Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Freeheld (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Based on a true story about Detective Lauren Hester (Julianne Moore) who is dying of cancer and her life-partner Stacie Andree (Ellen Page, who “came out” herself last year), and their fight for their civil rights against the “Freeholders Committee” in Ocean City, NJ.
After more than 20 years of being on the force and highly decorated, Lauren Hester is seeking to give her pension to her domestic partner just like any straight married county employee has been able to do. The Freeholders, are a committee who governs the county, decided that Hester’s pension would not be given to Andree because they are lesbians and the fight begins. They are contacted by a gay rights activist, Steve Goldstein (Steve Carell), who with the help of Hester’s detective partner Dane Wells (Michael Shannon), try to get the Freeholders to change their opinion. Only with help from the community and police force, who are rallied by Goldstein and Wells,will anything be changed.
Right from the start the movie grabs hold of the viewer, and keeps them engrossed in their struggle to the end. Being so close to being a biography I was surprised at how well it was done and my interest was kept throughout. It is not just an account of a gay couple, more a depiction of a battle for everyone’s civil rights. Freeheld skillfully depicts the struggles of gay professionals to keep their identity a secret from society while still being successful in their field, having a fulfilling relationship and how society discriminated LGBTQ domestic partnerships which became fuel for the Marriage Equality movement.
The actors and director (Peter Sollett) keep the pace fluid and easy to follow without losing any of the important details of their lives or bogging it down with the legalities of the fight. The screenplay could easily have turned this into an exploitation just for the tear-jerking factor, but instead keep it realistic, even adding a bit of humor alleviate the dreariness the story, just like most people will do when facing the death of a loved one. I found Freeheld to be somewhat upbeat, even in the darkest scenes dealing with the misuse of the laws due to bigotry and how close to reality Moore simulates a person dying of cancer, instead turning it into another gloom and doom cancer or civil rights movie. Having been through it myself, I could fully connect with Page’s depiction how it feels to watch loved one dying of cancer and I know so many others will also.
I honestly loved Freeheld, I would suggest to anyone who prefers a matter of fact movie mixed with humor, compassion, and heartbreak that ends with you feeling like you were fully immersed in their life and closure with the finale.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/09/freeheld/
After more than 20 years of being on the force and highly decorated, Lauren Hester is seeking to give her pension to her domestic partner just like any straight married county employee has been able to do. The Freeholders, are a committee who governs the county, decided that Hester’s pension would not be given to Andree because they are lesbians and the fight begins. They are contacted by a gay rights activist, Steve Goldstein (Steve Carell), who with the help of Hester’s detective partner Dane Wells (Michael Shannon), try to get the Freeholders to change their opinion. Only with help from the community and police force, who are rallied by Goldstein and Wells,will anything be changed.
Right from the start the movie grabs hold of the viewer, and keeps them engrossed in their struggle to the end. Being so close to being a biography I was surprised at how well it was done and my interest was kept throughout. It is not just an account of a gay couple, more a depiction of a battle for everyone’s civil rights. Freeheld skillfully depicts the struggles of gay professionals to keep their identity a secret from society while still being successful in their field, having a fulfilling relationship and how society discriminated LGBTQ domestic partnerships which became fuel for the Marriage Equality movement.
The actors and director (Peter Sollett) keep the pace fluid and easy to follow without losing any of the important details of their lives or bogging it down with the legalities of the fight. The screenplay could easily have turned this into an exploitation just for the tear-jerking factor, but instead keep it realistic, even adding a bit of humor alleviate the dreariness the story, just like most people will do when facing the death of a loved one. I found Freeheld to be somewhat upbeat, even in the darkest scenes dealing with the misuse of the laws due to bigotry and how close to reality Moore simulates a person dying of cancer, instead turning it into another gloom and doom cancer or civil rights movie. Having been through it myself, I could fully connect with Page’s depiction how it feels to watch loved one dying of cancer and I know so many others will also.
I honestly loved Freeheld, I would suggest to anyone who prefers a matter of fact movie mixed with humor, compassion, and heartbreak that ends with you feeling like you were fully immersed in their life and closure with the finale.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/09/freeheld/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Lost City of Z (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) stars as the British Explorer Colonel Percival Fawcett, who disappeared on an expedition in search of an ancient city and civilization in the Amazon. The film centers on the true-life adventure of Col Fawcett and his journey to find evidence of a lost people while engaging audiences in the ego and superiority complex that much of western civilization finds itself.
We are introduced to Fawcett as he is an Army Major who seeks to have some sense of distinction and recognition. Seeking notoriety and a sense of honor, Fawcett accepts the task of mapping out disputed territory between Peru and Brazil at the opening of the 20th century in order to prevent war between the two nations.
In his exploits, he is confronted with the exploitation of the indigenous population, extraction of resources, and an untamed land. Upon subsequent journeys and serving in World War I, he is consumed with the need to find a sense of honor in his duty to his nation. Over the course of the film, we begin to see how invested he is in this struggle to learn more about the people and places that he is exploring, however, there isn’t a true connection made between Hunnam’s portrayal and the audience. At times, I found myself not caring about Fawcett’s contributions or career. I could not get invested in his story or his struggle to find a lost city that he believed existed in the wild. By the end of the film, I wasn’t invested in who Fawcett was, what he set out to accomplish, or even his legacy.
One thing that I did find remarkable was that the film helps to expose much of the anxiety and danger that existed during this period and previous expeditions into the region. Additionally, it gave me an appreciation for the endless heights of the human ego, ambition, and drive. The film allows for a critique to emerge about western interference and exploration of the region and the ethnocentrism held by western nations. Lost City of Z is an expansive visual spectacle. The jungle becomes a living, breathing, creature that audiences will connect with, become fearful of, and appreciate. It is the character that carries the film.
The actors and actresses are the background. This aspect allows for the audience to become absorbed by the surroundings and the environment that the characters find themselves in.
The film is beautifully shot and captivating. The sequences are engaging and give the sense of being transported to a foreign, mysterious land that holds secrets that many of us could never comprehend or witness with our own eyes.
We are introduced to Fawcett as he is an Army Major who seeks to have some sense of distinction and recognition. Seeking notoriety and a sense of honor, Fawcett accepts the task of mapping out disputed territory between Peru and Brazil at the opening of the 20th century in order to prevent war between the two nations.
In his exploits, he is confronted with the exploitation of the indigenous population, extraction of resources, and an untamed land. Upon subsequent journeys and serving in World War I, he is consumed with the need to find a sense of honor in his duty to his nation. Over the course of the film, we begin to see how invested he is in this struggle to learn more about the people and places that he is exploring, however, there isn’t a true connection made between Hunnam’s portrayal and the audience. At times, I found myself not caring about Fawcett’s contributions or career. I could not get invested in his story or his struggle to find a lost city that he believed existed in the wild. By the end of the film, I wasn’t invested in who Fawcett was, what he set out to accomplish, or even his legacy.
One thing that I did find remarkable was that the film helps to expose much of the anxiety and danger that existed during this period and previous expeditions into the region. Additionally, it gave me an appreciation for the endless heights of the human ego, ambition, and drive. The film allows for a critique to emerge about western interference and exploration of the region and the ethnocentrism held by western nations. Lost City of Z is an expansive visual spectacle. The jungle becomes a living, breathing, creature that audiences will connect with, become fearful of, and appreciate. It is the character that carries the film.
The actors and actresses are the background. This aspect allows for the audience to become absorbed by the surroundings and the environment that the characters find themselves in.
The film is beautifully shot and captivating. The sequences are engaging and give the sense of being transported to a foreign, mysterious land that holds secrets that many of us could never comprehend or witness with our own eyes.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Last House on the Left (1972) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
To Avoid Fainting Keep Repeating...Its Only A Movie
The Last House on the Left- was wes's directoral debut and what a start. Its a disturbing, psychological, graphic, exploitation horror film.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
Darren Fisher (2436 KP) rated 13 Dolls In Darkness (2017) in Movies
Jul 24, 2022
I have been an obsessive fan of horror films since I was a kid in the 70's. Brought up on Hammer and Universal monster films it wasn't long before I delved into pre-cert exploitation films and that is where my preference has been ever since.
Over the last 20 years I have felt that the horror genre hasn't really offered it's fans anything new (bar a few exceptions). Having been left despondent, disappointed and bored senseless by the over-saturation of remakes, reboots and just plain dull horror fare, it comes with great surprise that a black and white silent film from Australia would be the breath of fresh air that the horror genre desperately needs.
The plot of 13 Dolls is pretty straightforward. Marjorie receives a letter from her ailing mother to return home after a 13 year absence. On her return home Marjorie realises that things are not what they seem...
Written and directed by the talented Zeda Müller, this is a film that demands your attention from the start. With its eerie score and moody camerawork it sets a very atmospheric and claustrophobic feel to proceedings. It's a great take on the 'old dark house' horrors of a bygone era, Robert Wiene and Tod Brownings early work springs to mind... yet draws on influences from the likes of Dario Argento, Mario Bava's gothic horrors, giallo and slasher films (there are some nicely placed references for the sharp-eyed viewer). The fact that this is a silent film (I'll get to the score in a bit) actually works in its favour. Gone are the usual mundane dialogue pieces that fill out most horror films these days and the viewer is reintroduced to dialogue cards when required to move the story along. This also means that the actors are given room to act through expression and emotion and they all do a sterling job.
The masterstroke of 13 Dolls though is the excellent use of camerawork and soundtrack. The soundtrack is interspliced with sound effects (church bells, howling wind, dripping taps etc) and moody piano/tension building synths, all used to full sensory effect. The footage and score intertwine brilliantly together and I found some scenes genuinely eerie and creepy (a rare feeling for me whilst watching a new film these days).
Overall 13 Dolls is a mesmerising experience, interspersed with some cleverly executed gore scenes, and at a scant 75 minutes long, it motors along at a cracking pace.
So, you have probably guessed that I liked this film a lot. I highly recommend checking it out, especially if you are looking for something different. It's a great film and I for one am looking forward to Zeda Müller & Co's next venture...!
Over the last 20 years I have felt that the horror genre hasn't really offered it's fans anything new (bar a few exceptions). Having been left despondent, disappointed and bored senseless by the over-saturation of remakes, reboots and just plain dull horror fare, it comes with great surprise that a black and white silent film from Australia would be the breath of fresh air that the horror genre desperately needs.
The plot of 13 Dolls is pretty straightforward. Marjorie receives a letter from her ailing mother to return home after a 13 year absence. On her return home Marjorie realises that things are not what they seem...
Written and directed by the talented Zeda Müller, this is a film that demands your attention from the start. With its eerie score and moody camerawork it sets a very atmospheric and claustrophobic feel to proceedings. It's a great take on the 'old dark house' horrors of a bygone era, Robert Wiene and Tod Brownings early work springs to mind... yet draws on influences from the likes of Dario Argento, Mario Bava's gothic horrors, giallo and slasher films (there are some nicely placed references for the sharp-eyed viewer). The fact that this is a silent film (I'll get to the score in a bit) actually works in its favour. Gone are the usual mundane dialogue pieces that fill out most horror films these days and the viewer is reintroduced to dialogue cards when required to move the story along. This also means that the actors are given room to act through expression and emotion and they all do a sterling job.
The masterstroke of 13 Dolls though is the excellent use of camerawork and soundtrack. The soundtrack is interspliced with sound effects (church bells, howling wind, dripping taps etc) and moody piano/tension building synths, all used to full sensory effect. The footage and score intertwine brilliantly together and I found some scenes genuinely eerie and creepy (a rare feeling for me whilst watching a new film these days).
Overall 13 Dolls is a mesmerising experience, interspersed with some cleverly executed gore scenes, and at a scant 75 minutes long, it motors along at a cracking pace.
So, you have probably guessed that I liked this film a lot. I highly recommend checking it out, especially if you are looking for something different. It's a great film and I for one am looking forward to Zeda Müller & Co's next venture...!
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Kindergarten Teacher (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
It’s always nice to see teachers encouraging and motivating their students, but in Sara Colangelo’s The Kindergarten Teacher, this is taken to a terrifying new level. Based on an Israeli film of the same name, it explores the line between encouragement and obsession. What happens when a bored kindergarten teacher meets a child prodigy? That’s what this film attempts to answer.
When teacher Lisa Spinelli (Maggie Gyllenhaal) meets pre-schooler Jimmy (Parker Sevak), her life is flipped upside down. Lisa attends poetry night classes, but her work is frequently criticised by teacher Simon (Gael García Bernal). Her family life is unsatisfactory, with her two children underachieving in her eyes. Because of her dissatisfaction with her life, she finds herself latching onto Jimmy and attempting to live vicariously through him. The film takes the two of them on a journey, where Lisa does everything she can to nurture Jimmy’s talent.
The pair’s first encounter happens when Jimmy reads out a poem, which Lisa believes to be way beyond his age group. Throughout the film, she encourages him to write more and more, and the scenes where Jimmy reads his work aloud are captivating. This is Parker Sevak’s acting debut, and he is a seriously impressive child actor. Because the level of poetry in the film is so advanced, he speaks incredibly clearly which stuns both Lisa and the audience. He was the stand-out performance for me, and at the age of 5, manages to steal the show. I am keen to see more films starring him in the future.
That doesn’t mean Gyllenhaal’s performance was bad. In fact, this is probably my favourite of hers in such a long time. Her tenacity and passion are admirable at first and then turns into obsession very quickly. The dark turn her character takes genuinely shocked me, even though it’s inevitable she’s going to do whatever it takes to get her own way. Despite this, I felt sorry for her throughout, which is a testament to the strength of Gyllenhaal’s acting. Lisa does questionable things, she lashes out, yet I was still hoping for a better outcome. I was hoping she’d see sense one way or another. She’s a problematic character for sure, but she doesn’t have to be this way. I felt like she had the power to stop what she was doing.
The film’s pacing worked very well for me, slowly building until the final act. I loved the way it ended, as it left me with a sinking feeling. The last line by Jimmy broke my heart, and if you’ve seen it for yourself, I’m sure you’ll understand why. The screenplay is brilliantly written and tells an incredibly controversial story of what is essentially child exploitation. Jimmy’s young and impressionable mind is taken advantage of based on his talents, resulting in a series of increasingly concerning events. Just when you think Lisa can’t cross any more lines, she does, and it’s enough to shock anyone.
I was completely glued to the screen for the entire third act. If you’re looking for a fresh, thought-provoking drama then I would certainly recommend this. Maggie Gyllenhaal is at the top of her game in The Kindergarten Teacher, delivering a performance that leaves audiences feeling conflicted. This is certainly a heavy film, but I’d also consider it a must-watch and a cautionary tale for the modern age.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-kindergarten-teacher-2019/
When teacher Lisa Spinelli (Maggie Gyllenhaal) meets pre-schooler Jimmy (Parker Sevak), her life is flipped upside down. Lisa attends poetry night classes, but her work is frequently criticised by teacher Simon (Gael García Bernal). Her family life is unsatisfactory, with her two children underachieving in her eyes. Because of her dissatisfaction with her life, she finds herself latching onto Jimmy and attempting to live vicariously through him. The film takes the two of them on a journey, where Lisa does everything she can to nurture Jimmy’s talent.
The pair’s first encounter happens when Jimmy reads out a poem, which Lisa believes to be way beyond his age group. Throughout the film, she encourages him to write more and more, and the scenes where Jimmy reads his work aloud are captivating. This is Parker Sevak’s acting debut, and he is a seriously impressive child actor. Because the level of poetry in the film is so advanced, he speaks incredibly clearly which stuns both Lisa and the audience. He was the stand-out performance for me, and at the age of 5, manages to steal the show. I am keen to see more films starring him in the future.
That doesn’t mean Gyllenhaal’s performance was bad. In fact, this is probably my favourite of hers in such a long time. Her tenacity and passion are admirable at first and then turns into obsession very quickly. The dark turn her character takes genuinely shocked me, even though it’s inevitable she’s going to do whatever it takes to get her own way. Despite this, I felt sorry for her throughout, which is a testament to the strength of Gyllenhaal’s acting. Lisa does questionable things, she lashes out, yet I was still hoping for a better outcome. I was hoping she’d see sense one way or another. She’s a problematic character for sure, but she doesn’t have to be this way. I felt like she had the power to stop what she was doing.
The film’s pacing worked very well for me, slowly building until the final act. I loved the way it ended, as it left me with a sinking feeling. The last line by Jimmy broke my heart, and if you’ve seen it for yourself, I’m sure you’ll understand why. The screenplay is brilliantly written and tells an incredibly controversial story of what is essentially child exploitation. Jimmy’s young and impressionable mind is taken advantage of based on his talents, resulting in a series of increasingly concerning events. Just when you think Lisa can’t cross any more lines, she does, and it’s enough to shock anyone.
I was completely glued to the screen for the entire third act. If you’re looking for a fresh, thought-provoking drama then I would certainly recommend this. Maggie Gyllenhaal is at the top of her game in The Kindergarten Teacher, delivering a performance that leaves audiences feeling conflicted. This is certainly a heavy film, but I’d also consider it a must-watch and a cautionary tale for the modern age.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-kindergarten-teacher-2019/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Overpopulation is a growing problem in the world and two Doctors, Dr. Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) and Dr. Andreas Jacobsen (Soren Pilmark) have found what they believe is the answer. The have discovered how to shrink all kinds of living matter, including humans. Asbjornsen and a group of volunteers are shrunk and live for years before showing the world. They believe that they can help solve the worlds hunger crisis as well as overpopulation. When occupational therapist Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) first hears of this he is fascinated with the idea of doing something grand to help save the world. But it isn’t until years later when he and his wife, Audrey Safranek (Kristen Wiig), run into an old college friend, Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), who has been shrunk that he realizes he might be able to have a better life at four inches tall. Because of how cheap everything is to build for new tiny people there is an opportunity to live lavishly on meager means. The Safrankek’s have been struggling to get by and really be able enjoy life. When they hear that their hundreds of thousands could be millions they see this as their chance to live the luxury life. The head out to Leisureland Estates, a tiny community, to see what the small world has to offer. After the visit they are convinced and decide to go through with the procedure and begin the irreversible process of becoming “small.” On the operation date they go to separate areas to get completely shaved and prepped. When Paul wakes up he is surprised that Audrey is not with him and she has decided she cannot go through the irreversible process. After his divorce he is left alone trying to find himself and where he fits in a whole new world, at a whole new size.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Look on the bright side, we all said, without really believing it, when lockdown hit in March – time to watch those box sets we’ve been putting off. Well that was, of course, a great idea! For me that box set was possibly the biggest of all: the behemoth that is GOT.
Much like when a new band gets big quickly and you refuse to listen to the hype, I avoided watching the biggest show in the world, even when it was on in the same room as I tried to read a book in the other corner. It wasn’t that I thought I wouldn’t like it, but more that I didn’t believe it could be anywhere near as good as folk were making it out to be, especially as season one looked like only a slight step up on the swords and sandles exploitation-fests that had been going around. I labelled it “Tits and Dragons” and got on with my life for the next 8 years.
March 2020 will go down in history as the biggest spike in streaming TV services the globe will ever see. Literally millions of previously casual watchers, who had been busy having lives and jobs, turned to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV and iPlayer etc, in search of endless hours of easy entertainment they could immerse their bored and twitchy minds inside of. Without internet at home, I had to go a bit more old school and rely on my daughter posting me the DVDs of GOT season by season.
I found season one enjoyable, with caveats, as it seemed to be one massive exposition (and sexposition) workshop. Obviously the main characters were being set up for big storylines down the road. In which sense it reminded me of a soap opera; in how it flitted between characters and relationships, never dwelling on one plot point for more than two minutes. I liked the way the production had set itself up though – the sets and costumes were of a much higher level than was usual for this kind of thing. Then there was those great opening credits, which become impossible not to hum along to as you get more into it.
Sadly, the first big shock moment didn’t shock me, as I’d heard so much about it on social media 9 years ago. But it was still very well done. Bold and brave; to take out a big name that early was a master stroke. By the end of S1E9 I was properly hooked. Although it helped I didn’t have anything else to do!
The next two weeks I had to wait for season two to be posted out, so I embarked on watching all the DVD commentaries too to kill some time in the evenings whilst I waited. This is almost certainly something I wouldn’t have done under normal circumstances and I believe it is what cemented my enjoyment of it as a whole. Listening to the cast and crew reminisce about what a great time they had, and how close they all were, really helped put it into context for me. I was already loving Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey, but their humour and irreverence in the commentaries made it feel like there were pals in the room watching it with me.
By season two and beyond, I was looking at maps, memorizing every minor character’s name, house and motto, and just immersing in it to the point of obsession. As, I guess, millions of people had already done over the years, but now I got what the fuss was all about. It is an addictive show; you have to know what happens next, you simply can’t leave it alone! Whether it is hissing and booing at Joffrey, or loving to hate Cersei, or siding with the bastards and broken things, there is always something engaging going on – and when a character you disliked dies horribly it is so satisfying!
It is a weird mix, however, of moments so horribly signposted, with some dubious acting, and moments of real surprise and emotion delivered with great acting. Many of the characters really grow into their skins as the actors get more familiar and comfortable being them. The writers too get better at putting the right words in their mouths, and learn to minimise the exposition moments. The young ones in particular really grow impressively as it goes on into seasons 3 and 4. Maisie Williams as the slightly sadistic loner Arya Stark especially. I loved how none stereotypical that character was, and have to say her relationship with The Hound was my favourite thing in the whole show.
At the climax of season four, which I believe was the peak of it artistically, the story arc of Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister, aka The Imp, becomes so compellingly good you can’t take your eyes off him. I had already come to the conclusion that his scenes were the best ones, but this went to 11 on the dial. And it gets better thinking back on it too. Which can’t truly be said of where they go with John Snow and Daenarys, who are ostensibly the main draw by this point, as all storylines seem to mirror their journeys on opposite sides of the world; a song of ice and fire, indeed.
Seasons 5 and 6 continued to be great, even though the dramatic peaks were hard to top. What did improve was the big set pieces, as episodes such as Hardhome and Battle of the Bastards upper the bar on huge battles, staged masterfully. There were things happening that I had never seen in a TV show before, both creatively and budget spent. Watching some of the making of documentaries was fascinating in this regard. The props department alone was astonishingly detailed, to Lord of the Rings degrees, properly impressive!
To go into story and scene details here is pointless, and I don’t want to include any more spoilers than I already have, just in case there is anyone else like me, that hasn’t done the whole journey yet. Obviously, there was some controversy in where seasons 7 and especially 8 went with some storylines and characters. I thought it was mostly fine, to be honest, I just went with it. But it did become a little stretched and hurried, as it raced towards its conclusion. It’s hard for me to get a proper impression of how tense and then annoying it would be to wait a long time for a new season and then have it not go where you imagined it would. Not a problem for me, as I blitzed the final 4 seasons in about a week.
As the episode ratings of season 8 on IMDb indicate, folk were not happy. There was an element of anti-climax, to be fair, but what else could it have been, now so many people claim it as their own? The end isn’t perfect, and that may have a lot to do with the fact they stopped following the books, because they hadn’t been written. In all honestly, I didn’t care. It was spectacular and diverting enough to keep my attention, and my investment in the characters not brutally killed off was not teenage enough to take it personally. I do have sympathy for fans that felt their loyalty betrayed, but come on… it’s just a TV show.
Watching the same fictional world for more than 70 actual hours can do things to you brain. In conclusion I would say I loved going there! The good things always outweighed the annoying things, and it is an experience I would recommend to anyone who hasn’t done it. Whatever age you are, it is a must see phenomenon, like The Sopranos – oh wait, I haven’t seen that yet either…
Much like when a new band gets big quickly and you refuse to listen to the hype, I avoided watching the biggest show in the world, even when it was on in the same room as I tried to read a book in the other corner. It wasn’t that I thought I wouldn’t like it, but more that I didn’t believe it could be anywhere near as good as folk were making it out to be, especially as season one looked like only a slight step up on the swords and sandles exploitation-fests that had been going around. I labelled it “Tits and Dragons” and got on with my life for the next 8 years.
March 2020 will go down in history as the biggest spike in streaming TV services the globe will ever see. Literally millions of previously casual watchers, who had been busy having lives and jobs, turned to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV and iPlayer etc, in search of endless hours of easy entertainment they could immerse their bored and twitchy minds inside of. Without internet at home, I had to go a bit more old school and rely on my daughter posting me the DVDs of GOT season by season.
I found season one enjoyable, with caveats, as it seemed to be one massive exposition (and sexposition) workshop. Obviously the main characters were being set up for big storylines down the road. In which sense it reminded me of a soap opera; in how it flitted between characters and relationships, never dwelling on one plot point for more than two minutes. I liked the way the production had set itself up though – the sets and costumes were of a much higher level than was usual for this kind of thing. Then there was those great opening credits, which become impossible not to hum along to as you get more into it.
Sadly, the first big shock moment didn’t shock me, as I’d heard so much about it on social media 9 years ago. But it was still very well done. Bold and brave; to take out a big name that early was a master stroke. By the end of S1E9 I was properly hooked. Although it helped I didn’t have anything else to do!
The next two weeks I had to wait for season two to be posted out, so I embarked on watching all the DVD commentaries too to kill some time in the evenings whilst I waited. This is almost certainly something I wouldn’t have done under normal circumstances and I believe it is what cemented my enjoyment of it as a whole. Listening to the cast and crew reminisce about what a great time they had, and how close they all were, really helped put it into context for me. I was already loving Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey, but their humour and irreverence in the commentaries made it feel like there were pals in the room watching it with me.
By season two and beyond, I was looking at maps, memorizing every minor character’s name, house and motto, and just immersing in it to the point of obsession. As, I guess, millions of people had already done over the years, but now I got what the fuss was all about. It is an addictive show; you have to know what happens next, you simply can’t leave it alone! Whether it is hissing and booing at Joffrey, or loving to hate Cersei, or siding with the bastards and broken things, there is always something engaging going on – and when a character you disliked dies horribly it is so satisfying!
It is a weird mix, however, of moments so horribly signposted, with some dubious acting, and moments of real surprise and emotion delivered with great acting. Many of the characters really grow into their skins as the actors get more familiar and comfortable being them. The writers too get better at putting the right words in their mouths, and learn to minimise the exposition moments. The young ones in particular really grow impressively as it goes on into seasons 3 and 4. Maisie Williams as the slightly sadistic loner Arya Stark especially. I loved how none stereotypical that character was, and have to say her relationship with The Hound was my favourite thing in the whole show.
At the climax of season four, which I believe was the peak of it artistically, the story arc of Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister, aka The Imp, becomes so compellingly good you can’t take your eyes off him. I had already come to the conclusion that his scenes were the best ones, but this went to 11 on the dial. And it gets better thinking back on it too. Which can’t truly be said of where they go with John Snow and Daenarys, who are ostensibly the main draw by this point, as all storylines seem to mirror their journeys on opposite sides of the world; a song of ice and fire, indeed.
Seasons 5 and 6 continued to be great, even though the dramatic peaks were hard to top. What did improve was the big set pieces, as episodes such as Hardhome and Battle of the Bastards upper the bar on huge battles, staged masterfully. There were things happening that I had never seen in a TV show before, both creatively and budget spent. Watching some of the making of documentaries was fascinating in this regard. The props department alone was astonishingly detailed, to Lord of the Rings degrees, properly impressive!
To go into story and scene details here is pointless, and I don’t want to include any more spoilers than I already have, just in case there is anyone else like me, that hasn’t done the whole journey yet. Obviously, there was some controversy in where seasons 7 and especially 8 went with some storylines and characters. I thought it was mostly fine, to be honest, I just went with it. But it did become a little stretched and hurried, as it raced towards its conclusion. It’s hard for me to get a proper impression of how tense and then annoying it would be to wait a long time for a new season and then have it not go where you imagined it would. Not a problem for me, as I blitzed the final 4 seasons in about a week.
As the episode ratings of season 8 on IMDb indicate, folk were not happy. There was an element of anti-climax, to be fair, but what else could it have been, now so many people claim it as their own? The end isn’t perfect, and that may have a lot to do with the fact they stopped following the books, because they hadn’t been written. In all honestly, I didn’t care. It was spectacular and diverting enough to keep my attention, and my investment in the characters not brutally killed off was not teenage enough to take it personally. I do have sympathy for fans that felt their loyalty betrayed, but come on… it’s just a TV show.
Watching the same fictional world for more than 70 actual hours can do things to you brain. In conclusion I would say I loved going there! The good things always outweighed the annoying things, and it is an experience I would recommend to anyone who hasn’t done it. Whatever age you are, it is a must see phenomenon, like The Sopranos – oh wait, I haven’t seen that yet either…