Search
Search results
LEGO® DUPLO® Town
Games and Entertainment
App
BUILD – EXPLORE – PLAY! Let your young child build creative, virtual play houses with fun,...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Sinner - Season 1 in TV
Nov 30, 2017 (Updated Nov 30, 2017)
Barely any of the characters were sympathetic or relatable (3 more)
The ending was dissatisfying
So many wasted episodes
It was only 9 episodes long, but it felt far longer
A Sin That This Wasn't Better
This show came highly recommended to me by sources that I usually trust, but it turned out to be a total let down. The show opens with a young family going to the beach. The mother who is played by Jessica Biel, suddenly walks over to another young man on the beach and stabs him to death in front of over a hundred witnesses in broad daylight. She is then arrested and the show spends the next 8 episodes clumsily trying to explain why she committed this heinous act.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Chris Byers (4 KP) rated Ready Player One in Books
Mar 14, 2018
Great action (3 more)
Cool references
Engaging
Solid detail and character development
Some anti-Christian sentiment (1 more)
What happens after the ending- would love follow up info
A Christian Review Of Ready Player One
I just finished another entertaining romp into the fictional realm with Ernest Cline's, Ready Player One. This was particularly engaging for a former/current video gamer like myself. It also provided a setting that I feel is a potentially realistic outcome of our current technology boom and humanist outlook in society.
The plot centers around Wade and the online game OASIS. The OASIS has expanded such that nearly everyone in society is constantly jacked into the system, neglecting real-life in favor of virtual fantasy and role playing. The OASIS gives users the ability to level up a character (Similar to an MMO like World of Warcraft), and interact virtually with other "Avatars."
The sad reality is that the real world has become a shell of its former self after multiple wars, and no one really seems to mind as they are constantly jacked into the fantasy world of the OASIS.
The OASIS creator dies and leaves his money (multi-billion) to whomever can solve a set of obscure puzzles built into the OASIS, all linked to 1980s trivia.
While it sounds odd on the surface, the first-person narration style gives the feel that you are actually a part of this new reality. The descriptions of the game and Avatar functions are well done.
Spiritually, just like the Hunger Games Trilogy, it is lacking. In what I am calling post-apocalypic humanism, the world is obviously very anti-religion/Christianity in this setting.
My theory would be that the humanistic views that are permeating our society currently eventually led to the decline in civilization as man was not accountable to anyone but himself, and the world suffered for it.
It is clear from the beginning that the protagonist, Wade, has never believed in God (though his friendly neighbor is described as a Christian who spends time logged into the OASIS at a virtual church, worshipping). The way that this is expressed comes across much like the way humanists and atheists of our day express it. With much distaste and an inferior view of God. God is compared to the Easter Bunny and other childhood fantasies, and the characters in the book do not seek any higher power. Still Wade is not an entirely unlikable character, even in light of his lack of faith, and this mindset is not prominently mentioned enough to detract from the book as a whole. Christians will likely feel pity for the characters whose mere existence has no meaning.
For Christians, we know that through our relationship with Christ, this life has meaning, and we have a purpose. There is no randomness, but rather a carefully orchestrated plan for each of us by a God who loves us and longs for us to be with him eternally.
A post-apocalypic world viewed through Christian eyes would be much less dystopian, so I imagine that is why authors in this category of fiction stray from God when possible. It adds to the bleak outlook of characters whose only purpose is living day to day, and trying to get along with one another.
I think Christians who read this type of literature should be aware that it is far from the truth that we know in Christ Jesus. When we see the world through only human eyes, and every man does what is right in his own eyes, we can only expect such a derelict society to be the result.
Ready Player One is an entertaining, albeit bleak story with solid detail and character development. Most Christians can skip this one, but for any gamers or fans of the 1980s out there it could provide a good fiction read.
Discussion Questions for Christians:
Does our society seem to be heading down a path that would lead to this type of world?
How would the worldview in the book be different if the main characters had a focus on Christ?
Can a protagonist that is not Christian, but a "decent guy" be a good role model for us?
Would living in a virtual world the majority of the time give us a distorted view of reality?
The plot centers around Wade and the online game OASIS. The OASIS has expanded such that nearly everyone in society is constantly jacked into the system, neglecting real-life in favor of virtual fantasy and role playing. The OASIS gives users the ability to level up a character (Similar to an MMO like World of Warcraft), and interact virtually with other "Avatars."
The sad reality is that the real world has become a shell of its former self after multiple wars, and no one really seems to mind as they are constantly jacked into the fantasy world of the OASIS.
The OASIS creator dies and leaves his money (multi-billion) to whomever can solve a set of obscure puzzles built into the OASIS, all linked to 1980s trivia.
While it sounds odd on the surface, the first-person narration style gives the feel that you are actually a part of this new reality. The descriptions of the game and Avatar functions are well done.
Spiritually, just like the Hunger Games Trilogy, it is lacking. In what I am calling post-apocalypic humanism, the world is obviously very anti-religion/Christianity in this setting.
My theory would be that the humanistic views that are permeating our society currently eventually led to the decline in civilization as man was not accountable to anyone but himself, and the world suffered for it.
It is clear from the beginning that the protagonist, Wade, has never believed in God (though his friendly neighbor is described as a Christian who spends time logged into the OASIS at a virtual church, worshipping). The way that this is expressed comes across much like the way humanists and atheists of our day express it. With much distaste and an inferior view of God. God is compared to the Easter Bunny and other childhood fantasies, and the characters in the book do not seek any higher power. Still Wade is not an entirely unlikable character, even in light of his lack of faith, and this mindset is not prominently mentioned enough to detract from the book as a whole. Christians will likely feel pity for the characters whose mere existence has no meaning.
For Christians, we know that through our relationship with Christ, this life has meaning, and we have a purpose. There is no randomness, but rather a carefully orchestrated plan for each of us by a God who loves us and longs for us to be with him eternally.
A post-apocalypic world viewed through Christian eyes would be much less dystopian, so I imagine that is why authors in this category of fiction stray from God when possible. It adds to the bleak outlook of characters whose only purpose is living day to day, and trying to get along with one another.
I think Christians who read this type of literature should be aware that it is far from the truth that we know in Christ Jesus. When we see the world through only human eyes, and every man does what is right in his own eyes, we can only expect such a derelict society to be the result.
Ready Player One is an entertaining, albeit bleak story with solid detail and character development. Most Christians can skip this one, but for any gamers or fans of the 1980s out there it could provide a good fiction read.
Discussion Questions for Christians:
Does our society seem to be heading down a path that would lead to this type of world?
How would the worldview in the book be different if the main characters had a focus on Christ?
Can a protagonist that is not Christian, but a "decent guy" be a good role model for us?
Would living in a virtual world the majority of the time give us a distorted view of reality?
Darren (1599 KP) rated 6 Underground (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
Verdict: Completely Bonkers Entertainment
Story: 6 Underground starts as we meet the agents, One (Reynolds) the billionaire, Two (Laurent) the Spook, Three (Garcia-Rulfo) a hitman, Four (Hardy) the skywalker, Five (Arjona) the doctor and Six (Franco) the driver, whose latest mission in Italy has gone sour, seeing them use their skills to escape the threat coming their way, only to lose a member of the team, needing to find a new member to become a seven.
Recruiting Seven (Hawkins) we learn about the plans they group have, they look to eliminate dictators that nobody else would touch, placing the rightful person in charge of the country, with the latest mission being to head to Turgistan.
Thoughts on 6 Underground
Characters – One is the leader of the squad, he is a billionaire that faked his own death to build the squad which will fight against the dictators of the world, he recruits the very best, he uses the code name, he wants to use his wealth to solve the problems in the world, in a way being known really works, often given commentary on what is going on. Two is the ex-CIA spook that is the most deadly with a weapon, she is willing to lead any assault the team goes on. Three is a hitman that has been given a new life, he is the most reckless of the crew, he will break the rules, but give him a gun and he will get the job done. Four is known as the skywalker, he parkour skills are unbelievable, he will run through building roof tops, searching for routes for the team, getting involved when required, he is easily the most entertaining character of the squad. Five is the doctor, while she might have the weakest character development of the whole squad. Six is the driver that enjoys the thrills that come from the high speed chases. Seven is the newest member of the team, a former soldier bought in for his own skills, he does question the true identity of One, unlike anybody else.
Performances – Ryan Reynolds, is like he always is, wise cracking, fun to watch and always confident, something he needs to be for this role, thinking Deadpool, without the costume. Melanie Laurent does an excellent job in the spook role, with Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Adria Arjona, Dave Franco and Corey Hawkins are strong too, though it is Ben Hardy that seems to steal the show.
Story – The story here follows an elite group of soldiers that have come from around the world to work together to stop dictators from maintaining their reigns of terror over their nations. While this story is hugely ambition and original, it shows how wealthy people could use their money for the right reasons, to help the world instead of just watching it get destroyed. Outside of just dealing with the problems in the world, the story is very simple, go from one mission to the next, with plenty of banter between the squad, usually revolving around film references, which if you understand add humour to scenes through the film.
Action – The action in this film is massive, it is almost relentless for large parts of the film, we see so much happening, from car chases, the gun battles, parkour on rooftops and that boat sequences, well wow.
Settings – The film does take us all over the world, with the main country being fictional, it is implied which country we are seeing wanting to have a change. The film does make the most of the locations, with the environment playing a big part in how each scene can be won.
Scene of the Movie – The Parkour rooftop.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes it does feel like it is just Deadpool commenting on an action film.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly bonkers action film that you can switch off and just let everything unfold to the crazy levels it is meant to reach.
Overall: Wildly Over the Top.
Story: 6 Underground starts as we meet the agents, One (Reynolds) the billionaire, Two (Laurent) the Spook, Three (Garcia-Rulfo) a hitman, Four (Hardy) the skywalker, Five (Arjona) the doctor and Six (Franco) the driver, whose latest mission in Italy has gone sour, seeing them use their skills to escape the threat coming their way, only to lose a member of the team, needing to find a new member to become a seven.
Recruiting Seven (Hawkins) we learn about the plans they group have, they look to eliminate dictators that nobody else would touch, placing the rightful person in charge of the country, with the latest mission being to head to Turgistan.
Thoughts on 6 Underground
Characters – One is the leader of the squad, he is a billionaire that faked his own death to build the squad which will fight against the dictators of the world, he recruits the very best, he uses the code name, he wants to use his wealth to solve the problems in the world, in a way being known really works, often given commentary on what is going on. Two is the ex-CIA spook that is the most deadly with a weapon, she is willing to lead any assault the team goes on. Three is a hitman that has been given a new life, he is the most reckless of the crew, he will break the rules, but give him a gun and he will get the job done. Four is known as the skywalker, he parkour skills are unbelievable, he will run through building roof tops, searching for routes for the team, getting involved when required, he is easily the most entertaining character of the squad. Five is the doctor, while she might have the weakest character development of the whole squad. Six is the driver that enjoys the thrills that come from the high speed chases. Seven is the newest member of the team, a former soldier bought in for his own skills, he does question the true identity of One, unlike anybody else.
Performances – Ryan Reynolds, is like he always is, wise cracking, fun to watch and always confident, something he needs to be for this role, thinking Deadpool, without the costume. Melanie Laurent does an excellent job in the spook role, with Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Adria Arjona, Dave Franco and Corey Hawkins are strong too, though it is Ben Hardy that seems to steal the show.
Story – The story here follows an elite group of soldiers that have come from around the world to work together to stop dictators from maintaining their reigns of terror over their nations. While this story is hugely ambition and original, it shows how wealthy people could use their money for the right reasons, to help the world instead of just watching it get destroyed. Outside of just dealing with the problems in the world, the story is very simple, go from one mission to the next, with plenty of banter between the squad, usually revolving around film references, which if you understand add humour to scenes through the film.
Action – The action in this film is massive, it is almost relentless for large parts of the film, we see so much happening, from car chases, the gun battles, parkour on rooftops and that boat sequences, well wow.
Settings – The film does take us all over the world, with the main country being fictional, it is implied which country we are seeing wanting to have a change. The film does make the most of the locations, with the environment playing a big part in how each scene can be won.
Scene of the Movie – The Parkour rooftop.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes it does feel like it is just Deadpool commenting on an action film.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly bonkers action film that you can switch off and just let everything unfold to the crazy levels it is meant to reach.
Overall: Wildly Over the Top.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Inventive, funny and poignant
Writer/Director/Actor Taika Waititi is one of the most original voices working in Film/Television today. He skewered the Vampire flick (at the height of the Twilight craze) in WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS. He revived the sagging Thor saga (and some would say the Marvel Cinematic Universe) with a comedic approach to the material in THOR: RAGNAROK, and now with his latest film, JOJO RABBIT, he takes his sense of humor to a subject that is difficult to satire - Adolph Hitler and life in Nazi Germany during WW II.
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
As seen through the eyes of a zealous 10 year old Hitler Youth named JoJo, this film follows Jojo's journey from an idealistic follower of all things Nazi Germany to the harsher realities of the world - and what the 3rd Reich means to the world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis does a marvelous job as the titular character slowly changing his character from an all out innocent devotion to Hitler (his imaginary friend as played by Waititi) to a somewhat less innocent soul. His journey is at the heart of this film and he is a winning personality to follow along with. I was drawn into his struggles and was rooting for him to "come to his senses" throughout the course of this film.
Helping him in this journey is his Mother, played in an Oscar nominated turn by Scarlett Johannson. This character has an idealism all of her own and is willing to let her child "get there in his own time". It is a strong turn by Johannson...but Oscar nominated worthy? I'm not sure.
Also joining in for fun, frolic and (by turns) seriousness is the always great Sam Rockwell (Oscar winner for 3 BILLBOARDS...)as a disillusioned German Officer, comedian Stephen Merchant (LOGAN) in an unlikely mostly serious turn as a Nazi who likes to say "Heil Hitler" and Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) as a devoted German soldier (at least devoted to Rockwell's character). Waititi also uses Rebel Wilson sparingly - as she should be used - as another devouted-to-the-cause German citizen.
Adding heft and pathos to this film is Thomasin MacKenzie (THE KING) in a role that would be a spoiler to say what she is playing, but...I WILL say that she needs to succeed in this role for the film to succeed (and she does).
Also, special notice needs to be made of the performance of cherubic Archie Yates (soon to be Kevin in the reboot of the HOME ALONE franchise) as JoJo's friend Yorki - who keeps getting knocked down and steps back up over and over again. I would LOVE to see the film that would have focused on this character (in addition to this film).
And, finally, there is the Writer/Director himself, Taika Waititi as JoJo's imaginary friend, Adolph Hitler. He is all fun loving and gay at the beginning becoming more and more frantic as the film progresses - mimicking the real life events that are happening around him.
Waititi's style in this film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson in such films as THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and MOONRISE KINGDOM and this works well here, giving this film more of a "fable" than a "realistic" look - and that is important to help set the tone for the events that follow. Waititi has a sure hand on the material (that he wrote) as the Director. He knows the tone he wants to strike and knows how to get there. He is nominated for Adapted Screenplay for his script (deservedly so) and was NOT nominated for Best Director - but his work in this area is just as good.
I did not know what to expect from this film when I walked into it, and I was more than pleasantly surprised. Give this little comedy/drama a try - I think you will be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Real Steel (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Boxing movies have been a staple of Hollywood for decades. Some of the earliest celluloid offerings documented pugilistic bouts in films such as Raging Bull, The Fighter, and the iconic Rocky series and helped boxing cement itself in both popular and cinematic culture.
In the film “Real Steel”, Hugh Jackman plays Charlie Kenton, a down-on-his-luck promoter whose best days are definitely behind him. In the near-future setting of the film, robots have replaced humans in the boxing ring and Charlie is constantly and desperately looking for the next big thing to help him claim a little fame and a lot of fortune.
Following the loss of his fighting robot, Charlie is summoned to Texas after the passing of his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his son. Charlie is eager to sign over the guardianship of his son, Max, to Max’s aunt, but after noticing her wealthy husband, decides to take advantage of the situation. Charlie makes a deal to sign over the guardianship of his son Max, (Dakota Goyo) in exchange for a large sum of money which he plans to use to get back into the robot fighting game. The catch for Charlie is that he must watch Max for the summer so Max’s future parents can take a planned trip to Italy.
Max is quickly thrown into the robot-fighting world when he forces his dad to take him along to a bout. Unfortunately, it’s yet another painful loss for Charlie and their first father-son trip ends with them scouring a junkyard for robot replacement parts. It’s Max who literally stumbles across an old robot and becomes convinced that the discarded machine could become a champion given the right conditions. Despite his misgivings, Charlie agrees to train the robot and in doing so gets to reconnect with his estranged son. Charlie is given a shot at redemption when Max’s robot becomes a fighting success and starts to advance through the rankings.
Naturally with increased success comes increased expectations and risks for Charlie and Max’s robot. There are numerous people looking for them to fail, as there is no way that a washed up boxer with a kid and an outdated machine can take on the machines of the professional circuit. Predictably, but still grippingly so, the outdated robot, named Atom, makes his way from seedy fighting pits to upscale arenas. Eventually the Atom team is given a shot at the big time which, as fans of sports films know, is destined to end with a climactic bout with the larger-than-life champion.
What sets “Real Steel” apart from other CGI laden action films is the human element and emotional connections you make with the characters, and even the blue-eyed junkyard robot itself. Although Atom is a CGI construct of a machine, you find yourself pulling for this unlikely underdog just as much its flesh and blood costars. The action sequences are intense and amazing to look at but never overshadow the underlying storyline of love and redemption.
Jackman gives a believable performance as a seemingly callous individual with no redeeming qualities. (Remember, he essentially sold his son). Evangaline Lily, is solid and likeable in a supporting role as Charlie’s old friend and former love interest. Goyo, fresh off his work playing the younger Thor in this past summer’s blockbuster, does a remarkable job in what is likely his breakout role. He has the spunky innocence of youth with a maturity that I had not seen in any young actor since Haley Joel Osment in the Sixth Sense.
“Real Steel” may not be the most original film, as aside from the robots this is a boxing tale that is been told many times before. I definitely saw lots of elements of the original Rocky but still found the film extremely enjoyable and entertaining as well as one of the most pleasant surprises of the year. It is rumored that a sequel is already in production and I actually hope that this is the case. This is one story I certainly wouldn’t mind going a few extra rounds with.
In the film “Real Steel”, Hugh Jackman plays Charlie Kenton, a down-on-his-luck promoter whose best days are definitely behind him. In the near-future setting of the film, robots have replaced humans in the boxing ring and Charlie is constantly and desperately looking for the next big thing to help him claim a little fame and a lot of fortune.
Following the loss of his fighting robot, Charlie is summoned to Texas after the passing of his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his son. Charlie is eager to sign over the guardianship of his son, Max, to Max’s aunt, but after noticing her wealthy husband, decides to take advantage of the situation. Charlie makes a deal to sign over the guardianship of his son Max, (Dakota Goyo) in exchange for a large sum of money which he plans to use to get back into the robot fighting game. The catch for Charlie is that he must watch Max for the summer so Max’s future parents can take a planned trip to Italy.
Max is quickly thrown into the robot-fighting world when he forces his dad to take him along to a bout. Unfortunately, it’s yet another painful loss for Charlie and their first father-son trip ends with them scouring a junkyard for robot replacement parts. It’s Max who literally stumbles across an old robot and becomes convinced that the discarded machine could become a champion given the right conditions. Despite his misgivings, Charlie agrees to train the robot and in doing so gets to reconnect with his estranged son. Charlie is given a shot at redemption when Max’s robot becomes a fighting success and starts to advance through the rankings.
Naturally with increased success comes increased expectations and risks for Charlie and Max’s robot. There are numerous people looking for them to fail, as there is no way that a washed up boxer with a kid and an outdated machine can take on the machines of the professional circuit. Predictably, but still grippingly so, the outdated robot, named Atom, makes his way from seedy fighting pits to upscale arenas. Eventually the Atom team is given a shot at the big time which, as fans of sports films know, is destined to end with a climactic bout with the larger-than-life champion.
What sets “Real Steel” apart from other CGI laden action films is the human element and emotional connections you make with the characters, and even the blue-eyed junkyard robot itself. Although Atom is a CGI construct of a machine, you find yourself pulling for this unlikely underdog just as much its flesh and blood costars. The action sequences are intense and amazing to look at but never overshadow the underlying storyline of love and redemption.
Jackman gives a believable performance as a seemingly callous individual with no redeeming qualities. (Remember, he essentially sold his son). Evangaline Lily, is solid and likeable in a supporting role as Charlie’s old friend and former love interest. Goyo, fresh off his work playing the younger Thor in this past summer’s blockbuster, does a remarkable job in what is likely his breakout role. He has the spunky innocence of youth with a maturity that I had not seen in any young actor since Haley Joel Osment in the Sixth Sense.
“Real Steel” may not be the most original film, as aside from the robots this is a boxing tale that is been told many times before. I definitely saw lots of elements of the original Rocky but still found the film extremely enjoyable and entertaining as well as one of the most pleasant surprises of the year. It is rumored that a sequel is already in production and I actually hope that this is the case. This is one story I certainly wouldn’t mind going a few extra rounds with.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sleepless (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A potentially good ‘B’ movie undone.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Sleepless” proves that in spades.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
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.