Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Once and Future Witches in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Thank you to Netgalley for luring me in with this recommendation and the gorgeous cover art. Thank you to Alix E Harrow for providing such an amazing story for this ARC review. All the opinions expressed below are my own.
"Witches and women's rights. Suffrage and spells. They're both...a kind of power...the kind we're not allowed to have."
I'm not often drawn to books involving witches to be honest. I love an annual viewing of Hocus Pocus (who doesn't?!) but that is usually where the affinity ends.
If anything can change my nonchalance, I suspect it may be Alix E. Harrow. This is the first piece of work I have read by the Hugo award winning writer and I don’t need any tarot cards to predict it will not be the last. From the outset of The Once and Future Witches I was hooked: the worldbuilding alone is amazing; you can immediately picture the mills, avenues, squares and slums of New Salem as well as the mysterious tower that pulls our three main characters together.
The three Eastwood sisters themselves are another work of art. Juniper, Agnes and Bella are fierce, formidable women in wildly different ways. They are also flawed, stubborn and quite frankly, inspirational: by linking women’s rights and witchcraft this fantasy novel suddenly becomes more real and relatable to the modern female reader, despite being set in 1893. We empathise, sympathise and rage right alongside the Eastwood sisters on their quest for equality in a male-controlled world.
However, not even witches can act alone and the Eastwood sisters have an amazing cast of supporting characters surrounding them. Impressively, not a single one of these characters can be accused of being two-dimensional: the character development that Harrow has invested into this novel is incredible and must have taken so much work! From the Suffragette’s secretary to the skin-crawling villain to the women and men fighting (and witching) side by side; every single character is substantial and memorable. The sarcasm within Juniper for example is hilarious and even the traditional figures of the Maiden, the Mother and the Crone refuse to conform to stereotypes: I LOVED it!
The format of this novel is very clever and practically forbids you from becoming too comfortable by peppering the main story with “witch-tales”. These complement rather than distract from the storyline and also provide small changes that make you smile – such as the tales of the Sisters Grimm.
Do not be fooled though: the use of witch-tales does not prevent The Once and Future Witches from being an incredibly modern piece of writing. Topics covered include sexuality, gender identity, feminism, race as well as smashing the patriarchy: all interspersed with magic, betrayal and a hell of a lot of emotion.
I would however argue that some topics are slightly too mature for the novel to be considered YA, the description of torture and suggestions of sexual abuse probably push this book firmly into general/adult fantasy fiction novels.
The Once and Future Witches is a future bestseller in my opinion. This unique, powerful novel provides characters that you can’t help but empathise with; slow-burning, intense relationships; the trials and tribulations that come with sisterhood and plot twists at every turn.
This book will swallow you heart and soul, make you laugh, make you cry and leave you bereft at the end.
It is a must read!
"Witches and women's rights. Suffrage and spells. They're both...a kind of power...the kind we're not allowed to have."
I'm not often drawn to books involving witches to be honest. I love an annual viewing of Hocus Pocus (who doesn't?!) but that is usually where the affinity ends.
If anything can change my nonchalance, I suspect it may be Alix E. Harrow. This is the first piece of work I have read by the Hugo award winning writer and I don’t need any tarot cards to predict it will not be the last. From the outset of The Once and Future Witches I was hooked: the worldbuilding alone is amazing; you can immediately picture the mills, avenues, squares and slums of New Salem as well as the mysterious tower that pulls our three main characters together.
The three Eastwood sisters themselves are another work of art. Juniper, Agnes and Bella are fierce, formidable women in wildly different ways. They are also flawed, stubborn and quite frankly, inspirational: by linking women’s rights and witchcraft this fantasy novel suddenly becomes more real and relatable to the modern female reader, despite being set in 1893. We empathise, sympathise and rage right alongside the Eastwood sisters on their quest for equality in a male-controlled world.
However, not even witches can act alone and the Eastwood sisters have an amazing cast of supporting characters surrounding them. Impressively, not a single one of these characters can be accused of being two-dimensional: the character development that Harrow has invested into this novel is incredible and must have taken so much work! From the Suffragette’s secretary to the skin-crawling villain to the women and men fighting (and witching) side by side; every single character is substantial and memorable. The sarcasm within Juniper for example is hilarious and even the traditional figures of the Maiden, the Mother and the Crone refuse to conform to stereotypes: I LOVED it!
The format of this novel is very clever and practically forbids you from becoming too comfortable by peppering the main story with “witch-tales”. These complement rather than distract from the storyline and also provide small changes that make you smile – such as the tales of the Sisters Grimm.
Do not be fooled though: the use of witch-tales does not prevent The Once and Future Witches from being an incredibly modern piece of writing. Topics covered include sexuality, gender identity, feminism, race as well as smashing the patriarchy: all interspersed with magic, betrayal and a hell of a lot of emotion.
I would however argue that some topics are slightly too mature for the novel to be considered YA, the description of torture and suggestions of sexual abuse probably push this book firmly into general/adult fantasy fiction novels.
The Once and Future Witches is a future bestseller in my opinion. This unique, powerful novel provides characters that you can’t help but empathise with; slow-burning, intense relationships; the trials and tribulations that come with sisterhood and plot twists at every turn.
This book will swallow you heart and soul, make you laugh, make you cry and leave you bereft at the end.
It is a must read!
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Ms. Marvel: Volume 3: Crushed in Books
Nov 30, 2020
This review is really for the first three volumes, including this one.
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bad Wigs aside it's really rather good
You could be forgiven for being rather sceptical walking into the cinema to see Aquaman, and it’s easy to see why. An uninspiring set of trailers preceded by the DCEU’s shall we say reluctance to resonate with audiences.
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Anchorman - The Legend Of Ron Burgundy (2004) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
How in the world do you review a film like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy? The film is meant to be as ridiculous as possible with outrageous performances and a paper thin storyline; half of its charm is its overuse of improvisation. You either found its absurd nature hilarious and consider it one of the funniest films ever (and completely ignore the horrid sequel) or hate it for being a nonsensical comedy filled with a cast of immature people who can’t hold a straight face for a single take. It’s honestly difficult to argue either perspective, but the 20-year-old version of this critic who saw this film and adored it would drop dead if he found out that it doesn’t hold up as well nearly 15 years later.
It’s 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and it’s something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that you’ll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, “You will eat that cat poop!” With a comedy this spontaneous, it’s difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isn’t trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrell’s on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrell’s films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrell’s career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isn’t going to be for everyone and it’s totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why it’s as funny as it is. There isn’t a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because you’re loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; it’s a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. It’s like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You don’t watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. It’s also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
It’s 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and it’s something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that you’ll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, “You will eat that cat poop!” With a comedy this spontaneous, it’s difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isn’t trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrell’s on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrell’s films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrell’s career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isn’t going to be for everyone and it’s totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why it’s as funny as it is. There isn’t a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because you’re loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; it’s a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. It’s like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You don’t watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. It’s also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
With all the recent big action blockbuster movie releases recently, there is a genre that has been overlooked for some time, a good detective story. Most movies that take place in the 50’s tend to focus more on mob related backdrops and ruthless hits to draw in audiences. Motherless Brooklyn written, directed and starring Edward Norton looks to tell a story that harkens back to the day where gumshoes spoke to key individuals and followed the clues to get to the bottom of the case. This is long before forensics was a thing, and there were no fancy computer databases or DNA matching to utilize to narrow down the suspect pool. This was when it took the skills and abilities of the individual themselves to follow the clues and piece them together like a puzzle to solve each and every case.
Lionel Essrog (Edward Norton) is a private detective who works at a small P.I. firm trying to eek out a living in the streets of New York back in the late 50’s. Lionel along with his fellow gumshoes grew up in a Catholic orphanage that cemented the bond between them all as both friends and family. Lionel suffers from Tourette’s syndrome causing him to tick and burst out in unusual statements which only gets worse as he gets nervous or excited, however he also possesses a photographic memory, able to recall specific conversations and repeat them verbatim when asked.
On what begins as a seemingly routine job, things quickly turn deadly when Frank Minna (Bruce Willis) the lead private investigator (and owner) of the firm is gunned down in an alley. With very little information to go on and forced to confront each suspect while attempting to maintain his composure, Lionel must use his smarts and the help of his friends to piece together what Frank was involved in and unravel the mystery before anyone else gets hurt. His investigation will take him throughout the streets of New York at a time where racial tensions were bubbling over, and the lure of power and money was more than folks could ignore.
Edward Norton does an outstanding job with his portrayal of an average Joe who must overcome a debilitating mental condition to find those who killed his friend. He does such a believable job with his portrayal of Tourette’s that at times it’s hard to believe that he doesn’t suffer from it in his real life. Much the same way Jack Nicholson brought Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder into the public conscious in As Good as it Gets, Norton portrays his Tourette’s in a somewhat comical, but still respectable manner. In a way, his condition disappears into the background allowing his skills and smarts to come across first.
Norton is joined by a star-studded cast featuring Bruce Willis as his best friend Frank Minna, a seemingly well-intentioned man who has stood up and protected Lionel since child-hood. Alec Baldwin portrays a powerful and ruthless city official, looking to extend his power in the city while making a small fortune in the process. Willem DaFoe, fresh off of another Oscar worthy performance in The Lighthouse, once again brings his acting pedigree to the mix and last, but certainly not least Gugu Mbatha-Raw brings a smart and extremely strong female character with what should be an Oscar winning performance.
Motherless Brooklyn is a long movie (chalking in a bit over two and a half hours) and does take some time to gather its footing. This is a detective movie after all, and much of the action takes place speaking with suspects and researching in the library. It certainly brings an authentic feel to detective work in the 50’s and is a surprisingly refreshing detour from the onslaught of action and superhero movies which have dominated the screens in 2019. New York in the 50’s comes to life with the incredible costumes, vehicles and just overall feel of what the city must have been like back in the day. It’s a testament to how much wardrobe and attention to detail can take the viewers back in time. For those who lack the sort of patience that this movie will certainly require, it may seem a bit overwhelming to consider, however once the viewers settle in, they are in for a treat as they join Lionel in piecing the puzzle together, to sort out what led to the death of his friend.
Motherless Brooklyn was exactly the type of movie I was hoping for, a gritty detective movie that isn’t overly concerned with outrageous plots or frantic gun play. It’s a movie about gathering the clues, investigating the leads, and seeing where it takes you. The star-studded cast is outstanding, and I certainly cannot over emphasize the pivotal role that Norton brings to the screen. If old crime novels and private investigator stories are your cup of tea, you’ll find that Motherless Brooklyn checks off all the boxes. In a sea of superhero movies and high action thrillers, it’s refreshing to come across a film that brings some realism back to the cinema.
Lionel Essrog (Edward Norton) is a private detective who works at a small P.I. firm trying to eek out a living in the streets of New York back in the late 50’s. Lionel along with his fellow gumshoes grew up in a Catholic orphanage that cemented the bond between them all as both friends and family. Lionel suffers from Tourette’s syndrome causing him to tick and burst out in unusual statements which only gets worse as he gets nervous or excited, however he also possesses a photographic memory, able to recall specific conversations and repeat them verbatim when asked.
On what begins as a seemingly routine job, things quickly turn deadly when Frank Minna (Bruce Willis) the lead private investigator (and owner) of the firm is gunned down in an alley. With very little information to go on and forced to confront each suspect while attempting to maintain his composure, Lionel must use his smarts and the help of his friends to piece together what Frank was involved in and unravel the mystery before anyone else gets hurt. His investigation will take him throughout the streets of New York at a time where racial tensions were bubbling over, and the lure of power and money was more than folks could ignore.
Edward Norton does an outstanding job with his portrayal of an average Joe who must overcome a debilitating mental condition to find those who killed his friend. He does such a believable job with his portrayal of Tourette’s that at times it’s hard to believe that he doesn’t suffer from it in his real life. Much the same way Jack Nicholson brought Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder into the public conscious in As Good as it Gets, Norton portrays his Tourette’s in a somewhat comical, but still respectable manner. In a way, his condition disappears into the background allowing his skills and smarts to come across first.
Norton is joined by a star-studded cast featuring Bruce Willis as his best friend Frank Minna, a seemingly well-intentioned man who has stood up and protected Lionel since child-hood. Alec Baldwin portrays a powerful and ruthless city official, looking to extend his power in the city while making a small fortune in the process. Willem DaFoe, fresh off of another Oscar worthy performance in The Lighthouse, once again brings his acting pedigree to the mix and last, but certainly not least Gugu Mbatha-Raw brings a smart and extremely strong female character with what should be an Oscar winning performance.
Motherless Brooklyn is a long movie (chalking in a bit over two and a half hours) and does take some time to gather its footing. This is a detective movie after all, and much of the action takes place speaking with suspects and researching in the library. It certainly brings an authentic feel to detective work in the 50’s and is a surprisingly refreshing detour from the onslaught of action and superhero movies which have dominated the screens in 2019. New York in the 50’s comes to life with the incredible costumes, vehicles and just overall feel of what the city must have been like back in the day. It’s a testament to how much wardrobe and attention to detail can take the viewers back in time. For those who lack the sort of patience that this movie will certainly require, it may seem a bit overwhelming to consider, however once the viewers settle in, they are in for a treat as they join Lionel in piecing the puzzle together, to sort out what led to the death of his friend.
Motherless Brooklyn was exactly the type of movie I was hoping for, a gritty detective movie that isn’t overly concerned with outrageous plots or frantic gun play. It’s a movie about gathering the clues, investigating the leads, and seeing where it takes you. The star-studded cast is outstanding, and I certainly cannot over emphasize the pivotal role that Norton brings to the screen. If old crime novels and private investigator stories are your cup of tea, you’ll find that Motherless Brooklyn checks off all the boxes. In a sea of superhero movies and high action thrillers, it’s refreshing to come across a film that brings some realism back to the cinema.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.