Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Nashville (1975) in Movies
Jan 11, 2018
A landmark film
Nashville is a very difficult film to pin down. It refuses to be pigeonholed into a genre. (IMDB has it listed as a comedy, Google as Drama/Political Drama, and Wikipedia labels the film a Musical Comedy-Drama. In my opinion, Nashville is all of those things and maybe some more. It would be more beneficial to talk about Nashville, not in terms of how similar it is to any other film, but instead, explore how it is unique and entirely different from almost everything that came before it. Robert Altman attempted to subvert audience expectations in ways never before seen in Hollywood. Where most films try and limit the number of main characters the audience has to follow, Altman instead chose to populate his country music narrative with over 20 different protagonists. Each of these protagonists has their own story to tell and all of these stories are only loosely connected together. This may sound familiar to contemporary audiences who have seen films like Crash, Babel, and Magnolia fresh on their minds, but to a 1975 audience, this was all but unheard of. Altman furthers this sense of chaos by constantly overlapping dialogue tracks throughout the film. This tactic forces viewers to engage more closely to what they can hear during the scenes because it’s not always obvious what you should be listening to. Sometimes that choice is even quite subjective as in most cases there is no clear plot line that stands out as primary. One of the joys of this film comes from the choice you have as a spectator to focus on whatever interests you most. To a certain extent, this film lends itself to multiple viewings that could produce slightly different results each time. Something that might have slipped your attention the first time might stand out upon repeated viewings and that has the possibility to add to the story in interesting and unique ways. In dealing with over 20 characters Altman runs the risk of underdeveloped characters and unsatisfying conclusions to their stories. Not everyone has a satisfying payoff but some characters will surprise you during the final few scenes. Henry Gibson’s Haven rises above what was previously a one-note character of a person and responds to the climax in a surprisingly moving way. All in all, Nashville is an important piece of American cinema history. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea so it’s best to temper your expectations going into a viewing, but if you can keep your eyes and ears intently listening for the full two and a half hour film you will not be disappointed in the humanity you spot in each of these stories. This is a film that rewards an invested viewing.
Fred (860 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
This is how you ruin a classic
Dumbo is one of my favorite Disney films. The original, not this crap. When told that his film was not long enough to be considered a full-length movie & that he would have to add 10 more minutes or so, Disney said "No. It's perfect the way it is." And he was right. The people who made this live-action remake apparently never heard that story. It's almost 2 hours long. The original story of the first film is done in about the first 20 minutes of this film, then it's an original sequel, basically.
The first & main problem of the film is the most obvious. The focus on the human characters over the animal characters. There are no talking animals in this one. Sure, Dumbo didn't talk, but he had Timothy mouse with him to speak for him. There's no stork, the bully elephants are gone, even the racist, but very entertaining crows are completely gone.
Second problem: Some of the music from the original film is here, but instrumental versions. Only "Baby Mine" is sung. We hear a clip of "Casey Jr." at the beginning. At the very end of the credits, we hear a bit of "When I See a Elephant Fly", but no "Look Out For Mr. Stork". But the biggest mistake was what they did with "Pink Elephants on Parade" In the original film, Dumbo accidentally drinks some champagne & gets drunk. He then blows bubbles & the bubbles take shape & thus begins one of the greatest scenes in Disney history. The bubbles take the shape of dancing, skating & tromping elephants. The scene is a nightmare & probably scared some kids in the day. The song itself is both fun & creepy. This should be perfect Tim Burton stuff, but in this film, it is not. In this film, circus performers are creating giant bubbles & somehow they are taking the shape of the elephants. In fact, they're copies of the elephants (and camel) from the original film. The song plays, but again, no lyrics. It's also not very well directed. Instead of looking like a nightmare, they keep cutting to Dumbo, watching the performers, with a smile.
And that brings me to another problem. Tim Burton. Like most Tim Burton movies, it looks fantastic, but it's just boring. The story is boring & unoriginal (Free Willy anyone?) I didn't get to like any of the human characters to care. They kind of just go through the motions. Dumbo himself lacks character & I never really felt for him.
I know Disney is set on remaking their classics & I haven't seen any before (and probably will not see anymore after this one). It breaks my heart to see Disney reduced to this sort of thing. I'll stick with the originals, thank you.
The first & main problem of the film is the most obvious. The focus on the human characters over the animal characters. There are no talking animals in this one. Sure, Dumbo didn't talk, but he had Timothy mouse with him to speak for him. There's no stork, the bully elephants are gone, even the racist, but very entertaining crows are completely gone.
Second problem: Some of the music from the original film is here, but instrumental versions. Only "Baby Mine" is sung. We hear a clip of "Casey Jr." at the beginning. At the very end of the credits, we hear a bit of "When I See a Elephant Fly", but no "Look Out For Mr. Stork". But the biggest mistake was what they did with "Pink Elephants on Parade" In the original film, Dumbo accidentally drinks some champagne & gets drunk. He then blows bubbles & the bubbles take shape & thus begins one of the greatest scenes in Disney history. The bubbles take the shape of dancing, skating & tromping elephants. The scene is a nightmare & probably scared some kids in the day. The song itself is both fun & creepy. This should be perfect Tim Burton stuff, but in this film, it is not. In this film, circus performers are creating giant bubbles & somehow they are taking the shape of the elephants. In fact, they're copies of the elephants (and camel) from the original film. The song plays, but again, no lyrics. It's also not very well directed. Instead of looking like a nightmare, they keep cutting to Dumbo, watching the performers, with a smile.
And that brings me to another problem. Tim Burton. Like most Tim Burton movies, it looks fantastic, but it's just boring. The story is boring & unoriginal (Free Willy anyone?) I didn't get to like any of the human characters to care. They kind of just go through the motions. Dumbo himself lacks character & I never really felt for him.
I know Disney is set on remaking their classics & I haven't seen any before (and probably will not see anymore after this one). It breaks my heart to see Disney reduced to this sort of thing. I'll stick with the originals, thank you.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I was introduced to Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (the amazing book series written by Alvin Schwartz back in 1981) in my Junior High history class. An odd place for sure to listen to this amazing collection of stories, and yet it displayed how these stories are impactful even if you aren’t reading them around a campfire in the middle of the woods. Schwartz had written two additional sequels to his stories in 1984 and 1991 and the incredibly creepy illustrations (by Stephen Gammell) helped to complete a collection of books that are at home in anyone’s collection both young and old.
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Mar 4, 2018
Groundbreaking Special Effects (1 more)
Music
Truly...a masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Black Pirate (1926) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Two-tone Techncolor milestone
Two Tone Technicolor in all its glory! This is it. The first widely distributed Technicolor movie back before we even had sound. This was hardly the first foray into colour, in fact colour almost goes as far back as film itself, as does sound, but it was not until the mid-1920’s that breakthroughs in both mediums would bring them into mainstream.
Sound would take first, with Technicolor taking just a little longer, mainly due to the technical issues of using it both in front and behind the camera. But as time went on, these issues were gradually dealt with with the rest is cinema history.
So, having gotten the technical bit out of the way, on to the Douglas Fairbanks Jr. blockbuster. And that is precisely want this was. A by-the-numbers acrobatic action movie by the undisputed star of the day, Fairbanks.
The plot follows a Duke (Fairbanks) whose ship is attacked and destroyed by a Pirates. He is the soul survivor and vows revenge. He soon finds himself in the company of the very pirates he is looking for and infiltrates their crew by being the best god-damn pirate there ever was!
He meets a princess (Billie Dove) and saves the day, gets the girl and the evil pirates are dispatched. All, amidst lots of colourful blood, to emphasise the Technicolor I suppose and slides down a few sails with his dagger along the way.
The performances are typical for a Hollywoodland movie of the day, but besides the outstanding physicality of Douglas, I would not say that there was anything particularly noteworthy about the acting, let alone the production on the whole. Having said that, the tone and cliche’s which this film has brought to the genre as whole are legendary and there is that foray into colour of course.
This were it all began folks…
The DVD
Unfortunately my copy was just the cheap R-0 version, whcih was clearly (ironically) taken from a old VHS recording. The colour is vivid but wrong. Greens have replaced blacks and the overall print quality was poor but watchable. I have seen bit s of the KINO HD Blu-ray edition and this looks great.
It also has the original score by Mortimer Wilson, something whcih this bargain basement DVD does not. The music supplied is okay; a mix of classical pieces on a loop but none this is cued and rarely suits the scenes let alone the action on screen. Further proof that there never was such a thing as silent cinema, just no synchronised sound.
For the real experience, get the Blu-ray, though it is very expensive at the moment, but if you just want to see what all the fuss is about, this DVD is quite watchable, at least as an entry version.
Me, I am after the upgrade!
Sound would take first, with Technicolor taking just a little longer, mainly due to the technical issues of using it both in front and behind the camera. But as time went on, these issues were gradually dealt with with the rest is cinema history.
So, having gotten the technical bit out of the way, on to the Douglas Fairbanks Jr. blockbuster. And that is precisely want this was. A by-the-numbers acrobatic action movie by the undisputed star of the day, Fairbanks.
The plot follows a Duke (Fairbanks) whose ship is attacked and destroyed by a Pirates. He is the soul survivor and vows revenge. He soon finds himself in the company of the very pirates he is looking for and infiltrates their crew by being the best god-damn pirate there ever was!
He meets a princess (Billie Dove) and saves the day, gets the girl and the evil pirates are dispatched. All, amidst lots of colourful blood, to emphasise the Technicolor I suppose and slides down a few sails with his dagger along the way.
The performances are typical for a Hollywoodland movie of the day, but besides the outstanding physicality of Douglas, I would not say that there was anything particularly noteworthy about the acting, let alone the production on the whole. Having said that, the tone and cliche’s which this film has brought to the genre as whole are legendary and there is that foray into colour of course.
This were it all began folks…
The DVD
Unfortunately my copy was just the cheap R-0 version, whcih was clearly (ironically) taken from a old VHS recording. The colour is vivid but wrong. Greens have replaced blacks and the overall print quality was poor but watchable. I have seen bit s of the KINO HD Blu-ray edition and this looks great.
It also has the original score by Mortimer Wilson, something whcih this bargain basement DVD does not. The music supplied is okay; a mix of classical pieces on a loop but none this is cued and rarely suits the scenes let alone the action on screen. Further proof that there never was such a thing as silent cinema, just no synchronised sound.
For the real experience, get the Blu-ray, though it is very expensive at the moment, but if you just want to see what all the fuss is about, this DVD is quite watchable, at least as an entry version.
Me, I am after the upgrade!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Singin' in the Rain (1952) in Movies
Mar 28, 2018
Timeless
Hollywood star Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) has to figure out how to save his first "talking picture" film after a negative early screening.
Acting: 10
I was amazed by the versatility of the actors/actresses in the film. To be able to hit lines passionately AND dance and sing through huge musical numbers has to take some serious skill, skill I couldn't even begin to possess. The performances of Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynold transcend time, holding strong an amazing 65 years later!
Reynolds was my favorite as (Kathy Selden). Her charm and humor are effortless and natural. Not only did she hold her own in her every scene, but she made every scene outstanding. I can't believe I am just now learning to appreciate this woman's greatness. I suppose that's what my Movies 365 quest is all about.
Beginning: 9
I suppose I should chime in here as this received my lowest score. Singin' In the Rain gets off to a very solid start as it grabs my attention right from the beginning. It's intriguing and I wasn't quite sure where they were going after the first ten minutes. Did I really enjoy the first ten minutes of the film? Absolutely. Does it compare to some of the best starts in film history. Sadly, not quite, but not far off either. Consider it a minor boo-boo that didn't even require a band-aid.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Compared to other musicals out there, you can't even mention the genre without thinking Singin' In the Rain. The musical numbers are extravagant and phenomenal. What's more, the film doesn't rely just on the music to succeed as the scripted dialogue is every bit as strong. La La Land astounded me. This film blew me away.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Sometimes this can be hard to manage in a musical whether there's too much singing and not enough dialogue scenes or vice versa. This film does an excellent job of seamlessly blending the two. Every song had its purpose and each number is active and fun, keeping you engaged throughout the film. It never got slow at any point.
Plot: 10
The story was an evolving creation. You think something is going to happen then the film takes an entirely different turn. Just when you think you have it all figured out, they throw another surprise in. The plot is clever, intriguing, and unique. I have yet to see anything like it.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
I went into this film wondering what all the hype was about and, after watching, I can say it's not hype. Not by a long shot, not by any means. Singin' In the Rain is amazing today and it's going to be wonderful thirty years from now. It gets all the little things perfectly right like the classic scene where Don is having a conversation about the film as they're walking past different set pieces. Timeless.
Acting: 10
I was amazed by the versatility of the actors/actresses in the film. To be able to hit lines passionately AND dance and sing through huge musical numbers has to take some serious skill, skill I couldn't even begin to possess. The performances of Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynold transcend time, holding strong an amazing 65 years later!
Reynolds was my favorite as (Kathy Selden). Her charm and humor are effortless and natural. Not only did she hold her own in her every scene, but she made every scene outstanding. I can't believe I am just now learning to appreciate this woman's greatness. I suppose that's what my Movies 365 quest is all about.
Beginning: 9
I suppose I should chime in here as this received my lowest score. Singin' In the Rain gets off to a very solid start as it grabs my attention right from the beginning. It's intriguing and I wasn't quite sure where they were going after the first ten minutes. Did I really enjoy the first ten minutes of the film? Absolutely. Does it compare to some of the best starts in film history. Sadly, not quite, but not far off either. Consider it a minor boo-boo that didn't even require a band-aid.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Compared to other musicals out there, you can't even mention the genre without thinking Singin' In the Rain. The musical numbers are extravagant and phenomenal. What's more, the film doesn't rely just on the music to succeed as the scripted dialogue is every bit as strong. La La Land astounded me. This film blew me away.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Sometimes this can be hard to manage in a musical whether there's too much singing and not enough dialogue scenes or vice versa. This film does an excellent job of seamlessly blending the two. Every song had its purpose and each number is active and fun, keeping you engaged throughout the film. It never got slow at any point.
Plot: 10
The story was an evolving creation. You think something is going to happen then the film takes an entirely different turn. Just when you think you have it all figured out, they throw another surprise in. The plot is clever, intriguing, and unique. I have yet to see anything like it.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
I went into this film wondering what all the hype was about and, after watching, I can say it's not hype. Not by a long shot, not by any means. Singin' In the Rain is amazing today and it's going to be wonderful thirty years from now. It gets all the little things perfectly right like the classic scene where Don is having a conversation about the film as they're walking past different set pieces. Timeless.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Mongol (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Mongul tells the story of Temudjin, the boy who grows up and eventually becomes Genghis Khan. At the age of nine, Temudjin's father(Esugei), the khan at the time, shows him how to pick a wife. After doing so, the plan is for them to get married in five years. After Esugei is poisoned however, he dies and the Mongols he was travelling with take matters into their own hands. Pillaging and doing whatever they see fit. Temudjin becomes a slave and sets out to find his brother, Jamukha, who he feels is the only one who can help him. A few years pass. Temudjin, now a man, sets off to claim his wife. He winds up going through a lot of hardships in the process, but what doesn't kill you will only make you stronger. It is said that all Mongols are afraid of thunder, but what if they don't have a place to hide? They become one of the greatest Mongols in history and greatness comes to those who take it.
This movie is shot beautifully. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors and seems to be shot in a unique way. There are quite a few first person perspectives during battle sequences that are quite stunning. Seeing the blood splatter all over the camera is always a plus, in my eyes. The battle scenes are where the film truly shines. The way they're shot make you feel like you're in the middle of it all. The perspective on a lot of the angles during not only the battle sequences, but in the movie as a whole, are impressive in their own right. The music also lends a helping hand in making this movie incredible. While some of it wasn't to my liking, the majority of it fit the film like a glove and only enhanced what was going on in the film and what the characters were going through.
The main reason I checked out this movie was because of Tadanobu Asano. I've mentioned my admiration of his acting in the past, but I had heard that this was possibly the most physical role he ever had. That peaked my interest. Well that and the fact that he was headlining the film. He definitely doesn't disappoint in this and he only seems to impress me more with each film I see that he's involved with.
Mongol may not be as action packed as the trailer leads you to believe. There are a handful of really impressive action scenes, but there's a lot of character development in this as well. The acting is top notch and as I mentioned, the visuals will have your eyes glued to the screen the entire time. I think the last twenty minutes or so make this film worth seeing alone. While it isn't action packed for two hours straight, I like to think that if you're a fan of movies like 300 then you'll probably enjoy this. This is just a bit more story driven.
This movie is shot beautifully. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors and seems to be shot in a unique way. There are quite a few first person perspectives during battle sequences that are quite stunning. Seeing the blood splatter all over the camera is always a plus, in my eyes. The battle scenes are where the film truly shines. The way they're shot make you feel like you're in the middle of it all. The perspective on a lot of the angles during not only the battle sequences, but in the movie as a whole, are impressive in their own right. The music also lends a helping hand in making this movie incredible. While some of it wasn't to my liking, the majority of it fit the film like a glove and only enhanced what was going on in the film and what the characters were going through.
The main reason I checked out this movie was because of Tadanobu Asano. I've mentioned my admiration of his acting in the past, but I had heard that this was possibly the most physical role he ever had. That peaked my interest. Well that and the fact that he was headlining the film. He definitely doesn't disappoint in this and he only seems to impress me more with each film I see that he's involved with.
Mongol may not be as action packed as the trailer leads you to believe. There are a handful of really impressive action scenes, but there's a lot of character development in this as well. The acting is top notch and as I mentioned, the visuals will have your eyes glued to the screen the entire time. I think the last twenty minutes or so make this film worth seeing alone. While it isn't action packed for two hours straight, I like to think that if you're a fan of movies like 300 then you'll probably enjoy this. This is just a bit more story driven.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Saving Mr. Banks (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the greatest Disney classics, “Mary Poppins” has a unique history on its long journey from the page to the silver screen. In “Saving Mr. Banks”, the twenty year battle between Walt Disney and the notoriously difficult author is told in a touching and gripping tale.
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dracula Untold (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The latest Dracula movie attempts to honor an ancient story while adding some new spice and bringing the usual graphics flair we’ve come to expect from Hollywood, but falls short.
Dracula Untold, as the name implies, is an origin story for the pop culture father-of-all-vampires. Luke Evans bears the mantle of Prince Vlad Tepes of the Dracula Clan. (Not Count, but Prince.) What about the King, you ask? Well, they didn’t cover this, but there is no King.
Luke Evans is one of my favorite actors in Hollywood right now, and he does this role justice. The rest of the cast contributed solid performances as well, as best they could with sub par script, and poor direction. Charles Dance was a particular pleasure to witness.
This film is Gary Shore’s directorial debut, and it’s easy to see the marks of a neophyte director. Had it been in the hands of someone more experienced, it would have been a juggernaut of a Fall film. Even so, he did pretty well enough, all things considered. According to his work history, Shore was an electrician until 1998, then disappeared until 2014. This is his second film so far this year.
Dracula Untold opens with the story of Vlad the Impaler, as told by his son. Vlad was shipped off to the Turks to become a trained and conditioned weapon. He earned his title by impaling an entire village for the Turkish army. Vlad was a deadly force on the battlefield, but they eventually allowed him to go home, where he could start a family and rule Transylvania. It is painfully obvious that the usual blood-thirsty character was meant to become a hero for this new tale.
The Turks return to take more boys, like they did him, but he refuses. This draws the Turks’ ire, and they demand retribution for the insult and insubordination. Desperate, he seeks out a monster in the mountains who was the REAL first vampire — a man who made a deal with a demon.
Vlad is granted temporary powers, paying a heavy price in the process. After this, the story really ramps up.
This film left me feeling as if something was missing. I attribute this to missing explanations, plot holes (like the lack of King), and several other missteps. Normally, I can look past plot holes. A strong enough movie will keep me from noticing them until I’m rethinking it later. In this case, they were too distracting. The music was unimpressive and not at all memorable. The one liners were forced and distracting, instead of powerful and emotional.
This movie is worth seeing if you’re a fan of vampires in general or Dracula in particular. That said, I wouldn’t advise high expectations. Great aspects were abundant, but there were just as many failings. If you feel compelled to see it, wait until you can see it at home, and save the money.
Dracula Untold, as the name implies, is an origin story for the pop culture father-of-all-vampires. Luke Evans bears the mantle of Prince Vlad Tepes of the Dracula Clan. (Not Count, but Prince.) What about the King, you ask? Well, they didn’t cover this, but there is no King.
Luke Evans is one of my favorite actors in Hollywood right now, and he does this role justice. The rest of the cast contributed solid performances as well, as best they could with sub par script, and poor direction. Charles Dance was a particular pleasure to witness.
This film is Gary Shore’s directorial debut, and it’s easy to see the marks of a neophyte director. Had it been in the hands of someone more experienced, it would have been a juggernaut of a Fall film. Even so, he did pretty well enough, all things considered. According to his work history, Shore was an electrician until 1998, then disappeared until 2014. This is his second film so far this year.
Dracula Untold opens with the story of Vlad the Impaler, as told by his son. Vlad was shipped off to the Turks to become a trained and conditioned weapon. He earned his title by impaling an entire village for the Turkish army. Vlad was a deadly force on the battlefield, but they eventually allowed him to go home, where he could start a family and rule Transylvania. It is painfully obvious that the usual blood-thirsty character was meant to become a hero for this new tale.
The Turks return to take more boys, like they did him, but he refuses. This draws the Turks’ ire, and they demand retribution for the insult and insubordination. Desperate, he seeks out a monster in the mountains who was the REAL first vampire — a man who made a deal with a demon.
Vlad is granted temporary powers, paying a heavy price in the process. After this, the story really ramps up.
This film left me feeling as if something was missing. I attribute this to missing explanations, plot holes (like the lack of King), and several other missteps. Normally, I can look past plot holes. A strong enough movie will keep me from noticing them until I’m rethinking it later. In this case, they were too distracting. The music was unimpressive and not at all memorable. The one liners were forced and distracting, instead of powerful and emotional.
This movie is worth seeing if you’re a fan of vampires in general or Dracula in particular. That said, I wouldn’t advise high expectations. Great aspects were abundant, but there were just as many failings. If you feel compelled to see it, wait until you can see it at home, and save the money.