medicine, which I know appeals to many kids. She’s got rotten teeth, so he’ll put toothpaste in, and if that doesn’t work, he’ll paint them red with nail varnish. Genius! Here’s one of his ideas:
<blockquote>“The first one he took down was a large box of SUPERWHITE FOR AUTOMATIC WASHING-MACHINES. DIRT, it said, WILL DISAPPEAR LIKE MAGIC. George didn’t know whether Grandma was automatic or not, but she was certainly a dirty old woman.”</blockquote>
Quentin Blake’s illustrations really add to the story, particularly in the second half of the book, when the child reading it can see just how big the characters are getting.
The imagination is powerful, but even more so when mixed with these visual aids – see the picture to the right. I think the great thing about the detail of these illustrations – particularly Grandma’s face – is that you can project feelings onto them. In the context of the story it’s really easy to see her as a disgusting “old bird”, but if it was slightly different, judging from the front page you could see her as slightly mischievous too. Or is that just me?! However, I’m digressing. For an adult reading the book, the words dance off the tongue just like George, imagining he’s casting a spell over his cauldron. I found that L’s attention was thoroughly captured and he loved hearing the ‘special effects’ of all the whooshes and woweeees. There’s also the magical and triumphant aspects – he’s somehow created this cool concoction that has meant he’s got his own back on his grouchy old Grandma and helped out his dad by enlarging all the animals. I think kids love those feeling of pride and revenge they get on George’s behalf, while at the same time getting vivid images in their head that they’ll remember for a long time – I know I did!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
A couple of years ago, I was an au pair in France for three children: a boy aged 9 and two girls, aged 5 years and 9 months old, respectively. I remember I had a little bit of trouble getting the children to settle down and listen to me reading a book, and alas, with the girls, I wasn’t actually successful. They were really intelligent kids, speaking French and German, with English as their third language. With the boy though – I’ll call him L, as I haven’t asked permission to use his name – he ended up loving this book. While there were some words I thought it necessary to replace so that he’d understand, he got really into it, and every day was asking me to read him another chapter.
It’s all slightly cheeky, and very funny. There have certainly been people over the years I’d love to make a magical medicine for, and I remember L getting more and more excited as he firstly wondered what was going to happen to Grandma, and then was fascinated by all the effects the medicine had.
There’s a real childish logic to how George goes about concocting his marvellous medicine, which I know appeals to many kids. She’s got rotten teeth, so he’ll put toothpaste in, and if that doesn’t work, he’ll paint them red with nail varnish. Genius! Here’s one of his ideas:
<blockquote>“The first one he took down was a large box of SUPERWHITE FOR AUTOMATIC WASHING-MACHINES. DIRT, it said, WILL DISAPPEAR LIKE MAGIC. George didn’t know whether Grandma was automatic or not, but she was certainly a dirty old woman.”</blockquote>
Quentin Blake’s illustrations really add to the story, particularly in the second half of the book, when the child reading it can see just how big the characters are getting.
The imagination is powerful, but even more so when mixed with these visual aids – see the picture to the right. I think the great thing about the detail of these illustrations – particularly Grandma’s face – is that you can project feelings onto them. In the context of the story it’s really easy to see her as a disgusting “old bird”, but if it was slightly different, judging from the front page you could see her as slightly mischievous too. Or is that just me?! However, I’m digressing. For an adult reading the book, the words dance off the tongue just like George, imagining he’s casting a spell over his cauldron. I found that L’s attention was thoroughly captured and he loved hearing the ‘special effects’ of all the whooshes and woweeees. There’s also the magical and triumphant aspects – he’s somehow created this cool concoction that has meant he’s got his own back on his grouchy old Grandma and helped out his dad by enlarging all the animals. I think kids love those feeling of pride and revenge they get on George’s behalf, while at the same time getting vivid images in their head that they’ll remember for a long time – I know I did!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020
Cracking British all star cast (1 more)
Reminds you just how crazy politics was in 2003
The best little UK film you've never seen
A film about whistle-blowing against the backdrop of the Iraq War of 2003 doesn't sound like a very appealing watch, but "Official Secrets" defies all those fears. It's a cracking little UK movie.
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Vanished in Books
Mar 18, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
In Vanished by Gillian Alice Lock time travel is not a scientific discovery but a natural phenomenon. This book also falls in a gray area between science fiction, historical fiction, and romance.
Andrea lives with her little dog, Muff, out in the country. She tries to live a structured life but since she works from home she finds herself giving in to cravings more often. Luckily Muff is extremely high energy for a little dog and requires Andrea to take her for long walks. One day Andrea makes plans with the neighbor guy for a date after Muff’s walk. The neighbor waits for her but she doesn't show up, for years.
During their walk Andrea and Muff finds themselves pulled into a dense yellow mist and when it dissipates things have changed. The area they are in looks familiar yet it is not the home they are used to, but instead, it looks more like pictures from a history book. Andrea draws a lot of attention to herself from the way she talks and dresses and soon finds herself with Father Jones. Through the Father, Andrea learns of Robert who also seems to have come from the future. Andrea manages to secure work along with room and board for herself and Robert at the home of William Farthing, a Lord. Sadly Andrea knows of the fate that is going to befall William and wars with herself about intervening. She also must come up with a decision if she wishes to return to her old life in the 21st century or try to keep her new one int the 17th.
I enjoyed how both positive and negative aspects of the 17th century are addressed. The dirty and poor living conditions are clearly depicted, as are the differences in food compared to what we are used to today. The lifestyle of those in the 17th century is very different from modern times but slower and calmer as well. There was inconsistency with the names of the characters in a few places. At times it was as if the reader is expected to recognize the name of a character that is only mentioned once. I can only guess that this is in error. The back of the book also says that it takes place in 2015 but in the actual story it is (to start out with) 2019. Without going into a lot of details as to why the wedding is also in the wrong year.
There is nothing in this book the I noticed that would make it inappropriate in any way. The topic and writing style might make it quite a bit boring for even middle school-aged readers. Those who like historical fiction and romance will probably enjoy this book. I rate this book 2 out of 4. Besides the inconsistencies and other issues, I mentioned earlier the book also had multiple typos and grammar errors. While I myself am not good in that area of writing the errors in this book were glaringly obvious even to me. The book needs to be closely edited and this seriously lowered the score.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Andrea lives with her little dog, Muff, out in the country. She tries to live a structured life but since she works from home she finds herself giving in to cravings more often. Luckily Muff is extremely high energy for a little dog and requires Andrea to take her for long walks. One day Andrea makes plans with the neighbor guy for a date after Muff’s walk. The neighbor waits for her but she doesn't show up, for years.
During their walk Andrea and Muff finds themselves pulled into a dense yellow mist and when it dissipates things have changed. The area they are in looks familiar yet it is not the home they are used to, but instead, it looks more like pictures from a history book. Andrea draws a lot of attention to herself from the way she talks and dresses and soon finds herself with Father Jones. Through the Father, Andrea learns of Robert who also seems to have come from the future. Andrea manages to secure work along with room and board for herself and Robert at the home of William Farthing, a Lord. Sadly Andrea knows of the fate that is going to befall William and wars with herself about intervening. She also must come up with a decision if she wishes to return to her old life in the 21st century or try to keep her new one int the 17th.
I enjoyed how both positive and negative aspects of the 17th century are addressed. The dirty and poor living conditions are clearly depicted, as are the differences in food compared to what we are used to today. The lifestyle of those in the 17th century is very different from modern times but slower and calmer as well. There was inconsistency with the names of the characters in a few places. At times it was as if the reader is expected to recognize the name of a character that is only mentioned once. I can only guess that this is in error. The back of the book also says that it takes place in 2015 but in the actual story it is (to start out with) 2019. Without going into a lot of details as to why the wedding is also in the wrong year.
There is nothing in this book the I noticed that would make it inappropriate in any way. The topic and writing style might make it quite a bit boring for even middle school-aged readers. Those who like historical fiction and romance will probably enjoy this book. I rate this book 2 out of 4. Besides the inconsistencies and other issues, I mentioned earlier the book also had multiple typos and grammar errors. While I myself am not good in that area of writing the errors in this book were glaringly obvious even to me. The book needs to be closely edited and this seriously lowered the score.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
In An Open Field by Nicholas Krgovich
Album Watch
This record could just as easily be called "In A Sunny South Pasadena Living Room" or "In A...
pop
Age, Sex, Location
Book
A hilarious and refreshingly honest foray into modern dating, Age, Sex, Location is Bridget Jones's...
DJ Muggs recommended Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) by Wu-Tang Clan in Music (curated)
Natasha Khan recommended Selected Ambient Works 85-92 by Aphex Twin in Music (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Taxi Driver (1976) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Perfect blend of Director, Star and Place
Dark, dirty, rainy, dangerous, foggy, grimy, glorious - all words that would describe New York City in the late 1960's/early 1970's.
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)