Search
Search results
TwoNav GPS: Premium
Navigation and Sports
App
TwoNav brings you the best GPS application for smartphones, featuring dual navigation to ensure...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
Miss Scarlett at the Airport with the Jet Engine.
“Game Night” is an American comedy film starring Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”, “Central Intelligence“) as Max and Rachel McAdams (“Spotlight“, “Doctor Strange“) as Annie: two hyper-competitive professionals who invite other couples around to their house for a weekly night of charades and board games. The regulars are long-term couple Kevin and Michelle (Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury) and complete buffoon Ryan (Billy Magnussen, “The Big Short“) and his revolving door of generally vacant girlfriends. Estranged from the group, after his divorce, is the creepy police officer Gary (Jesse Plemons, “The Post“, “American Made“) who lives next door.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sleep by day…”.
Ben Affleck’s new movie could best be described as “sprawling”. In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a “Godfather” style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Christine (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
If it bleeds, it leads.
Life is precious. Bad times always get good again eventually. Winter turns to spring and you feel the warmth of the sun on your face again. So what drives someone – anyone – to the point of despair sufficient for them to ignore all of the potential upturns and to take their own life?
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 9, 2022
Fun...with heart
Doctor Strange is my favorite Marvel character. This comes from my college days when one of my roommates had a stack of Dr. Strange comics and I tore through them - one of the few Marvel comics that I have actually read. So I was thrilled to find out that Sam Raimi was coming back (was he ever gone?) to direct the 2nd solo Dr. Strange film, DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated BEING THE RICARDOS (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Superb "A" plot, Boring "B" plot
When I first heard that Nicole Kidman (of all people) was set to play Lucille Ball in a bio-pic (of sorts), I was suspect over the casting.
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Dean Connelly (17 KP) rated F1 2017 Day One Edition in Video Games
Jan 10, 2018
More depth then last year (6 more)
AI is better
Tougher then last year
No German Grand Prix
It makes you think more
Feels like a proper F1 game
More to do besides campaign
Ai still isn’t perfect (3 more)
Biased stewarding
McLaren is constantly cursed
Never be Hamilton’s team mate
Still got it to be at the top
I went off F1 games when I played F1 2011 for the Wii, so after I took a chance on F1 2016, which I love for the gameplay the graphics the engine, the pit stops, the drivers AI (well some of the AI.) i just loved how Codemasters made an F1 game that was worth paying for, so I suppose this one is the same right? Wrong, this is way way better the 2016, The high scores it has got, are validated. I’ve never seen graphics this smooth or advanced, even my other half who has no interest in games whatsoever went “wow” when she saw them. The R&D part of F1 2017 is bigger by all means. Last year you had 5 departments with 5 upgrades, this year, you have 4 but you have at least 20 upgrades per department with separate goals for achievements, like do 20 pits stops your pit crew gets quicker or you race 60 races as first driver you get 15% points back from what you earn all race weekends. The most challenging part of this R&D is what do you upgrade first? (If you race a McLaren, I’d recommend reliability then speed.) not only that but do you save up your points and buy quality control and/or make everything cheaper (it’s a long road but it is worth it.) The biggest change this year is reliability, last year you could put fill your car up, put it in rich and that’s it. Not so this year, you have to manage your parts, and every engine has to last you at least 6 races, same with the parts, otherwise more then 4 engines or parts, grid penalties I’m afraid. There are More ways to get R&D points this year, track acclimatisation, Tyre management team objectives and Qualifying pace now they've added fuel saving and Race Strategy. They don’t take as long as they used to too. The teams you can pick have been put into 3 categories. (Your McLarens and Saubers make the bottom, Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes make the top and everyone else makes the middle.) each team has different objectives, (so Mercedes is to stay top of the pile, Williams is challenging for podiums, Saubers is to challenge for points you get the idea.)
If youre bored with a season theres more to it there's the traditional multiplayer, events, time trials New for this year, there is a championship mode. Using cars using older and newer cars and invitational events. Ranging from overtake challenge (overtake cars in say 3 minutes) to pursuit (AI in slower cars but you have to pass them) to time attack (cover say 3 laps in 5 minutes.) There's also multiple championships (ranging from a championship in classic cars to a double header tour to an international street series. Agent wise, you still get the option of changing teams every year and half way through a season. She’s presented a lot more in this year.
Bad news, well if you’re thinking of driving a McLaren, be afraid to be disappointed. I’ve heard more complaints about McLaren being as bad in the game then they are in real life, dare I say worse. The Ai still decide to take you off but it’s not as bad as 2016s AI. Your engineer is not as useless as last year but he still needs work on, agent is stil the same as last year so could have her doing more. Marshall’s still are biased and can’t tell the difference
It’s definitely an upgrade on last season but AI still isn’t perfect and there is so much more that could’ve been done. But as far as a game goes, this is more Mercedes then McLaren.
If youre bored with a season theres more to it there's the traditional multiplayer, events, time trials New for this year, there is a championship mode. Using cars using older and newer cars and invitational events. Ranging from overtake challenge (overtake cars in say 3 minutes) to pursuit (AI in slower cars but you have to pass them) to time attack (cover say 3 laps in 5 minutes.) There's also multiple championships (ranging from a championship in classic cars to a double header tour to an international street series. Agent wise, you still get the option of changing teams every year and half way through a season. She’s presented a lot more in this year.
Bad news, well if you’re thinking of driving a McLaren, be afraid to be disappointed. I’ve heard more complaints about McLaren being as bad in the game then they are in real life, dare I say worse. The Ai still decide to take you off but it’s not as bad as 2016s AI. Your engineer is not as useless as last year but he still needs work on, agent is stil the same as last year so could have her doing more. Marshall’s still are biased and can’t tell the difference
It’s definitely an upgrade on last season but AI still isn’t perfect and there is so much more that could’ve been done. But as far as a game goes, this is more Mercedes then McLaren.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Savage in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I read the blurb for this novella, I was a little bit interested especially when it came to the mysterious village. The whole creature thing isn't usually what I read when it comes to the horror genre, but as this was a short read, I thought I'd give it a try. However, it wasn't something I can say I enjoyed.
I don't really like or dislike the title. It's a bit plain and boring, and I don't really see what it has to do with the book unless it pertains to what the villagers call the undisciplined. No mention of the word savage was ever used.
The cover of this book reminds me of a book from the time of Alfred Hitchcock. I believe that the cover does suit the book.
The world building starts off being believable. It was quite easy to picture a man driving along a country road, his car dying, and then he mysteriously gets transported to a strange village. However, the author starts talking about angles and shapes, and I just found myself being really confused. I wouldn't say this made the world building any less believable but just confusing, at least for me.
I thought the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking. There's not really any action until almost the very end of the book. Luckily this book is short or else I would've quit reading it before I was finished.
The plot is interesting enough. A man's car breaks down just outside some strange village. The man goes into the village and notices how perfectly angular the people and the landscape is. The villagers start talking about the undisciplined. The man ends up getting locked up but manages to escape. However, he runs into something a lot worse than the strange villagers. So yes, the plot line was interesting enough, but I just felt it was executed a bit poorly. I felt as if the ending didn't tie in with the whole book. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I will say that if the author was going for that ending, maybe he should've rethought about whether or not to have a mysterious village in the book as the village and the ending don't really mesh well.
I did like Daryl. He seemed like your everyday, normal working man. However, I think he was a bit too intellectual for me to fully relate to. As for the villagers, I can't really comment on them because I felt like there wasn't enough back story on the village and its people to fully form an opinion. I would've liked more back story on the village, and I feel that with more back story, the book would've been less confusing and more interesting.
There wasn't much dialogue in the book which I found disappointing. It seemed like all that was in the book was adjectives and too much description for my liking. Not only that, but I felt that the words used were too intellectual for a common reader such as myself. A lot of the time I didn't even know what the words meant, and this lead to a lot of confusion and lack of interest for me. It's just too wordy of a book if that makes sense. There are a few swear words and a tiny bit of violence. There is also a little bit of sexual references but only in one or two scenes, and it's not very graphic.
Overall, Savage by Gary Fry has a promising story line, but with all the big words, too much description and not enough dialogue, it just falls flat. It doesn't help that the mysterious village has no back story and that the ending doesn't really mesh with the rest of the story.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend this book unless you know words that aren't used in every day conversations or if you're an English major. I'd say this book is written for those 18+.
<b>I'd give Savage by Gary Fry a 2 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley for an honest and unbiased review).
When I read the blurb for this novella, I was a little bit interested especially when it came to the mysterious village. The whole creature thing isn't usually what I read when it comes to the horror genre, but as this was a short read, I thought I'd give it a try. However, it wasn't something I can say I enjoyed.
I don't really like or dislike the title. It's a bit plain and boring, and I don't really see what it has to do with the book unless it pertains to what the villagers call the undisciplined. No mention of the word savage was ever used.
The cover of this book reminds me of a book from the time of Alfred Hitchcock. I believe that the cover does suit the book.
The world building starts off being believable. It was quite easy to picture a man driving along a country road, his car dying, and then he mysteriously gets transported to a strange village. However, the author starts talking about angles and shapes, and I just found myself being really confused. I wouldn't say this made the world building any less believable but just confusing, at least for me.
I thought the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking. There's not really any action until almost the very end of the book. Luckily this book is short or else I would've quit reading it before I was finished.
The plot is interesting enough. A man's car breaks down just outside some strange village. The man goes into the village and notices how perfectly angular the people and the landscape is. The villagers start talking about the undisciplined. The man ends up getting locked up but manages to escape. However, he runs into something a lot worse than the strange villagers. So yes, the plot line was interesting enough, but I just felt it was executed a bit poorly. I felt as if the ending didn't tie in with the whole book. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I will say that if the author was going for that ending, maybe he should've rethought about whether or not to have a mysterious village in the book as the village and the ending don't really mesh well.
I did like Daryl. He seemed like your everyday, normal working man. However, I think he was a bit too intellectual for me to fully relate to. As for the villagers, I can't really comment on them because I felt like there wasn't enough back story on the village and its people to fully form an opinion. I would've liked more back story on the village, and I feel that with more back story, the book would've been less confusing and more interesting.
There wasn't much dialogue in the book which I found disappointing. It seemed like all that was in the book was adjectives and too much description for my liking. Not only that, but I felt that the words used were too intellectual for a common reader such as myself. A lot of the time I didn't even know what the words meant, and this lead to a lot of confusion and lack of interest for me. It's just too wordy of a book if that makes sense. There are a few swear words and a tiny bit of violence. There is also a little bit of sexual references but only in one or two scenes, and it's not very graphic.
Overall, Savage by Gary Fry has a promising story line, but with all the big words, too much description and not enough dialogue, it just falls flat. It doesn't help that the mysterious village has no back story and that the ending doesn't really mesh with the rest of the story.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend this book unless you know words that aren't used in every day conversations or if you're an English major. I'd say this book is written for those 18+.
<b>I'd give Savage by Gary Fry a 2 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley for an honest and unbiased review).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Oct 9, 2018
4th time IS the charm
I, like many, rolled my eyes when I heard that Bradley Cooper (of all people) was tabbed to write, direct and star in the 4th film adaptation of A STAR IS BORN. I was not a big fan of the Streisand/Kristofferson version from the 1970's, have vague memories of the Garland/Mason version from the 1950's and never saw the original Gaynor/March version from the 1930's. But when I heard that Lady Gaga was cast in the female lead of this film, I was intrigued and decided to check it out.
And...I'm glad I did as A STAR IS BORN now resides atop my list of BEST PICTURES OF 2018!. The music, acting, directing and story all work well in conjunction with each other to bring this tearjerker new, relevant life for a whole new audience.
For those of you not familiar with the plot, A STAR IS BORN tells the tale of an up and coming performing talent who is taken under the wing of an aging, on the decline, alcoholic superstar performer. We watch her rise and his fall.
In the lead role of Ally, Lady Gaga is outstanding. From her first musical performance to the last, you can clearly see that she has the musical chops, bravura and heart to pull off these scenes and this character. She really brings it here and you are drawn in whenever her character is on-stage, performing. As an actress she is better than "fine". You can see some moments of acting skill and depth, but you do see some of her lack of experience in her acting in some of the quieter scenes. All that said, I will be shocked if she is NOT nominated for an Oscar for this performance - she certainly is going to be nominated (and will probably win) as well for Best Song.
Complimenting her - and holding the screen, and our attention throughout - is Bradley Cooper's performance of Superstar-on-the-decline Jackson Maine. His Country/Rock legend lives up to the billing in voice, musical performance and attitude. This is Cooper's finest performance of his career, nuanced and crushing, drawing us in while simultaneously pushing us away. He is, easily, the front-runner for the Best Actor Oscar.
Complimenting these two are Andrew Dice Clay (interestingly enough) as Ally's father , who brings a multi-faceted character to life. He is star-struck, hopeful, protective and angry - always wishing for the best for his daughter, and protecting her from those that will prey on her. I would say he could be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but he is not the Best Supporting Actor in this film, not by a long shot.
That Best Support Actor performance belongs to Sam Elliott who plays Cooper's (much) older brother. Cooper and Elliott's characters have a love/hate relationship with deep familial scars. As often happens with Supporting Roles, Elliot's performance shines and then is elevated to another level from one scene late in the film. He'll easily get an Oscar nomination - and will probably, finally, earn the Oscar he deserves.
But this film isn't all about acting. The Direction by Cooper (who will probably be nominated in all 3 categories - acting, writing and directing) is sharp and to the point. He films the musical scenes with skill and doesn't let the camera get too crazy while driving his lens close in to the actor's faces during the quiet scenes, drawing us in to this pair.
And of course, with this type of film, it will hinge on how good the music, and the musical performances, are - and this film delivers the goods in that space. There is memorable song after memorable song, performed strongly by both Cooper and Lady Gaga. They are good separately, but are INCREDIBLE when they perform together.
I cannot say enough good things about this film - it IS that good. Check this film out, you'll be glad you did, and you'll be able to say that you've seen the front-runner for all the OSCARS of 2018.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I did as A STAR IS BORN now resides atop my list of BEST PICTURES OF 2018!. The music, acting, directing and story all work well in conjunction with each other to bring this tearjerker new, relevant life for a whole new audience.
For those of you not familiar with the plot, A STAR IS BORN tells the tale of an up and coming performing talent who is taken under the wing of an aging, on the decline, alcoholic superstar performer. We watch her rise and his fall.
In the lead role of Ally, Lady Gaga is outstanding. From her first musical performance to the last, you can clearly see that she has the musical chops, bravura and heart to pull off these scenes and this character. She really brings it here and you are drawn in whenever her character is on-stage, performing. As an actress she is better than "fine". You can see some moments of acting skill and depth, but you do see some of her lack of experience in her acting in some of the quieter scenes. All that said, I will be shocked if she is NOT nominated for an Oscar for this performance - she certainly is going to be nominated (and will probably win) as well for Best Song.
Complimenting her - and holding the screen, and our attention throughout - is Bradley Cooper's performance of Superstar-on-the-decline Jackson Maine. His Country/Rock legend lives up to the billing in voice, musical performance and attitude. This is Cooper's finest performance of his career, nuanced and crushing, drawing us in while simultaneously pushing us away. He is, easily, the front-runner for the Best Actor Oscar.
Complimenting these two are Andrew Dice Clay (interestingly enough) as Ally's father , who brings a multi-faceted character to life. He is star-struck, hopeful, protective and angry - always wishing for the best for his daughter, and protecting her from those that will prey on her. I would say he could be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but he is not the Best Supporting Actor in this film, not by a long shot.
That Best Support Actor performance belongs to Sam Elliott who plays Cooper's (much) older brother. Cooper and Elliott's characters have a love/hate relationship with deep familial scars. As often happens with Supporting Roles, Elliot's performance shines and then is elevated to another level from one scene late in the film. He'll easily get an Oscar nomination - and will probably, finally, earn the Oscar he deserves.
But this film isn't all about acting. The Direction by Cooper (who will probably be nominated in all 3 categories - acting, writing and directing) is sharp and to the point. He films the musical scenes with skill and doesn't let the camera get too crazy while driving his lens close in to the actor's faces during the quiet scenes, drawing us in to this pair.
And of course, with this type of film, it will hinge on how good the music, and the musical performances, are - and this film delivers the goods in that space. There is memorable song after memorable song, performed strongly by both Cooper and Lady Gaga. They are good separately, but are INCREDIBLE when they perform together.
I cannot say enough good things about this film - it IS that good. Check this film out, you'll be glad you did, and you'll be able to say that you've seen the front-runner for all the OSCARS of 2018.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)