Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Writing (3 more)
No character development
Too many inconsistencies
Too many chapters
Errin Stowell's new novel series starts with Covet Not which is about a middle-aged lawyer named Sam Sparks - - - who is referred to as Sparks nearly the entire story - - - whose fiancee goes missing and he then becomes the prime suspect. Before everything happens though, readers see that Sparks spends his time trying to defend the elderly from home foreclosures as a small-time lawyer.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Killers of the Flower moon (2023) in Movies
Oct 27, 2023
Best Thing Scorses (and DeNiro) have done in many, many years
The BankofMarquis would highly recommend you see the latest epic (and we do mean EPIC) film from famed Director Martin Scorsese in a movie theater. Not because of the beautiful Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto, not because of the Epic-ness of the tale told and not because movie theaters could use your business (all of which are reasons to see it in the movie theaters). You need to see KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON in a movie theater so that you cannot be distracted by things around you (most, notably your PHONE). One needs to immerse themselves in the experience of this 3 1/2 movie to totally understand and appreciate it.
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Coming 2 America (2021) in Movies
Mar 16, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
Almost all of the original cast returns for this sequel (2 more)
Lots of laughs
Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprising many of the roles where they played multiple characters again.
Terrible character development (2 more)
Plot doesn't make sense at times or feels like missing scenes or plot development
Some jokes fall flat or feel forced and the trailer spoils some
Lots of Laughs and Callbacks But Not Enough Substance
Prince Akeem of Zamunda (Eddie Murphy) is visited by General Izzi (Wesley Snipes) who pushes for Akeem's eldest daughter Meeka (Kiki Layne) to marry his foppish son, Idi (Rotimi). Nexdoria is a hostile militaristic neighbor nation ruled by General Izzi, who is also the brother of Akeem's original arranged bride-to-be. Izzi threatens Akeem and says that it is better to be bound by blood and family then divided by blood and war. This occurs on the very day that Zamunda is celebrating the 30th anniversary of Prince Akeem and Lisa's wedding. King Jaffe Joffer (James Earl Jones) summons Akeem and Semmi (Arsenio Hall) and reminds them that only a male heir can inherit his kingdom. He summons his shaman Baba and they reveal that Akeem has a long lost son in America that he must retrieve in order to avoid a hostile takeover by Nexdoria.
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Founder (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
These days McDonalds is everywhere. You don’t have to travel too far before you see those familiar golden arches – in fact, there are three of them within a two mile radius of my home! I’m not personally a big fan of them, but that’s not to say I haven’t enjoyed the odd meal occasionally when in a hurry. It’s one of those things that’s just always been there in life, taken for granted without much of a thought as to how it all came to be so huge. Turns out there’s a pretty interesting story to be told involving a couple of pioneering brothers, and the guy who eventually completely screwed them over…
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
Michael Keaton is Ray Kroc, a hardworking salesman who always seems to be on the road while his bored wife (Laura Dern) is at home. Repeatedly getting the brush off from restaurant owners who don’t want to buy his amazing new five-spindled milkshake machine and frustrated by the slow, unreliable service from the drive-ins where he goes to get his lunch. For this part of the movie, we’re actually pretty sympathetic with Ray as he struggles in his lonely, boring, unfullfilling job, listening to motivational records in motel rooms as he drifts off to sleep. And then he gets a call from two brothers, Dick and Mac McDonald. They don’t just want to buy one of his milkshake machines, they want to buy at least six in order to cope with demand in their restaurant. Ray puts down the phone and his mind immediately goes into overdrive – what kind of restaurant have these guys got that’s producing this kind of demand? He pulls out a map and looks them up – they’re in San Bernadino California, so he heads off in his car to pay them a visit.
When he arrives, the place is packed with customers queuing for food. As Ray joins the queue a woman assures him that he won’t have to wait long and sure enough, after placing his 15 cent order for a burger, fries and soft drink (bargain!), he promptly gets his order within 30 seconds – served in a paper bag, no plates, no cutlery. He thinks there must be some mistake and it’s pretty amusing to see the bemused look on his face as he struggles to accept the concept that we now all take for granted. Fast, cheap food that you can eat absolutely anywhere you want – in your car, at the park, it’s up to you.
Ray offers to take the brothers out to dinner so that he can hear their story. It’s a wonderful, captivating story too, one that could so easily have been the entire movie. The brothers have such a good rapport as they passionately talk about what they’ve worked to achieve. Moving their restaurant to where it is now, developing their own machines for applying perfect amounts of ketchup and mustard into each bun and spending six hours sketching out potential restaurant layouts on a tennis court while their restaurant staff choreograph their optimised cooking routines. Everything has been tweaked to perfection, even down to the exact cooking time and temperature for their fries. After sleeping on all this information, Ray goes back to the brothers early the next morning and offers them the idea of franchising. But, it’s something they’ve dabbled in before and gave up on, having felt that they had no control over the quality and attention to detail that they pride themselves on in their own restaurant. Eventually Ray wins them over though and a contract is drawn up. The brothers get final say on everything and get half a percent of the profits but it’s up to Ray to setup the franchises and find the people to run them.
It’s a slow, hard process though and although Ray does setup a few successful restaurants, he soon becomes frustrated at the lack of money he seems to be making and the lack of control he has on the decision making process whenever he wants to save costs. The McDonald brothers just seem to keep saying ‘no’! But after he receives some business advice, telling him he should be concentrating on buying the land that the restaurants are on rather than the burgers being cooked, the tide begins to turn. He eventually becomes powerful enough to overpower the brothers, trademark their name, and generally take credit for everything the brothers worked for and built, eventually putting them out of business.
Kroc becomes ruthless, and a complete arsehole. The brothers did eventually make some decent money out of their final deal with Ray, but it certainly wasn’t the 100 million dollars a year they could have been making if they’d been treated right. You really feel for them, as they completely lose control of everything. But you can’t help wondering if things would have worked out that much different for them if they had never met Ray at all. Their restaurant will certainly have continued to do well for a while, but by focusing on just their one restaurant, how long before somebody else stole their idea and ran with it, somebody with the drive and vision to make real money like Ray, leaving them with no money settlement at all? After all, as the motivational LP that Ray listens to clearly pointed out at the start of the movie, “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence, talent will not, nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent …”.
okletmereviewit (4 KP) rated Kubo and the Two Strings (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2018
A great film for any family night
Contains spoilers, click to show
Kubo and the two strings is a heart warming, coming of age movie, for the whole family. Adults, you will appericate the story line and the plight that Kubo undergoes. Kids will love the animation and the characters. From the moment that the movie started, I fought back the tears. You see a mother and baby in the middle of the ocean one moment and the next, you see them ship wrecked on a beach. You skip forward a few years to when Kubo is about the age of ten. He is now a caregiver for his mother who you come to understand as mentally ill, with something like alzheimer's or dementia. Daily young Kubo goes into the neighboring village and tells fantastic stories of a Samurai Knight, and how he battles the evil Moon King and his army, all while playing his Sangen (a Japanese Guitar) and creating Origami creatures for the story. But as the bells ring for night to come forth, Kubo runs home.
It seems that his mother only "comes to life" when its night time. And then shortly there after returns to a catatonic state. One day while in the village an old beggar woman who befriended him tells him a story of how she speaks with her dead husband at night during a certain ritual. Kubo, who is confused and longing to know anything about his father who was said to be the greatest Samurai, goes to the ancestral resting place and tries to summon his father.
Time gets away from him and night befalls rather quickly. Soon two masked spectral spirits appear, and tell him that they are his aunts. Kubo is then told the reason he is missing an eye is due to his grandfather who only wanted to have his other eye so that he could join them in the heavens. Kubo begins running back to the village. The two spirits attack and destroy the village. When they are almost upon him, his mother shows up and uses the last of her magics to activate a totem and to create wings to whisk him away to safety, far away from his blood thirsty aunts. Kubo then wakes up in a vast frozen waste land with a monkey looking after him. The monkey begins to address Kubo, telling him that they need to go on this quest to find a magical suite of armor that his father once wore. So Kubo and Monkey set off on a quest. Kubo is awaken by the monkey, saying that the origami papers that he carried in his pack, were flying around and that in his sleep he created an origami Samurai. The same Samurai from his stories. This little paper guardian, shows them the way to the armor's pieces, which consist of a sword, a breast plate, and a helmet. Along the way they come across a Beetle who was once a Samurai who was cursed to live the rest of his life as a beetle. After that the unlikely foursome come across a cave that has the sword in it. But much like Kubos life, it was not an easy task to retrieve it as it awakened a tall skeleton warrior, which they had to defeat. They then come to a large body of water, which Kubo uses his magic and his Samgen to create a boat made out of leaves. Monkey exclaims to him how his power is growing. As they set sail, the little paper Samurai point out that the breast plate is at the bottom of the water. Kubo remembering a story that his mother told him, of eyes that show you what you want to see most, lived at the bottom of the water. Beetle offers to dive in and look for the breast plate as "beetles can hold their breaths for a really long time under water, and are great swimmers." After quite some time passes Kubo dives in after Beetle and the breast plate. Monkey is then attacked by one of the evil aunts. While Kubo is under the water he finds the breast plate, and the eyes. They show him that the Monkey is actually his mother in the form of a spirit totem (MIND BLOWN)...Becoming dazzled by the eyes, he begins to drowned. Beetle swoops in and begins shooting the eyes and rescues Kubo. During this time Monkey is battling one of the aunts and defeats her. Kubo and the gang then continue their quest to find the helmet, which is back at his fathers fort. Once back at the fort one of the aunts reveals to Kubo and to Monkey that Beetle is actually Kubos father. So Kubo now armed with this new knowledge is able to defeat his aunt, but not after losing both his parents again. Kubo then uses his magic, to fly back to his village to adorn the helmet to complete his suite of armor. He then has to battle his grandfather The Moon King. At which point The Moon King transforms into a giant centipede like demon. Kubo uses his wits, and magic, to defeat his grandfather and makes him mortal. In his mortal state he loses his memories, and the village people tell him how he was a just and honest man, and how he was kind. The story ends on an upswing.
Over all the movie was really good. I love how engaging it was, and all the attention to detail they provided in it since it was a stop motion claymation. I highly recommend this for any family night.
It seems that his mother only "comes to life" when its night time. And then shortly there after returns to a catatonic state. One day while in the village an old beggar woman who befriended him tells him a story of how she speaks with her dead husband at night during a certain ritual. Kubo, who is confused and longing to know anything about his father who was said to be the greatest Samurai, goes to the ancestral resting place and tries to summon his father.
Time gets away from him and night befalls rather quickly. Soon two masked spectral spirits appear, and tell him that they are his aunts. Kubo is then told the reason he is missing an eye is due to his grandfather who only wanted to have his other eye so that he could join them in the heavens. Kubo begins running back to the village. The two spirits attack and destroy the village. When they are almost upon him, his mother shows up and uses the last of her magics to activate a totem and to create wings to whisk him away to safety, far away from his blood thirsty aunts. Kubo then wakes up in a vast frozen waste land with a monkey looking after him. The monkey begins to address Kubo, telling him that they need to go on this quest to find a magical suite of armor that his father once wore. So Kubo and Monkey set off on a quest. Kubo is awaken by the monkey, saying that the origami papers that he carried in his pack, were flying around and that in his sleep he created an origami Samurai. The same Samurai from his stories. This little paper guardian, shows them the way to the armor's pieces, which consist of a sword, a breast plate, and a helmet. Along the way they come across a Beetle who was once a Samurai who was cursed to live the rest of his life as a beetle. After that the unlikely foursome come across a cave that has the sword in it. But much like Kubos life, it was not an easy task to retrieve it as it awakened a tall skeleton warrior, which they had to defeat. They then come to a large body of water, which Kubo uses his magic and his Samgen to create a boat made out of leaves. Monkey exclaims to him how his power is growing. As they set sail, the little paper Samurai point out that the breast plate is at the bottom of the water. Kubo remembering a story that his mother told him, of eyes that show you what you want to see most, lived at the bottom of the water. Beetle offers to dive in and look for the breast plate as "beetles can hold their breaths for a really long time under water, and are great swimmers." After quite some time passes Kubo dives in after Beetle and the breast plate. Monkey is then attacked by one of the evil aunts. While Kubo is under the water he finds the breast plate, and the eyes. They show him that the Monkey is actually his mother in the form of a spirit totem (MIND BLOWN)...Becoming dazzled by the eyes, he begins to drowned. Beetle swoops in and begins shooting the eyes and rescues Kubo. During this time Monkey is battling one of the aunts and defeats her. Kubo and the gang then continue their quest to find the helmet, which is back at his fathers fort. Once back at the fort one of the aunts reveals to Kubo and to Monkey that Beetle is actually Kubos father. So Kubo now armed with this new knowledge is able to defeat his aunt, but not after losing both his parents again. Kubo then uses his magic, to fly back to his village to adorn the helmet to complete his suite of armor. He then has to battle his grandfather The Moon King. At which point The Moon King transforms into a giant centipede like demon. Kubo uses his wits, and magic, to defeat his grandfather and makes him mortal. In his mortal state he loses his memories, and the village people tell him how he was a just and honest man, and how he was kind. The story ends on an upswing.
Over all the movie was really good. I love how engaging it was, and all the attention to detail they provided in it since it was a stop motion claymation. I highly recommend this for any family night.
okletmereviewit (4 KP) rated Closet Monster (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2018
PTSD and Coming of Age and Out
This movie is an amazing tale of coming of age and coming to terms with ones own sexuality. This movie for being an Indie film portrays the inner dialogue and the inner turmoil of coming to terms with ones sexuality, as well as showing the hidden side of a broken home. The movie begins with young Oscar (Jack Fulton) and his father tucking him into bed and their nightly rituals of his father (Aaron Abrams) "giving him a dream".
In the next scene you see Oscar and mother (Joanne Kelly) and father giving him a present of a Hamster, and then his father declaring that Oscars mother is leaving them. You then see Oscar in his room with the hamster, who begins "talking" to Oscar (voiced by Isabella Rossellini) and names herself "Buffy" (as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer) but the voice is an inner monologue that Oscar creates for the critter and is a comforting mechanism for him, as throughout the movie you gain the feeling that Oscar only has one friend, Gemma (Sofia Banzhaf).
The PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) comes in when while coming home from school one day, Oscar notices a group of kids bullying another student. He follows them to a secluded cemetery where they see them beating the kids and sodomizing him with a piece of re-bar. Later that night Oscar and his dad are watching the News coverage of the situation and Oscars asks his dad why they did that and the father said "because he was gay" and makes a side reference to Oscars long shaggy hair. To which Oscar being scared cuts his hair himself.
Skip forward: Now Oscar as a teen (Connor Jessup) is taking pictures of Gemma for his portfolio for admissions into college. We also see that the now 18yr old Oscar is now working in a general hardware store who is ran by Allison (Mary Walsh) who teaches him the basics of greeting customers and how to help them make selections, etc. After his shift while in the employee locker room a strapping young man named Wilder (Aliocha Schneider) checks his locker for his employee uniform and realizes that it is not there and asks to borrow Oscars shirt. This is the first time that we witness Oscar's sexual preference, when Wilder takes off his shirt and puts on Oscars shirt. Oscar longingly looks at the finely toned body of Wilder.
Later the next day Wilder gives Oscar his shirt back before work, and says thanks. You then see Oscar smelling the shirt to see if it was "ok" to wear. And then he rushes into the restroom with the shirt and begins touching himself and fantasizing about Wilder, and then has a flash of the students sodomizing that other student when he was a kid.
Slowly Oscar and Wilder begin a friendship and get closer. As Oscar and Gemma seem to grow apart. Things at home take a turn for the worse as Oscars father begins seeing a woman, and Oscar becomes more frustrated with himself, work, life and everything between. It finally escalates into a fight with his father that leaves Oscar physically assaulting his dad, and running away to a party that Wilder had invited him to.
At the party he finds Wilder and his friends, and they take Oscar to a room and put together a costume for him to wear for the party. Wilders friends take some Ecstasy and begin to really party it up. Gemma runs into Oscar and realizes that he is high and Oscar excuses himself as he notices that Wilder is talking to some girls. A guy approaches Oscar and begins hitting on him, and Oscar who was holding out for Wilder notices that he is kissing a girl. So Oscar and the guy make their way into the bathroom where they begin to kiss and have sex. In the midst of it Oscar begins to have flash backs of the beaten boy in the cemetery and freaks out, vomits and passes out.
We then see Wilder waking him up and helping him home. Oscar and Wilder spend the night together in Oscars tree house. Oscar and Wilder begin talking about the escapades of the night and things turn to sexuality when Oscar mistakes Wilders reaching for a bottle of water as him wanting to kiss. Embarrassed, Oscar asks him to leave, and they begin to talk about it, and then Wilder kisses him. In the morning you see Oscar wake up and find a note from Wilder basically saying "See you later gotta run" and you are not sure if the two had slept together or not. Oscar sneaks back into his room only to find that everything had been destroyed by his father.
The next scene you see his mother and father fighting as Oscar is looking through whats left of his possessions that are scattered throughout the drive way. Oscar sees his beloved Buffy laying dead in her cage. Enraged by this, Oscar comes to terms with his sexuality and breaks something of his fathers and then moves in with his mother. The movie ends with Oscar moving to a small house near the beach. Leaving you wondering how much time had passed or if he was in a school or what was going on.
But throughout the whole of the movie. The sexuality is done in a very muted and respectable manner. There is some cussing and things like that but over all very tastefully done. If you are a lover of coming to age films or films dealing with the nature of coming out, then you are sure to love this movie.
In the next scene you see Oscar and mother (Joanne Kelly) and father giving him a present of a Hamster, and then his father declaring that Oscars mother is leaving them. You then see Oscar in his room with the hamster, who begins "talking" to Oscar (voiced by Isabella Rossellini) and names herself "Buffy" (as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer) but the voice is an inner monologue that Oscar creates for the critter and is a comforting mechanism for him, as throughout the movie you gain the feeling that Oscar only has one friend, Gemma (Sofia Banzhaf).
The PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) comes in when while coming home from school one day, Oscar notices a group of kids bullying another student. He follows them to a secluded cemetery where they see them beating the kids and sodomizing him with a piece of re-bar. Later that night Oscar and his dad are watching the News coverage of the situation and Oscars asks his dad why they did that and the father said "because he was gay" and makes a side reference to Oscars long shaggy hair. To which Oscar being scared cuts his hair himself.
Skip forward: Now Oscar as a teen (Connor Jessup) is taking pictures of Gemma for his portfolio for admissions into college. We also see that the now 18yr old Oscar is now working in a general hardware store who is ran by Allison (Mary Walsh) who teaches him the basics of greeting customers and how to help them make selections, etc. After his shift while in the employee locker room a strapping young man named Wilder (Aliocha Schneider) checks his locker for his employee uniform and realizes that it is not there and asks to borrow Oscars shirt. This is the first time that we witness Oscar's sexual preference, when Wilder takes off his shirt and puts on Oscars shirt. Oscar longingly looks at the finely toned body of Wilder.
Later the next day Wilder gives Oscar his shirt back before work, and says thanks. You then see Oscar smelling the shirt to see if it was "ok" to wear. And then he rushes into the restroom with the shirt and begins touching himself and fantasizing about Wilder, and then has a flash of the students sodomizing that other student when he was a kid.
Slowly Oscar and Wilder begin a friendship and get closer. As Oscar and Gemma seem to grow apart. Things at home take a turn for the worse as Oscars father begins seeing a woman, and Oscar becomes more frustrated with himself, work, life and everything between. It finally escalates into a fight with his father that leaves Oscar physically assaulting his dad, and running away to a party that Wilder had invited him to.
At the party he finds Wilder and his friends, and they take Oscar to a room and put together a costume for him to wear for the party. Wilders friends take some Ecstasy and begin to really party it up. Gemma runs into Oscar and realizes that he is high and Oscar excuses himself as he notices that Wilder is talking to some girls. A guy approaches Oscar and begins hitting on him, and Oscar who was holding out for Wilder notices that he is kissing a girl. So Oscar and the guy make their way into the bathroom where they begin to kiss and have sex. In the midst of it Oscar begins to have flash backs of the beaten boy in the cemetery and freaks out, vomits and passes out.
We then see Wilder waking him up and helping him home. Oscar and Wilder spend the night together in Oscars tree house. Oscar and Wilder begin talking about the escapades of the night and things turn to sexuality when Oscar mistakes Wilders reaching for a bottle of water as him wanting to kiss. Embarrassed, Oscar asks him to leave, and they begin to talk about it, and then Wilder kisses him. In the morning you see Oscar wake up and find a note from Wilder basically saying "See you later gotta run" and you are not sure if the two had slept together or not. Oscar sneaks back into his room only to find that everything had been destroyed by his father.
The next scene you see his mother and father fighting as Oscar is looking through whats left of his possessions that are scattered throughout the drive way. Oscar sees his beloved Buffy laying dead in her cage. Enraged by this, Oscar comes to terms with his sexuality and breaks something of his fathers and then moves in with his mother. The movie ends with Oscar moving to a small house near the beach. Leaving you wondering how much time had passed or if he was in a school or what was going on.
But throughout the whole of the movie. The sexuality is done in a very muted and respectable manner. There is some cussing and things like that but over all very tastefully done. If you are a lover of coming to age films or films dealing with the nature of coming out, then you are sure to love this movie.