Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Moonlight (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Waxing or Waning?
Seldom do I go to see a movie where I know so little about the plot as this one. I knew it was a “coming of age” drama about a young man growing up in a black neighbourhood in Miami. Period. That ignorance was bliss (so that’s the way this review will stay: I will avoid my usual high-level summary here). For there are twists in this story that you don’t see coming, and moments of such dramatic force that they are cinematically searing.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
The New PSYCHOLOGY
10.0
Rate It
Book
From the mind of genius to the suicide bombers of today’s news, from science to sex, understanding...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Big Trail (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“The Indians are my friends…” Breck Coleman – John Wayne
Not exactly a statement that would exemplify the Career of a man rightly or wrongly associated as being the Cowboy of the Cowboy and Indian movies. But there is no doubt that John Wayne was certainly one of the biggest western stars of cinema.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Scanner Darkly (2006) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Scanner Darkly starts by introducing us to Charles Freck (Cochrane) a man being pestered by bugs while on a new drug. Calling a friend James Barris (Downey Jr) for advice they plan to meet to look at the bugs. Skip to the Police who are trying to crack down on narcotics with a new undercover suit worn b Officer Fred (Reeves) as he goes undercover to fight the war on narcotics. Substance D is the new drug on the streets that they are most trying to stop taking a hold on the users.
Officer Fred is undercover with dealer Donna (Ryder) using his alias Bob Arctor who is a suspect he is meant to be after, he also knows Charles and James along with follower stoner Ernie Luckman (Harrelson). We watch as Officer Fred starts to lose his mind as he struggles to deal with the different realities the drug world is leaving him in. Fred has to work out who to trust and why the police are after him as well as why Barris is trying to sell him out.
A Scanner Darkly is one of those films that really pulls you in to start with but in the end fizzles out, it is a shame because the idea was a good concept but it doesn’t give us enough potential surprises like who Hank is, it is clear who early on. The subject looks at how the drugs can affect the people who are just undercover rather than the ones who are who are the stoners. I think more focus on who and what is really going on should have been had because the end feels empty rather than concluded. (6/10)
Actor Review
Robert Downey Jr: James Barris one of the stoners who believes he is smarter than the rest of them. He wants to out one of his group not knowing he is the guy undercover. Robert does a good job in what was one of his recovery roles. (7/10)
robert
Keanu Reeves: Bob Arctor/Officer Fred the undercover cop whose identity is a secret to the force while he gets close to the dealers. Keanu does a good job in a role you wouldn’t imagine him in. (7/10)
keanu
Winona Ryder: Donna Hawthorne main dealer and girlfriend of Bob, she keeps the guys hooked up. Winona does a good job but doesn’t get enough screen time. (6/10)
winoan
Woody Harrelson: Ernie Luckman one of the stoners who gets all philosophical whenever high. Woody makes for a solid supporting character but needed more screen time. (5/10)
Rory Cochrane: Charles Freck the man who gets most affected by the substance D who starts seeing things before anybody else and is always the fear of what the group could become. Rory does a good job and as for that opening scene that really pulls you in and you want to see more of his character. (8/10)
rory
Support Cast: A Scanner Darkly only has supporting characters working in the police be it officers or doctors checking on Fred. They all help try to show his better side rather than his drug side.
Director Review: Richard Linklater – Richard has become one of the biggest names in Hollywood this year and this showed that he is a visionary director. (8/10)
Animation: A Scanner Darkly is very original with its style of animation which makes the story be able to go in direction that wouldn’t be possible if it was just one or the other. (9/10)
Mystery: A Scanner Darkly tries to keep you guessing but sadly doesn’t keep it up enough of the way through the film. (6/10)
Thriller: A Scanner Darkly keeps you wondering but never pushes you to the edge like it could. (6/10)
Settings: A Scanner Darkly settings are created well throughout the film. (7/10)
Special Effects: A Scanner Darkly uses both brilliant special effects and animation to create a unique look for the film. (8/10)
Suggestion: A Scanner Darkly is one to try it isn’t the most perfect film but the visual could be rewarding. (Try It)
Best Part: Visuals.
Worst Part: Fizzles out near the end.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $7.6 Million
Budget: $8.5 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything Is Not Going To Be OK
Overall: Brave Idea
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/28/a-scanner-darkly-2006/
Officer Fred is undercover with dealer Donna (Ryder) using his alias Bob Arctor who is a suspect he is meant to be after, he also knows Charles and James along with follower stoner Ernie Luckman (Harrelson). We watch as Officer Fred starts to lose his mind as he struggles to deal with the different realities the drug world is leaving him in. Fred has to work out who to trust and why the police are after him as well as why Barris is trying to sell him out.
A Scanner Darkly is one of those films that really pulls you in to start with but in the end fizzles out, it is a shame because the idea was a good concept but it doesn’t give us enough potential surprises like who Hank is, it is clear who early on. The subject looks at how the drugs can affect the people who are just undercover rather than the ones who are who are the stoners. I think more focus on who and what is really going on should have been had because the end feels empty rather than concluded. (6/10)
Actor Review
Robert Downey Jr: James Barris one of the stoners who believes he is smarter than the rest of them. He wants to out one of his group not knowing he is the guy undercover. Robert does a good job in what was one of his recovery roles. (7/10)
robert
Keanu Reeves: Bob Arctor/Officer Fred the undercover cop whose identity is a secret to the force while he gets close to the dealers. Keanu does a good job in a role you wouldn’t imagine him in. (7/10)
keanu
Winona Ryder: Donna Hawthorne main dealer and girlfriend of Bob, she keeps the guys hooked up. Winona does a good job but doesn’t get enough screen time. (6/10)
winoan
Woody Harrelson: Ernie Luckman one of the stoners who gets all philosophical whenever high. Woody makes for a solid supporting character but needed more screen time. (5/10)
Rory Cochrane: Charles Freck the man who gets most affected by the substance D who starts seeing things before anybody else and is always the fear of what the group could become. Rory does a good job and as for that opening scene that really pulls you in and you want to see more of his character. (8/10)
rory
Support Cast: A Scanner Darkly only has supporting characters working in the police be it officers or doctors checking on Fred. They all help try to show his better side rather than his drug side.
Director Review: Richard Linklater – Richard has become one of the biggest names in Hollywood this year and this showed that he is a visionary director. (8/10)
Animation: A Scanner Darkly is very original with its style of animation which makes the story be able to go in direction that wouldn’t be possible if it was just one or the other. (9/10)
Mystery: A Scanner Darkly tries to keep you guessing but sadly doesn’t keep it up enough of the way through the film. (6/10)
Thriller: A Scanner Darkly keeps you wondering but never pushes you to the edge like it could. (6/10)
Settings: A Scanner Darkly settings are created well throughout the film. (7/10)
Special Effects: A Scanner Darkly uses both brilliant special effects and animation to create a unique look for the film. (8/10)
Suggestion: A Scanner Darkly is one to try it isn’t the most perfect film but the visual could be rewarding. (Try It)
Best Part: Visuals.
Worst Part: Fizzles out near the end.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $7.6 Million
Budget: $8.5 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything Is Not Going To Be OK
Overall: Brave Idea
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/28/a-scanner-darkly-2006/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Da Vinci Code (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
No film since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has invoked as much controversy as The Da Vinci Code based on the book of the same name by Dan Brown. Prior to the film even being screened for the press, cries ran out to ban the film and its message that some find blasphemous. Fortunately calmer heads have prevailed and the film by Director Ron Howard has arrived in a wash of media frenzy not seen since Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
As a child growing up in the 80’s the space race had already been around for decades. While I had heard the stories of my parents watching Neil Armstrong take his first steps on the moon, at the time I didn’t realize what it really took for those very first steps to occur. Considering we were living in a time full of space shuttles and satellites, it was easy to forget that only twenty years earlier we were still working on how to get a man into space.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. It’s grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasn’t the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Gosling’s voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. It’s grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasn’t the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Gosling’s voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated American Reunion (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It has often been said that you cannot turn back the hands of time, but thankfully Hollywood is a place where magical things happen. In the case of the gang from American Pie and the creative talents of writer directors Jon Hurwitz Hayden Schlossberg, the gang is back, better than ever, for another slice if pie. Hurwitz and Schlossberg are the creative team behind the ” Harold and Kumar” series and have been entrusted by Universal to carry on the American Pie series which had recently been relegated to four direct-to-DVD releases.
The new film reunites the entire cast from the original three films and centers around the gang’s 13 year high school reunion. Life has definitely taken them all in some unexpected directions. Jim (Jason Biggs) is married to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and are now parents to a little boy and enjoying a comfortable, if a tad uneventful, suburban lifestyle.
Oz (Chris Klein), is a successful Los Angeles sportscaster as well as a recent contestant on a popular national dance show. He spends his time mixing with celebrities and indulging a girlfriend who loves to party just a bit too much. Meanwhile, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), is happily married but needs an escape from a domestic routine that includes watching reality shows with his wife.
Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) fancies himself a nomadic spirit who wanders the globe from one esoteric adventure to another, still looking for his true love while Stiffler (Seann William Scott), works at a prestigious firm and remains the guy who never misses an opportunity to wisecrack or sexually harass any female who crosses his path.
As reunion-type movies go, there are the expected moments of awkwardness and hilarity. And of course, it wouldn’t be an American Pie movie without moments of ridiculously crude antics, mainly from Stifler. What separates the film from the bevy of raunchy comedies that flooded the market after the success of the initial film, is that there is some maturity amongst the mayhem.
In between the outrageous antics, the various characters are forced to take deep examinations of their lives since graduation and in some cases grow up for the first time in their lives. Oz must comes to grips with his feelings for his former girlfriend Heather (Mena Suvari), as does Kevin when his former flame Vicky (Tara Reid), returns to town for the reunion. Jim and Michelle have to find a way to bring some sexual spark back into their lives while Finch needs to accept the mundane reality of his. And Stifler. Well, let’s just say he needs to find his true calling.
What really sold the film for me was not just the great chemistry between the cast but the way the script deftly moved the raunchy comedy along while combining character development and depth that is not normally found in films of this type. As I watched, I found that I had really missed this crew of unlikely friends, and really enjoyed catching up with them even when they were not extricating themselves from one over-the-top situation after another.
While the film did drag a bit slightly there was always an outrageous moment right around the corner that had the theater errupting in laughter or shrieking in disbelief. This film is rated R for good reason. The cast worked really great together and it was especially nice to see Klein back in the mix, as he had been noticeably absent from the last film in no small part due to his offscreen issues.
Eugene Levy and Jennifer Coolidge (Stifler’s mom) have some absolutely hysterical moments in film especially when Mr. Levenstein, widowed now for three years, decides to cut loose at a party and we get to see has wild side. I would also encourage viewers to make sure to stay through the credits as there is more comedy from this pair that must not be missed.
The supporting characters from the previous films were all given their moments to shine even if it is just in a small cameo. Shannon Elizabeth, Natasha Lyonne, John Cho, and of course, the Sherminator were all given a chance to bring back some memories, making this film is welcome and enjoyably nostalgic trip. It proves that there’s still some life and good times left in the series, and if the creative talents can keep quality to this level I, for one, would certainly welcome another slice of pie in the future.
The new film reunites the entire cast from the original three films and centers around the gang’s 13 year high school reunion. Life has definitely taken them all in some unexpected directions. Jim (Jason Biggs) is married to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and are now parents to a little boy and enjoying a comfortable, if a tad uneventful, suburban lifestyle.
Oz (Chris Klein), is a successful Los Angeles sportscaster as well as a recent contestant on a popular national dance show. He spends his time mixing with celebrities and indulging a girlfriend who loves to party just a bit too much. Meanwhile, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), is happily married but needs an escape from a domestic routine that includes watching reality shows with his wife.
Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) fancies himself a nomadic spirit who wanders the globe from one esoteric adventure to another, still looking for his true love while Stiffler (Seann William Scott), works at a prestigious firm and remains the guy who never misses an opportunity to wisecrack or sexually harass any female who crosses his path.
As reunion-type movies go, there are the expected moments of awkwardness and hilarity. And of course, it wouldn’t be an American Pie movie without moments of ridiculously crude antics, mainly from Stifler. What separates the film from the bevy of raunchy comedies that flooded the market after the success of the initial film, is that there is some maturity amongst the mayhem.
In between the outrageous antics, the various characters are forced to take deep examinations of their lives since graduation and in some cases grow up for the first time in their lives. Oz must comes to grips with his feelings for his former girlfriend Heather (Mena Suvari), as does Kevin when his former flame Vicky (Tara Reid), returns to town for the reunion. Jim and Michelle have to find a way to bring some sexual spark back into their lives while Finch needs to accept the mundane reality of his. And Stifler. Well, let’s just say he needs to find his true calling.
What really sold the film for me was not just the great chemistry between the cast but the way the script deftly moved the raunchy comedy along while combining character development and depth that is not normally found in films of this type. As I watched, I found that I had really missed this crew of unlikely friends, and really enjoyed catching up with them even when they were not extricating themselves from one over-the-top situation after another.
While the film did drag a bit slightly there was always an outrageous moment right around the corner that had the theater errupting in laughter or shrieking in disbelief. This film is rated R for good reason. The cast worked really great together and it was especially nice to see Klein back in the mix, as he had been noticeably absent from the last film in no small part due to his offscreen issues.
Eugene Levy and Jennifer Coolidge (Stifler’s mom) have some absolutely hysterical moments in film especially when Mr. Levenstein, widowed now for three years, decides to cut loose at a party and we get to see has wild side. I would also encourage viewers to make sure to stay through the credits as there is more comedy from this pair that must not be missed.
The supporting characters from the previous films were all given their moments to shine even if it is just in a small cameo. Shannon Elizabeth, Natasha Lyonne, John Cho, and of course, the Sherminator were all given a chance to bring back some memories, making this film is welcome and enjoyably nostalgic trip. It proves that there’s still some life and good times left in the series, and if the creative talents can keep quality to this level I, for one, would certainly welcome another slice of pie in the future.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Contagion (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
A couple of years ago, news and health agencies the world over were concerned about a possible pandemic stemming from bird flu and swine flu. Thankfully like SARS a few years earlier, the outbreaks were rather small thanks to a wealth of precautionary information and measures. In the new film “Contagion” director Steven Soderbergh paints a frighteningly realistic look at a worldwide pandemic that spread without warning, and its devastating aftermath.
When businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), returns from a business trip to Hong Kong with what appears to be a simple case of the flu, her husband Mitch (Matt Damon), figures it’s nothing to be overly concerned about. When Beth all of a sudden begins to convulse and later dies unexpectedly, doctors are at a loss to explain what happened.
Over the next few days, more and more people become sick and die including Mitch’s young stepson, which gets the national and international disease control organizations working overtime to try to trace, identify and treat this mysterious ailment that sweeping the globe. Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) leads the investigation in the United States and calls in Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), to track who may have come into contact with Beth upon her return to the Minneapolis. The World Health Organization sends Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) to Hong Kong trace possible origins.
As the first week passes more and more people become sick worldwide, cities start fighting a losing battle against frenzy and panic. In time the virus is identified but due to its unique nature, finding a vaccine and producing it can take several months with thousands of lives lost with each passing day. With chaos breaking loose and the bodies piling up, the authorities find themselves unable to deal with the threat they are facing and go to extreme measures such as closing the state borders to try to contain the spread of the virus.
Adding to the confusion is a freelance blogger named Alan (Jude Law), who has amassed a large audience with his conspiracy claims that there are indeed cures available for the mysterious virus. He contends the government elite and the pharmaceutical companies are exploiting the situation in order to milk maximum profit from the inevitable release of a vaccine.
The film deftly moves around the world showing the victims, scientists and investigators and how the crisis is affecting them. It also shows how quickly society can break down as scene after shocking scene of chaos and devastation are introduced juxtaposed with the number of days since the outbreak of the virus.
Soderbergh keeps you on the edge of your seat and doesn’t give you a moment’s rest. Characters are introduced and given just enough of a back story so that you understand their place in the film. Most heartbreaking is Matt Damon’s role as a father who’s left watching over his only remaining child, going to great measures to keep her safe while also dealing with the death of his wife and the unfolding secret of the last days of her life.
There is truly an impressive array of stars in the film, some of whom play brief but significant parts in the overall story. However, the movie’s strength is also its weakness in that with so many primary characters,there were some diverging storylines that did not get fully fleshed out.
While “Contagion” is not the first film to deal with viral outbreak, it is perhaps the most realistic as it doesn’t resort to any Hollywood standards such as car chases, explosions, starcrossed lovers and so on to tell its story. Instead it focuses on stark, somber scenarios and the struggles of each character is very easy to relate to.
Kudos has to be given to many of the stars of the film for their understated but pitch perfect work in very unglamorous roles. Their subtle & poignant acting underscore the dire situations that their characters find themselves in. It was refreshing to see leading men and women looking quite ordinary and letting the story carry the picture rather than focusing on one individual to save the day.
All throughout the film I found myself captivated and never once did I lose interest in the scenarios or characters nor did I find anything in the film impossible to believe. The film doesn’t go overboard on pointing fingers instead it gives an honest and unflinching look at a scenario that we can only hope will never happen. But as the film points out, viral outbreaks have occurred all throughout history. Hardly an encouraging message, but thanks to the stellar cast and gripping subject matter “Contagion” is a film you will not want to miss.
When businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), returns from a business trip to Hong Kong with what appears to be a simple case of the flu, her husband Mitch (Matt Damon), figures it’s nothing to be overly concerned about. When Beth all of a sudden begins to convulse and later dies unexpectedly, doctors are at a loss to explain what happened.
Over the next few days, more and more people become sick and die including Mitch’s young stepson, which gets the national and international disease control organizations working overtime to try to trace, identify and treat this mysterious ailment that sweeping the globe. Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) leads the investigation in the United States and calls in Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), to track who may have come into contact with Beth upon her return to the Minneapolis. The World Health Organization sends Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) to Hong Kong trace possible origins.
As the first week passes more and more people become sick worldwide, cities start fighting a losing battle against frenzy and panic. In time the virus is identified but due to its unique nature, finding a vaccine and producing it can take several months with thousands of lives lost with each passing day. With chaos breaking loose and the bodies piling up, the authorities find themselves unable to deal with the threat they are facing and go to extreme measures such as closing the state borders to try to contain the spread of the virus.
Adding to the confusion is a freelance blogger named Alan (Jude Law), who has amassed a large audience with his conspiracy claims that there are indeed cures available for the mysterious virus. He contends the government elite and the pharmaceutical companies are exploiting the situation in order to milk maximum profit from the inevitable release of a vaccine.
The film deftly moves around the world showing the victims, scientists and investigators and how the crisis is affecting them. It also shows how quickly society can break down as scene after shocking scene of chaos and devastation are introduced juxtaposed with the number of days since the outbreak of the virus.
Soderbergh keeps you on the edge of your seat and doesn’t give you a moment’s rest. Characters are introduced and given just enough of a back story so that you understand their place in the film. Most heartbreaking is Matt Damon’s role as a father who’s left watching over his only remaining child, going to great measures to keep her safe while also dealing with the death of his wife and the unfolding secret of the last days of her life.
There is truly an impressive array of stars in the film, some of whom play brief but significant parts in the overall story. However, the movie’s strength is also its weakness in that with so many primary characters,there were some diverging storylines that did not get fully fleshed out.
While “Contagion” is not the first film to deal with viral outbreak, it is perhaps the most realistic as it doesn’t resort to any Hollywood standards such as car chases, explosions, starcrossed lovers and so on to tell its story. Instead it focuses on stark, somber scenarios and the struggles of each character is very easy to relate to.
Kudos has to be given to many of the stars of the film for their understated but pitch perfect work in very unglamorous roles. Their subtle & poignant acting underscore the dire situations that their characters find themselves in. It was refreshing to see leading men and women looking quite ordinary and letting the story carry the picture rather than focusing on one individual to save the day.
All throughout the film I found myself captivated and never once did I lose interest in the scenarios or characters nor did I find anything in the film impossible to believe. The film doesn’t go overboard on pointing fingers instead it gives an honest and unflinching look at a scenario that we can only hope will never happen. But as the film points out, viral outbreaks have occurred all throughout history. Hardly an encouraging message, but thanks to the stellar cast and gripping subject matter “Contagion” is a film you will not want to miss.