Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Siempre estamos solas”
Alfonso Cuarón‘s “Roma” has been lauded with praise and award’s hype, and I must admit to have been a little bit snooty about it. A black-and-white Spanish language film with subtitles that – to be honest – looks a bit dreary: can it really be that good? Having now (finally) seen it on Netflix I can confirm that’s a big YES from my point of view. It’s a novelty of a glacially slow film that grips like a vice.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated The Zookeeper's Wife (2017) in Movies
Nov 24, 2017 (Updated Nov 24, 2017)
Story is harrowing and essential but film could have been made better
As a massive fan of biopics, The Zookeeper's Wife is an incredibly important tale of a the real life Polish couple who sheltered Jews in their zoo during the Second World War, helping 300 people to escape from Warsaw.
Dr. Jan Zabinski was the director of the Warsaw Zoo in the 1930's, and along with his wife Antonina and young son, they ensured the safety and care of animals in the area. Their life came to an abrupt halt with the German invasion of Poland in 1939, when most of their animals and structures were destroyed in the bombings and siege of the city. The zoo was closed under German occupation, but the Zabinskis continued to occupy the villa, and the zoo itself was used first as a pig farm and subsequently as a fur farm. All the while, Dr Zabinski smuggled Jewish people out of the Warsaw Ghetto and aided their way out of city, not before allowing them to stay in their own house. He was injured while fighting in the Polish resistance, but the couple were given an honorary title by Yad Vashem (Israel's official memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust) for their brave efforts.
Similar in the vein of films such as @Schindler's List (1993), there is an element of a saviour complex in these films, but unlike Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winner, it is less extravagant and less well-made, as there was very little engagement with the Jewish characters - focusing more on Antonina, played by Jessica Chastain. It is definitely heart-wrenching watching films based on the holocaust, and there were scenes I had to turn away from, such as when an elderly woman and her mother were shot dead in the streets by soldiers. The script and cinematography weren't at a high standard, however, and as a result the film definitely fell short. I would suggest reading the book @The Zookeeper's Wife - it has far more detail than the film, in which there were glaringly obvious plot holes.
Dr. Jan Zabinski was the director of the Warsaw Zoo in the 1930's, and along with his wife Antonina and young son, they ensured the safety and care of animals in the area. Their life came to an abrupt halt with the German invasion of Poland in 1939, when most of their animals and structures were destroyed in the bombings and siege of the city. The zoo was closed under German occupation, but the Zabinskis continued to occupy the villa, and the zoo itself was used first as a pig farm and subsequently as a fur farm. All the while, Dr Zabinski smuggled Jewish people out of the Warsaw Ghetto and aided their way out of city, not before allowing them to stay in their own house. He was injured while fighting in the Polish resistance, but the couple were given an honorary title by Yad Vashem (Israel's official memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust) for their brave efforts.
Similar in the vein of films such as @Schindler's List (1993), there is an element of a saviour complex in these films, but unlike Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winner, it is less extravagant and less well-made, as there was very little engagement with the Jewish characters - focusing more on Antonina, played by Jessica Chastain. It is definitely heart-wrenching watching films based on the holocaust, and there were scenes I had to turn away from, such as when an elderly woman and her mother were shot dead in the streets by soldiers. The script and cinematography weren't at a high standard, however, and as a result the film definitely fell short. I would suggest reading the book @The Zookeeper's Wife - it has far more detail than the film, in which there were glaringly obvious plot holes.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Polar (2019) in Movies
Feb 7, 2019 (Updated Feb 7, 2019)
Extremely Polarizing
Wow, what a train wreck this turned out to be..
Think diet John Wick meets an immature, garish comic book full of pantomime villains and you have Polar. Sometimes you see a movie and can't help but wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?" Unfortunately this is one of those times. There are folks out there that have crafted a solid script and are struggling to get their movie funded and made, meanwhile there is low level trash like this being paid for and distributed by a huge platform like Netflix?! It is an outrageous and pretty sad state of affairs.
Without a doubt the worst part of this thing is the god awful assortment of villains. They are so annoying and infuriating in every scene they are in and only get worse as the movie goes on. Half the movie is spent following this massively irritating group as they hunt for Mads Mikkelsen's character and they are so unlikable, but not in the way that they are supposed to be. They all work for the main villain, who is inexplicably played by Matt Lucas from Little Britain. That's right, Vicky Pollard is this movie's main antagonist. He is god awful here and I genuinely don't even know what they were attempting to do with this character. Every scene that he is in feels like a discarded Little Britain sketch.
The one bright spot in the film is Mads Mikkelsen's turn as Duncan, the ex-hitman being hunted throughout the film by his ex-employers who serves as our main protagonist. I love seeing Mads in anything he appears in, so I actually found the scenes with him in them pretty enjoyable, and frankly they were the only thing that stopped this movie from being scored a pathetic 1/10.
Overall, this is total mess. It is the worst type of comic book movie and doesn't seem appealing to anyone over the age of 12. Please don't waste your time with this garbage, there are much better movies out there based on graphic novels that don't only cater to horny, brain-dead teenagers.
Think diet John Wick meets an immature, garish comic book full of pantomime villains and you have Polar. Sometimes you see a movie and can't help but wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?" Unfortunately this is one of those times. There are folks out there that have crafted a solid script and are struggling to get their movie funded and made, meanwhile there is low level trash like this being paid for and distributed by a huge platform like Netflix?! It is an outrageous and pretty sad state of affairs.
Without a doubt the worst part of this thing is the god awful assortment of villains. They are so annoying and infuriating in every scene they are in and only get worse as the movie goes on. Half the movie is spent following this massively irritating group as they hunt for Mads Mikkelsen's character and they are so unlikable, but not in the way that they are supposed to be. They all work for the main villain, who is inexplicably played by Matt Lucas from Little Britain. That's right, Vicky Pollard is this movie's main antagonist. He is god awful here and I genuinely don't even know what they were attempting to do with this character. Every scene that he is in feels like a discarded Little Britain sketch.
The one bright spot in the film is Mads Mikkelsen's turn as Duncan, the ex-hitman being hunted throughout the film by his ex-employers who serves as our main protagonist. I love seeing Mads in anything he appears in, so I actually found the scenes with him in them pretty enjoyable, and frankly they were the only thing that stopped this movie from being scored a pathetic 1/10.
Overall, this is total mess. It is the worst type of comic book movie and doesn't seem appealing to anyone over the age of 12. Please don't waste your time with this garbage, there are much better movies out there based on graphic novels that don't only cater to horny, brain-dead teenagers.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Mar 28, 2019
Deserving of the Oscar
I knew very little about Green Book heading in to it, other than the basic plot and that it had won the Oscar. I hadn't even seen a trailer, but when deciding what to watch on an afternoon off work, it seemed like a good choice. And I can honestly say that this is the best 2 hours I've spent in the cinema recently that didn't involve a Marvel film. It really is that good.
Right from the opening scene, this film was captivating and engaging. It's funny and heartwarming and really quite sad at times, without ever becoming dull or drawn out. It's such a beautiful story of a journey between two polar opposite characters. Viggo Mortensen's brash and uncultured Tony is a loveable rogue, and his clashes against the cultured, prim and proper pianist played by Mahershala Ali are a delight and often humorous to watch. It's the interaction and development of these two characters that make this film brilliant. Both actors are superb, and both would have been deserving of an Oscar in their own rights for their performances. The scene with them discussing KFC had me in stitches and is possibly the funniest thing I've seen in quite a long time.
The film itself is beautifully made and shot, and I cannot believe that this film has come from Peter Farrelly, who's previous films with his brother Bobby were as far from Oscar winners as you could get. The entire film from the costumes and soundtrack to the script were well done and altogether faultless. The film also does very well to get across the important attitudes and messages about racism and it does so in a very subtle yet powerful way.
I spent the entirety of this film with a smile on my face and a warm fuzzy feeling inside, which I still have now writing this review just thinking about unexpectedly brilliant this film was. I usually think most Oscar winners and nominees are entirely overrated, but not Green Book - this deserves every accolade it can get and more.
Right from the opening scene, this film was captivating and engaging. It's funny and heartwarming and really quite sad at times, without ever becoming dull or drawn out. It's such a beautiful story of a journey between two polar opposite characters. Viggo Mortensen's brash and uncultured Tony is a loveable rogue, and his clashes against the cultured, prim and proper pianist played by Mahershala Ali are a delight and often humorous to watch. It's the interaction and development of these two characters that make this film brilliant. Both actors are superb, and both would have been deserving of an Oscar in their own rights for their performances. The scene with them discussing KFC had me in stitches and is possibly the funniest thing I've seen in quite a long time.
The film itself is beautifully made and shot, and I cannot believe that this film has come from Peter Farrelly, who's previous films with his brother Bobby were as far from Oscar winners as you could get. The entire film from the costumes and soundtrack to the script were well done and altogether faultless. The film also does very well to get across the important attitudes and messages about racism and it does so in a very subtle yet powerful way.
I spent the entirety of this film with a smile on my face and a warm fuzzy feeling inside, which I still have now writing this review just thinking about unexpectedly brilliant this film was. I usually think most Oscar winners and nominees are entirely overrated, but not Green Book - this deserves every accolade it can get and more.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
May 13, 2019
We arnt Venom
#venom is this years biggest flop. Inconsistent, #boring, generic & makes even #spiderman 3 look good in comparison. What wound me up most is the characters/the acting, every single person in this film underreacts not only to situations but to each others presence too. There's simply no #emotion towards anyone or anything, #sadness, shock, #horror & #panic all feel missing from everyone giving each of them a hollow & cartoonish feel. Characters also lack #motivation for any of their actions making a good chunk of them completely disposable. Tone wise its a mess with the sparce #horrific/#dark scenes edge taken away instantly because they are followed by such a #childish/out of place slapstick #comedy vibe. Infact Venoms tone felt more like watching #Jumanji rather than a 15 certificate #film with most of its runtime feeling like an over simplified dumbed down #family film. There's so many inconsistencies too like relationships going from hostile to fine with no explanation, characters figuring things out first time without having found evidence, people appear out of seemingly nowhere on multiple occasions & nobody ever notices any of the #death/destruction being caused around the city. Its all so obvious that it feels like either huge chunks of the film is either missing or someone was really bad at editing & keeping consistency. Action is poor, forgettable, generic & anticlimactic & the cgi #feels cheap, #lazy & unimaginative like a straight to dvd #movie. Plot is borderline offensive its that basic with so many early visual cues to whats going to happen that its really #inteligence insulting at times. #tomhardy is great as always & really seems like he's giving it his all but the bad writing & awful script kill what #charm & likability his character has completely & the interaction between him & Venom lacks punch & believability too. #Upgrade proved this year that you dont need a big budget to make a great film about losing control of yourself & yet Venom with all its backing doesnt even come close to doing anything right. Last years #life would of made a far better venom movie than this. #wednesdaywisdom #filmcritic #stanlee #mcu #comic #marvel
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
May 14, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2020)
Captain Marvel delivers a solid and safe chapter into the MCU
Contains spoilers, click to show
After 10 years of connected movies, Marvel are finally introducing one of their most powerful characters into their cinematic universe, and there's plenty to be excited about.
It's Marvel's first truly female led movie for a start, and the decision to forgo the original Mar-vell from the comics, and dive straight into the story of Carol Danvers is a wise move.
This decision routes the film in a 90s setting, with plenty of nostalgic call backs (Blockbuster anyone?), and a solid grunge filled soundtrack, that compliments a world that is yet to see The Avengers.
It's fun to see a non jaded Nick Fury, blissfully unaware of the extent of the cosmic universe, and a pleasure to see Clark Gregg return to the MCU as Coulson (a short but sweet roll). Side roles for Anette Benning and Lashana Lynch are nicely fleshed as well.
At this point, I'm still not 100% sold on Brie Larson, but she carries the film well enough for it to be an above average origin story, but honestly, the supporting cast outshines her at times (even Goose the cat threatens to steal the show at times).
As for the villains, well, the trailers painted the long anticipated Skrulls as the main threat, but the movie pulls a right turn midway through, and reveals that Talos and his Skrull followers are actually refugees, trying to escape the clutches of Jude Law and his murderous Kree death squad.
The Skrulls are a welcome edition to the MCU, and sets up a possible Secret Invasion storyline in the future, however, the direction of the story and the script pummels Jude Law into one the most underwhelming MCU villains we've had so far.
By the same merit, this film is all about it's titular character, and I would imagine the writers never wanted that focus to stray - Carol Danvers is here to stay after all.
Captain Marvel is a low stakes, colourful comic book adventure that nicely and safely fills a gap in the MCU, and sets us you nicely for post Endgame stories.
It's Marvel's first truly female led movie for a start, and the decision to forgo the original Mar-vell from the comics, and dive straight into the story of Carol Danvers is a wise move.
This decision routes the film in a 90s setting, with plenty of nostalgic call backs (Blockbuster anyone?), and a solid grunge filled soundtrack, that compliments a world that is yet to see The Avengers.
It's fun to see a non jaded Nick Fury, blissfully unaware of the extent of the cosmic universe, and a pleasure to see Clark Gregg return to the MCU as Coulson (a short but sweet roll). Side roles for Anette Benning and Lashana Lynch are nicely fleshed as well.
At this point, I'm still not 100% sold on Brie Larson, but she carries the film well enough for it to be an above average origin story, but honestly, the supporting cast outshines her at times (even Goose the cat threatens to steal the show at times).
As for the villains, well, the trailers painted the long anticipated Skrulls as the main threat, but the movie pulls a right turn midway through, and reveals that Talos and his Skrull followers are actually refugees, trying to escape the clutches of Jude Law and his murderous Kree death squad.
The Skrulls are a welcome edition to the MCU, and sets up a possible Secret Invasion storyline in the future, however, the direction of the story and the script pummels Jude Law into one the most underwhelming MCU villains we've had so far.
By the same merit, this film is all about it's titular character, and I would imagine the writers never wanted that focus to stray - Carol Danvers is here to stay after all.
Captain Marvel is a low stakes, colourful comic book adventure that nicely and safely fills a gap in the MCU, and sets us you nicely for post Endgame stories.
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
A Masterclass of Cinema
At some point between 1997 and, say a few years ago, not liking Titanic became the "cool" thing to do. Despite it's almost overwhelming popularity when it was released, as the years have gone by, fewer will admit their love for this film and some people will actively slate it. Each to their own of course, everyone is entitled to like or dislike anything, but for me, I'll never understand how this can be viewed as anything other than a masterclass of cinema.
This is an epic, grandiose and utterly captivating thing to watch. The cast are perfect- every single one of them. I can't think of a single actor that puts a foot wrong throughout it's admittedly hefty run time. The script is wonderfully and meticulously researched and the set design is incredible. Every detail of the ship was looked at and recreated and whilst there are a few inaccuracies, the Titanic feels real again so many years after the real one went down.
I mentioned the run time and that's often one of the problems that is mentioned when people take issue with Titanic. It is long- perhaps too long. The modern-day sequences that bookend the film could maybe have done with some trimming down, but when I watch this, there's hardly any moment that I could single out as not needing to be there.
In many ways, Titanic is the perfect film. You get the love story dominating the first half, but if you aren't invested in that, the second gives you the sinking and nearly 21 years on, it's still breath taking to watch.
I haven't even mentioned the score yet- it's beautiful. This was James Horner's best work by far, so good in fact that I don't think the film would be anywhere near as memorable were it not for the amazing work he put in here. Celine Dion may be the first name people think of when the music from Titanic is mentioned, but it's certainly Horner that deserves every single bit of credit.
This is an epic, grandiose and utterly captivating thing to watch. The cast are perfect- every single one of them. I can't think of a single actor that puts a foot wrong throughout it's admittedly hefty run time. The script is wonderfully and meticulously researched and the set design is incredible. Every detail of the ship was looked at and recreated and whilst there are a few inaccuracies, the Titanic feels real again so many years after the real one went down.
I mentioned the run time and that's often one of the problems that is mentioned when people take issue with Titanic. It is long- perhaps too long. The modern-day sequences that bookend the film could maybe have done with some trimming down, but when I watch this, there's hardly any moment that I could single out as not needing to be there.
In many ways, Titanic is the perfect film. You get the love story dominating the first half, but if you aren't invested in that, the second gives you the sinking and nearly 21 years on, it's still breath taking to watch.
I haven't even mentioned the score yet- it's beautiful. This was James Horner's best work by far, so good in fact that I don't think the film would be anywhere near as memorable were it not for the amazing work he put in here. Celine Dion may be the first name people think of when the music from Titanic is mentioned, but it's certainly Horner that deserves every single bit of credit.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Rocketeer (1991) in Movies
Feb 12, 2018
Hated it
Me trying to find something I liked about The Rocketeer: "Well that part was cool. Yeah, but it was quickly ruined by x,y, and z. Besides, the terrible part that happened right after made it all for nothing. Ok, but what about...Nope, that was pretty crappy too."
If Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice has taught us anything it's that sometimes superhero movies get it wrong. Not only does The Rocketeer get it wrong, it steps on its own feet before it can even get off the blocks properly. Oftentimes we have the case of decent actors getting placed with a dud of a script, but that's far from the situation here. Sure the actors didn't have much of a chance with the awful writing, but I have the strangest feeling that even if the writing had been superb these actors still would have found a way to muck it up. It's that bad. I'm talking grind your teeth bad.
To its credit, the film doesn't dupe you as it gets off to a terrible start almost immediately. Twenty minutes in and I was already thinking of the number of different things that I could have been doing rather than watching The Rocketeeer. Was it all bad? No, but mostly. The redeemable parts were quickly ruined by their own contradictions. Perfect example, everytime main character Cliff Secord (Billy Campbell) donned the Rocketeer suit, the action was pretty sweet to watch. Considering the fact that he wasn't in the suit for even a full half hour, things soured pretty quickly.
Corny moments abound in the film. I was hoping for a base that was more serious and less campy and all I can say is: Mission Not Accomplished. Between the absolute joke of a villain, the lame plot twist, and a number of other things, I don't know what bothered me the most.
The Rocketeer is the story of an aviator who is on the run from the mob after discovering a jet pack in the 1930's. Yeah, now that I think about it, the plot should have told me everything I needed to know about expectations. Skip it. I give it a 10.
If Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice has taught us anything it's that sometimes superhero movies get it wrong. Not only does The Rocketeer get it wrong, it steps on its own feet before it can even get off the blocks properly. Oftentimes we have the case of decent actors getting placed with a dud of a script, but that's far from the situation here. Sure the actors didn't have much of a chance with the awful writing, but I have the strangest feeling that even if the writing had been superb these actors still would have found a way to muck it up. It's that bad. I'm talking grind your teeth bad.
To its credit, the film doesn't dupe you as it gets off to a terrible start almost immediately. Twenty minutes in and I was already thinking of the number of different things that I could have been doing rather than watching The Rocketeeer. Was it all bad? No, but mostly. The redeemable parts were quickly ruined by their own contradictions. Perfect example, everytime main character Cliff Secord (Billy Campbell) donned the Rocketeer suit, the action was pretty sweet to watch. Considering the fact that he wasn't in the suit for even a full half hour, things soured pretty quickly.
Corny moments abound in the film. I was hoping for a base that was more serious and less campy and all I can say is: Mission Not Accomplished. Between the absolute joke of a villain, the lame plot twist, and a number of other things, I don't know what bothered me the most.
The Rocketeer is the story of an aviator who is on the run from the mob after discovering a jet pack in the 1930's. Yeah, now that I think about it, the plot should have told me everything I needed to know about expectations. Skip it. I give it a 10.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jason X (2001) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
In the not too distant future, Jason Voorhees has been contained. He's been prepared for cryogenic stasis, that is until the military shows up and has other plans for him. After Jason slaughters the military personnel, Rowan(the head of the cryogenic stasis unit) manages to get Jason into a tank for suspended animation preparation. After a slight mishap, she winds up being frozen as well. Now, nearly 450 years in the future, a professor and his team of young students discover Rowan and Jason. They bring the two back to their ship and only have plans to thaw out Rowan, but underestimate how devastating Jason really is. Now with Jason running loose on Grendel(the ship), will anyone be able to survive long enough to make it back home?
This movie is beyond ridiculous. I'll say that up front right now. It is cheese through and through. There's no doubt about that. I'd be lying if I wasn't entertained by it to some degree though. This film boasts the biggest body count of any Friday the 13th film with a staggering 28 kills. And even though Jason suddenly has hair, for whatever miraculous reason, I actually don't mind how he looks up until he becomes some weird hybrid of Lord Zedd and Super Shredder...I mean Uber-Jason.
Some of the kills are really awesome though. They revisit the sleeping bag kill from part seven in this one and it's pretty entertaining. The real kill that steals the show is Adrienne's kill. When Jason first wakes up from cryogenic stasis, he takes Adrienne's face, shoves it into a sink filled with liquid nitrogen, pulls it out, and then smashes it on a nearby table. It's truly the highlight of the film. Jason is in space. That's pretty much the gist of the storyline. Uber-Jason is a joke. Other than looking different, he doesn't do much of anything the normal Jason wouldn't do. With a weak storyline, bad acting, and a rather lame script, Jason X is really only worth watching if you're a die hard Friday the 13th fan. Even then, you're better off watching one of the earlier sequels that you'll know you enjoy.
This movie is beyond ridiculous. I'll say that up front right now. It is cheese through and through. There's no doubt about that. I'd be lying if I wasn't entertained by it to some degree though. This film boasts the biggest body count of any Friday the 13th film with a staggering 28 kills. And even though Jason suddenly has hair, for whatever miraculous reason, I actually don't mind how he looks up until he becomes some weird hybrid of Lord Zedd and Super Shredder...I mean Uber-Jason.
Some of the kills are really awesome though. They revisit the sleeping bag kill from part seven in this one and it's pretty entertaining. The real kill that steals the show is Adrienne's kill. When Jason first wakes up from cryogenic stasis, he takes Adrienne's face, shoves it into a sink filled with liquid nitrogen, pulls it out, and then smashes it on a nearby table. It's truly the highlight of the film. Jason is in space. That's pretty much the gist of the storyline. Uber-Jason is a joke. Other than looking different, he doesn't do much of anything the normal Jason wouldn't do. With a weak storyline, bad acting, and a rather lame script, Jason X is really only worth watching if you're a die hard Friday the 13th fan. Even then, you're better off watching one of the earlier sequels that you'll know you enjoy.