(via Movie Blaze for WP) Watched this film aged 11 thirty years ago on t.v home from school sick and thought its was awesome. Rewatched it 4 times since and its greatness has not dimmed at all. Timeless.
"Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."
Finally! I don't no why it took me so long to see one of the most acclaimed films of all time. The Shawshank Redemption really moved me.
The emotion that was put into it, was something really truthful and real. Even when there are moments where you predict what is going to happen next, its subtleness and immense depth affects you anyway. Since the very first moment, we are attached to it and not many films do that with the audience. Such a simple story but with such content.
Frank Darabont direction was amazing! The film has over two hours and you never get bored, you are driven by the emotion of the events and the great cinematography makes you feel the terrifying life in prison.
The performances from all the cast are something great to see but Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins are the ones who gave absolutely phenomenal performances. The performances of a lifetime.
I can see why many people love this film. They love it because is power makes it unforgettable. Now I love it too, and I will always remember it.
An absolutely beautiful story about hope and friendship.
I knew that quite a few people had complained about the realism in this movie even though it hold high ratings on most movie sites. I was hoping that the complaints were mostly nitpicking like wrong model of Sherman tank and such like. Well, I am afraid that it was a bit more than that. I would say that this movie is clearly written by some Hollywood writer sitting in his comfy chair and never ever having been close to any military activities, not to mention live action, in his life.
I can live with a movie being inaccurate or somewhat unrealistic if the rest of the movie is good but I have to say that I did not really like the movie even after trying to filter out the unrealistic nonsense.
The movie is very dark and gritty and there are really no likeable characters in it whatsoever. Well, the clerk that got thrown in as a tank machinegun gunner was perhaps somewhat likable but then him getting assigned as a tank machinegun gunner in the first place was one of those nonsensical bits. In this movie the “heroes” are not really any better than the Nazis. The scene where “Wardaddy” forces previously mentioned clerk to shoot an unarmed POW is just disgusting. I am sure this is not too far from reality in some cases during the war but I’ll be damned if I am watching a movie to be entertained by it.
Having said that I must also say that the movie was very well done in terms of acting and cinematography with one exception. The ridiculous overuse of tracer bullet effects. Tracer bullets do not look like you are in a Star Wars movie and yes I have been using tracer bullets during my military service, obviously unlike the producer and consultants (if they had any) of this movie.
The pacing of the movie was somewhat uneven. Some of it was fairly fast paced but then some parts, like the part in the apartment of the two German women was quite slow and somewhat dull.
The “last stand” at the end was just silly and nonsensical. It started pretty much right away when the poor clerk spots the arriving German infantry just using his eyes. Then it just takes forever until they actually arrive so our “heroes” have all the time in the world to prepare. There would of course be no way for a lone Sherman to hold off an assault like that and the Germans would of course not be charging around shooting useless fine caliber weaponry against said Sherman. Also when they had all this time to prepare why the f… did they leave some of the ammo outside the tank? Obviously because some dumb scriptwriter thought it would make for a good scene. And do not get me started on the fact that the Germans apparently just stops in their tracks every time the director thinks it is time for some slow scene inside the tank.
The ending? Well I do not like bad endings and this one certainly did not give me any feeling of reward for having suffered through over two hours of this movie. Needless to say I am a tad disappointed.
By no means the terrible film that many critics suggest, this is a rather generic action film, that was unfortunately hugely spoiled by the marketing, but is still a lot of fun. The plot as a standalone film makes little sense and ties itself into knots trying to explain a timeline that was already confused enough. Perhaps future films may explain some of the key questions raised, but ultimately the story shown here should work on its own, especially given the nature of the central villain and his importance to the overall story arc of all the Terminator films. Indeed, there is an interesting core concept created here in the identify of the central villain of the film, but the potential is largely wasted after the reveal in favour of a slight variation of the T-1000. That said, there is certainly a lot of fun in seeing elements of the timeline only hinted at in previous films as well as the recreation of various scenarios from the original film. The action sequences are all largely well done, apart from a terrible helicopter chase near the end of the film. Surprisingly, given his 12 year absence, the best part of the film is seeing Schwarzenegger in his signature role and it his relationship with Clarke's Connor that form the strongest character moments, despite treading similar ground covered in Terminator 2. Whilst Emilia Clarke does pretty well as Sarah Connor, Jai Courtney unfortunately is no Michael Biehn and his rather bland take on Kyle Reese makes it difficult to care about such a key character. Whether there will be any future films to take this story forward is uncertain - the biggest failing of all the Terminator sequels after Cameron's films is their efforts to continue a storyline that was essentially completed at the end of Terminator 2. But this film is a step up from the previous two sequels and there are hints that future films may explore other elements that don't simply rely on the Terminator as protector/killer.
Léon is a film I've watched many times and it never fails to affect.
I could watch it a hundred times more just see to Léon's face as he watches Singing in the Rain; such unabashed joy. He turns around in a near empty theatre looking for someone else lost in a moment of bliss, but finds no one. Rarely has both joy and loneliness been captured so perfectly.
Jean Reno's naive and emotionally challenged Léon is 12 year old Mathilda’s knight in blood soaked armour. He immediately fills an emotional void and she clings to it, starting to play house; cleaning, shopping, washing. Léon and Mathilda need each other in a very basic human way; to love and be loved. The inevitable slide towards her sexual stirrings is uncomfortable and deftly handled by Natalie Portman. Her desire for revenge seems to slip away, lost to just being and working with him, until when pushed he denies any feelings of love for her. She takes incomprehensible action to exact her vengeance on Gary Oldman’s insane DEA agent, but with an unconscious belief that Léon will save her if it all goes wrong.
The “International Version” of Léon, the only I’ve watched, adds 25 minutes to the theatrical release, mostly depicting their growing relationship and brings the gravitas that makes their final scene together simply heart breaking.
Ridley Scot is back! After some less interesting movies he succeed to make an great one again! It isn't the greatest movie I have ever seen but I couldn't recall one fault or issues with this film. The acting was great especially with his carry Matt Damon! The rest of the cast did fairly good. Matt Damons character stranded on Mars and wants to find a way to survive until he is rescued. This is the main part of the film which was surprisingly funny. Mainly due to the optimistic attitude that Matt Damons character had. It was even funnier than some comedies I have seen this year. Besides that there are some really suspenseful scene with are handled very well by Ridley Scott. He build the suspense fairly slow but great. They also created a great setting of Mars, it really felt like a place which was gorgeously filmed.
Overall I would gave the film a 8,5 but unfortunately Trakt would allow me to give that many hearts so I rated it a 8. Simply because I liked my 9 rated films more than this one. Nevertheless I had a really good time with this entertaining, greatly directed and interesting film.
Very imaginative and with a very conscious message of what humanity is capable of, interpreting that through different meanings.
Snowpiercer is a film based on a French graphic novel called Le Transperceneige, and in this we follow the story of mankind, who lives aboard a large train, after a serious ecological problem that froze Planet Earth forever. Almost everyone in the world died frozen least the ones who boarded on the train, and past 18 years still travels a worldwide route and according to its inventor, Wilford, an engineer who predicted the fatal events, the train will never stop. If any of the passengers tries to leave, will freeze to death. The train is divided into several sections and social levels which can not mix with each other. In the last car of the train lives the lowest social class that sick of living in extreme poverty, found a plan to try to bring down Wilford's field who lives commanding everything that happens in the first train carriage. The main goal of the rebels is to reach Wilford and end inequality among all human beings.
Despite is unreal story this turns out to be a film with immense significance and to be able to appreciate the importance of the messages it wants to deliver we have to know first of all to analyze the meaning of all the moments that we think are out of place. For what at first sight may be out of context or not seems to make sense (due to the condition of the world and the people of the train) will make much sense anyway if we look beyond what we see.
The main reason why this film manages to be successful it may be the direction of the Korean Bong Joon-ho, who with this film makes his directorial debut in English language. Despite the language and the amount of known actors, we feel anyway the Asian cinema style very present throughout the film and that is very interesting.
The set design is absolutely magnificent! The way the carriages were designed are great, but when it comes to the image of the outside world leaves much to be desired. The CGI is very poor and all the frozen world seems very unreal.
Is full of bizarre characters and moments that break a little of the dark atmosphere in the story and this is great because it gives us spontaneous laughs from time to time, relieving its tension.
Chris Evans surprised me a lot! His performance is very emotional and managed to convince me of their intentions and feelings. His figure in the past few years is very attached to Captain America and during this film he made me forget about that. My favorite character is without a doubt Tilda Swinton's, extremely bizarre and unique, something she knows how to make and very good! The rest of the cast, with names such as John Hurt, Ed Harris, Jamie Bell, Octavia Spencer and Koreans Song Kang-ho and Ko Ah-sung were also good.
I believe this is the kind of film that grows on us after consecutive views. Is biggest problem may be is long duration. Although is quite entertaining for most of the time, because of its length, the final act ends up losing a little magic not having so much intensity and impact as it should have been.
Flaws aside, it's very good to see a different style in Hollywood and I am sure that this film will be the subject of constant analysis over the years, not only for is unique style but also for the messages it wants to pass.
Snowpiercer is a film that perfectly projects the type of stigma in society in general, the problem that has always existed and unfortunately still exists today between the different social classes.
If you ever needed a lesson in not listening to reviewers and making your own mind up about a movie, this is it. The Suicide Squad is brought to life by David Ayer in this summer blockbuster. It is 2+ hours of hard hitting FUN, with incredible portrayals of comic book favourites. Will Smith IS Deadshot, Margot Robbie IS Harley Quinn, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje IS Killer Croc, Jai Courtney IS Captain Boomerang... and The Joker??? I WANTED MORE!!! Well the biggest compliment I can pay to Jared Leto is that I didn't think about Heath Ledger once, it was a completely different yet interesting portrayal.
In this fun action flick, the bad guys are sent to take down a greater evil. Critics of the big bad in this movie seem to have completely missed the point. The big bad in this movie is merely a plot device, to help us get to see our protagonists form as a team. If anything the real villain of the piece is the one who forms this team of misfits. Amanda Waller is portrayed DIABOLICALLY by the incredible Viola Davis and the part where she turns on and guns down her own employees is SHOCKING . Complaining about the villain in a movie where the protagonists are bad guys is akin to complaining about the villain in Deadpool... THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF THE MOVIE!
This movie leaves you with a thirst for more of these characters, and some shots such as when Will Smith is stood on top of a car and gunning down henchman after henchman after henchman look like they have just been ripped out of a comic book and put on screen by the wonderfully talented David Ayer.
If you are a comic book fan, or a DC movies fan, heck even if you are just an average movie watcher... watch this movie! It is SO MUCH FUN!!!
UPDATE: Just seen the Extended Edition and I really enjoyed the new scenes. This extended version doesn't change the nature of the movie in the way the Ultimate Cut did for BvS but I found it let's the movie breathe a little and solves some of the editing problems people complained about. I still love the theatrical release but my recommendation is to watch the extended version of this movie!
20 minutes in and i'm already in love with Humphrey Bogart
A case of do or die...
This is probably one of the best adventures in the history of cinema! I had so much fun watching it!
And all the different characters bring something special to this film.
It's just delightful!
I got to say I was WOWed and I am not even a jazz fan but the performance and the intensity of the movie got to me through every single step of the way. I wanted to reach out and strangle Simmons for the most part of the movie for his EPIC performance, which IMHO should really snag that best supporting actor award this year..
Last but definitely not least Mr. Miles Teller, allow me to tip my hat for the 27 year old actor who throughout most of his performance I simply could not keep up with his hand speed while he was holding those drumsticks!!! Amazing!
However, his real epic-ness did not drive from his musical performance which do not get me wrong here was simply awesome.. It was from his struggle, you could feel his need, his thirst for getting what he wanted to boarder line obsession and self harm, that made me feel his character in every step of the way.. Really, BRAVO!
Whiplash received critical acclaim upon its première on the opening night of the 2014 Sundance Film Festival.
The film has a "certified fresh" score of 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 234 reviews, with an average rating of 8.6 out of 10.
The critical consensus states, "Intense, inspiring, and well-acted, Whiplash is a brilliant sophomore effort from director Damien Chazelle and a riveting vehicle for stars J. K. Simmons and Miles Teller."
The film also has a score of 88 out of 100 on Metacritic based on 49 critics, indicating "critical acclaim"
Peter Debruge, in his review for Variety, said that the film "Demolishes the clichés of the musical-prodigy genre, investing the traditionally polite stages and rehearsal studios of a top-notch conservatory with all the psychological intensity of a battlefield or sports arena."
Best Movie of all Time!!
Classic flick again, and again and again.
Wow! This was even more awesome! Terminator 2: Judgment Day is one of those cases where the sequel can be equal or even better than the first film.
I think this film might be one of the best action films of all time! This is serious entertainment from beginning until the very last minute.
We can look at it without caring about the time travel paradoxes because if we do, we will definitely find some flaws. The important thing is that this story is not over complicated and it exist to provide us a lot of action, amazing explosions and gun shooting scenes and also some funny moments.
My goal was to see the two first films, I am not going to see the other two, at least for now. I hear that they are not very good and the important is that I finally saw this two essencial films.
Another must see classic that I was missing. Loved it!
Timeless classic. Still as good, now as it was then.
Whaaaaaaat? There is an ALTERNATE ENDING! I had no clue!!! :O
It shows Sarah 30 years in the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5omWKXTqE
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the perfect example of "The American Dream". He came to America in 1968 as an immigrant with basically nothing, only a dream to become the worlds best bodybuilder. 44 years later his resume includes being the world's best bodybuilder 7 times in a row, being one of the biggest superstar actors in the world during the 80ies and 90ies, being one of the most wealthiest people in Hollywood, marrying into the Kennedy family (the one from which one of them became president and was assassinated) and off course the Governator! 2 terms in a row being the 38th Governor of California. To say that he has had an impressive life so far and that he has reached the absolute top in his many careers is an understatement.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day is without a doubt the undefeated masterpiece on Arnold Schwarzenegger his (acting) career. And not only from Schwarzenegger, but also from Linda Hamilton, Robert Patrick and (most likely) James Cameron.
The story is brilliant, simple at first sight, but complicated when you look deeper, and visually stunning. Skynet is still happening and John Connor is still the leader who is fighting a guerrilla movement against the robotic overlords who's only concern after it became "self-aware" is to wipe out every human being. Its a little bit like the Matrix, except humans are not inside an artificial environment used as batteries but instead in the real world as canon fodder. In order to prevent the resistance from gaining the upper hand a robot is send back in time to kill John Connor and the resistance sends back someone too in order to prevent it from happening. This time they send back a reprogrammed T-800 Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) to protect his younger self.
Robert Patrick plays the role of the bad guy perfectly. He is emotionless, ruthless and unrelentless on his path to find and kill John Connor (Edward Furlong). That and his physical abilities (like changing his form into someone else and invulnerable to most weapons) make him without a doubt one of the best villains i have ever seen in a movie.
When it comes to time travel and time paradoxes this movie tries his best to explain it all, and surprisingly comes with a very good answer, yet very much in the style that is Hollywood (meaning that anything is possible, as long as it happens in the movies). From the first movie we already knew that Kyle Reese (the guy that stopped The Terminator from the first movie) is the father of John Connor. Meaning that if Skynet never send someone back into the past to kill Sarah Connor, Kyle Reese would never have been sent back into to the past to prevent the murder in the first place and John Connor would never have been born. But in this sequel James Cameron tries to explain that Skynet is basically its own creator. In the first movie the Terminator was destroyed in a hydraulic press, but a part of the machine survived and was recovered by Cyberdyne. The unusable remains of the Terminator were than used as inspiration and as a catalysator to radically change and speed up the process of computer development to the point where it eventually would become Skynet.
For its time this movie and the story was revolutionary and legendary. A little bit of CGI (computer generated images) doesn't mean a fart in these days since practically every major blockbuster movie is (over)doing it, but in the early 90ties it was still unheard off. You have to realize that computers back than were not mainstream, not fast and DOS was still one of the most used programs at the time. Internet (as it does right now) did not yet exist. Basically computers were still almost only for in the office at work or for geeks and nerds. But Terminator 2 showed for the first time to a large public what computers are really capable off.
Anyone who likes to watch movies and never saw this movie should put this one on the top of their movies to watch list. Even if you are not a fan of James Cameron or Arnold Schwarzenegger, i can guarantee you that your opinion on both of them will be (slightly) changed after seeing this movie. I won't go so far as to say that this is the best action movie of all times, because in my opinion that wouldn't do justice to other sublime movies like the first Matrix movie, or The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, or the latest Batman Trilogy. But it comes pretty damn close.
At first sight The Fountain might seem to be very complex film but I think it's actually a very simple story. What I think Darren Aronofsky wanted to make was a different film that actually can provide us a different cinematic experience.
Although, I think this is the kind of film that requires more than one viewing or even two I might say. I am sure that I missed some interesting points that I'll pay more attention in future viewings.
It's very philosophical and full of symbolisms. Beautiful score and impressive acting by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz.
I can see why many people love this film but I can also see why many people hate it. It's not an easy film, if you've already watched it you'll understand what I mean.
I would like to give it a higher rate, I enjoyed watching it and I can definitely see the beauty in it, but I think it was too complicated for such a quite simple story.
Denzel Washington plays a hardware store assistant with a murky past, who has a chance encounter with a girl in a diner (Chloe Grace Moretz). They hit it off as friends, but it soon becomes clear she has connections to the Russian mob. When she is hospitalized, Denzel sees red and goes on a rampage to take those motherfuckers down.
The Equalizer has a very simple take on the world - Denzel can and will stop the bad guys, and no good guys get hurt in the process. It’s pure fantasy; the notion that one man with the right skills and the right intentions can stop the entire Russian mafia in their tracks is ridiculous, but it’s all in the way you tell it.
Fuqua clearly had a unique vision for this film. It has a neo-noir aesthetic combined with hyper-realistic visuals and an eye for a great shot. It’s like Nighthawks at the Diner crossed with Watchmen. As with all great Film Noir, shadows, smoke and street lights are almost like an extra character in the film.
The dialogue is clunky, especially when it tries to spoon-feed us the ‘meaning’ behind it all. It’s a shame because the simplicity of the story is appealing, as well as the focus on visuals rather than trying to philosophise for no reason. The final sequence also lets the film down, shifting the tone towards Home Alone more than a gritty thriller.
Still, the great direction and performances make for a surprisingly effective film. Mindless escapism perhaps, but The Equalizer is far from mindless film-making.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2016/08/27/theequalizer/
9.5/10. So much of movies these days is about “the reveal,” that one detail, unveiled at the end of the picture, meant to recontextualize everything you’ve seen. 10 Cloverfield has a hell of a reveal, several in fact, but that’s not what makes it great. In fact, it basically toys around, in almost metatextual fashion, with the function a reveal or a twist plays in these sorts of stories.
Because director Dan Trachtenberg and writers Josh Campbell, Matthew Stucken and Damien Chazelle play with the audience’s expectations throughout the film. When we first see Michelle trapped in a small room and told the world has ended outside and the world is ended, the tropes of the genre make us believe that’s a lie, that it’s an excuse to keep her imprisoned. Then, when she nearly escapes and sees (granted, a bit conveniently) someone who fits the description of someone afflicted by the poisoned air, she realizes it’s the truth. The same thing happens when Michelle finally escapes, driven to run by Howard’s controlling nature, and she sees the empty skies and takes off her makeshift hazmat helmet. We’re led to believe that maybe it was all a game, a trick or something temporary that had been kept from here. Then, well, the UFO shows up.
That’s the most wonderful “twist” to 10 Cloverfield Lane. The film is constantly creating little mysteries, the biggest of them being the one that propels the film: has the world truly ended or is Howard just insane and trying to keep Michelle here? The rub is that it’s not an either/or question; it’s both. The film answers it’s central question revealing that yes, Howard is a mentally unhinged prepper who is a mortal threat to the people in his care who’s desperately trying to project the daughter who was taken away from him, but he’s also completely correct that aliens have arrived and are unleashing seismic blasts and toxic gas on the human population.
But even apart from that clever direction for the movie’s plot, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a tightly-written, incredibly shot, wonderfully acted film that develops its characters and maintains a mood of supreme tenseness and intrigue throughout. The writing really elevates the film. From little details like Howard freezing his vodka being a subtle setup for Michelle breaking the lock on the escape hatch, to Howard trying to guess the title “Little Women” during a parlor game revealing how he sees Michelle as a substitute and fill-in for his lost daughter, the script parcels out little hints and tidbits and threads that it ties together by the end of the film. It’s a clockwork picture, with no superfluous detail or element of the film that does not come back in a meaningful fashion later on.
And yet, all of the details revolve around one truly incredible performance from John Goodman. As one of Hollywood’s most outstanding and versatile actors, it’s easy to grow accustomed to Goodman’s consistent greatness in movies of all stripes. Nevertheless, he is particularly electric here, communicating so much about Howard’s persnickety and particular qualities, about his military precision and organization, about the hints at his mental instability that tow the line between a simply peculiar man and a dangerous one, about the genteel nature of Howard that barely conceals a frightening fury and power behind it. He veers between the incredibly subtle and funny moments of the film and the ones where Howard is pure menace with an effortlessness that stands out even in a character who is so meticulous.
Of course, much of the film also rests on the shoulders of Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who portrays Michelle, the film’s antagonist. She too delivers a superb performance, one that’s lighter on dialogue given the tense and terse confines of the film’s trapped-in-a-bunker setting, but one full of meaning, where each utterance, each look, is layered with multiple meanings.
Michelle is also a well-written character who defies the tropes of the genre. In so many films where people are captured or trapped or put in these sorts of confined situations, the prisoners feels like helpless pawns of the mastermind, missing obvious opportunities to get out or fight back in favor of plot convenient dramatics. Here, however, Michelle is resourceful, skeptical, and sharp from her very first scene in confinement. She understands the situation; she’s intuitive and questioning about what’s going on, and she finds clever and creative ways to solve the problems the film presents. That’s quite refreshing, not just for the depiction of a young woman on film, but for the protagonist in a horror or thriller film.
Like it’s prequel (or cousin, depending on the vague connections), 10 Cloverfield Lane focuses on the human element within the extraordinary events taking place. Yes, there are dramatic escapes and physical altercations, but some of the film’s most compelling moments are quiet scenes where the characters reveal little bits of themselves to one another. We learn as much about Howard from his laconic comments about his daughter or his brief remembrances of his old life as we do from his accepting an apology followed by shooting Emmett in cold blood. A quiet conversation between Michelle and Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr., in a smaller but important role) adds pathos and theme to both characters, conveying the irony that someone too afraid to leave now finds himself physically unable to do so, and someone too afraid to intervene in parental abuse now finds herself being abused by a surrogate parent.
That idea provides the thematic depth of 10 Cloverfield Lane. Like Vertigo, there is something incredibly unnerving about someone trying to recreate a relationship they lost, forcing strangers into playing parts from a past they cannot let go of. But that theme is given greater weight when it comes from a man who is clearly ensconced in perilous ideas about control and protection and being prepared for the worst, who inflicts his own damage on the world after losing his daughter. There is a subtext to the film that not only makes it something deeper than a series of thrills, but which adds to the unnerving qualities of the space Howard has created and the people he has impressed into populating it.
In truth, the film loses a little of that luster when it dispenses with the claustrophobic tenseness of the bunker setting (replete with superbly framed shots and a score that heightens the intensity of each scene) and closes with a stalk-and-battle sequence between Michelle and the extraterrestrial invaders. But that too can coast of the shock of the fact that 10 Cloverfield Lane is having its cake and eating it too, mashing up the fibbing jailer and the sole survivor narratives into something that would make Rod Serling proud. This film is an example of the greatness that emerges when you take the tropes of a genre, stand them on their head, and find the natural anxieties and lived-in characters at the core of these stories.
This is a film you have to go into cold. If you know too much about it you won't get the full impact - and the full impact is well worth having. Excellent film with some great performances.
turned into quiet a crazy film, one of those films that makes you think and then not expect what comes!! i liked :)
I love Nolan, this film is one of his best, nearly on par with The Dark Knight.
Some people say this guy is overrated and overhyped, maybe there are right, the problem is no that Nolan films are incredible awesome, the thing is that if you compare then with the rest of the films of this kind they are simply superior.
Don't blame Nolan, blame the shitty films that make him look like nearly a god among humans in term of action/mistery movies.
6.7/10. There’s an old adage from Roger Ebert, the patron saint of film critics, that goes “'It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.” There’s wisdom in that, with the idea that even movies that express laudable ideas can do so in a hamfisted or haphazard way, and even ones that does the same for less admirable notions can do so a virtuoso or interesting fashion. A Miracle on 34th Street is decidedly the latter, a film that goes to bat for an argument I disagree with, but which does so in a way that makes me nevertheless compelled by the story it tells.
Because Miracle on 34th Street is, sometimes subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly, a film that makes the argument that the American way of life and the people who pursue it have gone astray and are misguided, in their goals and in their culture, through the decreased role religion has played in the public and private lives of its citizens. At times, the film engages with this idea in subtle ways: Kris Kringle expecting to be sworn in using a bible, Mr. Bedford wanting to say a prayer, the romantic finale (itself the product of Kringle’s scheme) taking place in an ornate cathedral. At others, it’s much more direct.
That’s particularly true in the film’s climax, where the judge deciding whether the purported Santa Clause should be committed or not makes a direct comparison between the idea of Santa Clause and the idea of God. It’s then that the film puts its cards on the table – for the purposes of Miracle, Santa is God, not in the sense that he is some divine creator, but that this jovial, benevolent figure who becomes the film’s St. Nikolas, but in the way he is treated skeptically, the way that wounded adults teach their children not to believe him, the way cynical and malevolent forces want to drive him out so that they can do their evil deeds without his interfering do-goodery, that suggest our country and its people are on the wrong track, are empty and incomplete, to the extent religion is treated in the same fashion.
It’s a film that’s peculiarly (lowercase-c) conservative in its views for something that came out of the devil’s den of Hollywood. It subtly posits that a child’s life is out of step if they’re not part of a nuclear family with real house away from the harsh environs of the godless big cities. It suggests that the people who have turned away from faith are either downright evil or are secretly unhappy and lying to themselves about it being for the best. It offers not even the hint of a downside or drawback or measure of complexity to the blind trust it argues for.
As someone who grew up outside the mainstream religion in the United States, that’s a tough pill to swallow. The arguments for and against Santa’s existence in the film are facile and full of easily toppled (if narratively useful) strawmen. There’s a WASP-y orthodoxy, a sense of a desired return to the “good old days” at play that glosses over the problems with that idea. The heart of the film, its point and posited suggestion for what’s best for people and this country as a whole feels antiquated and even myopic, in a way that makes the subtext of so many scenes difficult to contend with.
And yet, taken solely as text, Miracle succeeds in telling an unexpectedly convincing story of a wonderfully endearing old man who brings joy to everything he touches and inspires a city, and a nascent family, to something better.
The film’s greatest boon is its casting of Richard Attenborough as its Kris Kringle. Attenborough just exudes a sense of mirth and quiet dignity, bringing gravitas and joy to a role that needed both in great measure. For a film like this to work, on any terms, it needed to make its Santa one that the audience, not just its characters, could believe in at a visceral level, and Attenborough delivers that nigh-perfectly.
But his success also speaks to how the character is written and how the truth of his identity is presented. The easy thing to do, when attempting to show that someone really could be this jovial elf of myth, would be to show him doing something magical, even ambiguously magical (a trick which the film saves for its ending). Instead, the film sells its Santa by demonstrating the pride he takes in who he is, the omnibenevolent bent with which he approaches everything, the utter commitment and care he has for his cause.
That comes through in the stellar, loving sequence where Kringle puts on his Santa suit – with great care and precision – and gazes around at the department store display before him. The sheer euphoria, the pleasure he takes in his mission to spread joy to the world, is palpable and infectious. And by the same token, the stark pale light he inhabits when committed to a mental institution, sitting lonely at the end of his bed staring out the window, is a powerful image of how devastating it is for him to have that ideal taken away and sullied. In one visual, it communicates his abject shame at thinking he’s marred the symbolism of Santa Claus for children all over the world.
But it’s the interactions with children that truly sell Attenborough’s Santa. That comes through in his conversations with Susan Walker (Mara Wilson), an impossibly precocious child who’s been taught by her mother not to believe in such myths. Wilson is superb, particularly given her age, communicating the emotions a child who is unusually resigned to the ways of the world while still trying to find the excitement in them, who gradually looks at the evidence of this man’s very existence and starts to believe something more is possible. A skeptical child becomes the fulcrum through which this Kris Kringle is established as more than just the average department store Santa, and the pair’s conversations -- the cautious optimism on one side and the tender acceptance on the other -- makes it work.
And yet the most magical moment for Miracle’s Santa comes in a scene that involve nothing supernatural at all. In what doubles as the film’s most heartwarming moment, a mother brings her deaf child to sit on Santa’s lap and tells him that he doesn’t need to speak to her; she just wanted to see him. It’s then that Kringle reveals he knows sign language, a demonstration which clearly delights the little girl on his knee, and starts to convince little Susan that his Santa is more than meets the eye. There is nothing overtly magical about it, but there’s a sense of preternatural goodness, an altruism and devotion to making
these kids happy that marks him as not of this world.
Unfortunately, even setting aside the thematic issues, the film squanders much of this good will focusing on a dull romance between Susan’s mother (Elizabeth Perkins) and their neighbor Mr. Bedford (Dylan McDermott). Their romance takes up a great deal of oxygen in the film, but we’re never really told through exposition, let alone shown in any convincing way, why they like each other. Instead, Mr. Bedford is simply smitten by fiat, and Ms. Walker is less a character than a means to tell a story of Hallmark-level triteness about a woman who believed in love once, was badly burned by it, and now refuses to trust in anyone or anything after until her mind is predictably changed by the new sprite-in-residence. The whole romantic element feels needlessly tacked on to a film at its best when it eschews such perfunctory movie fill-ins.
The same goes for the cadre of overtly evil characters who set out to ruin Santa Claus for pure financial reasons (when they’re not doing it just for the sake of evil itself). There is, at times, an unshowy complexity to Miracle, that delves into why we believe what we do and which makes a surprisingly convincing case for its Kris Kringle.
But when it focuses on these destructive forces – the malevolent rival department store CEO, his duo of goons, the coarse Santa impostor, and the mercenary lawyer who tries to lean on the judge with promises of reelection campaign donations – that message is dumbed down to a cartoonish extent. There’s already reasons for the viewer to have qualms about the arguments the film is quietly (and occasionally not so quietly) making, but the mustache-twirling tones in which any and all opposition are presented also cheapens the message the movie seems to want to send.
Perhaps, however, there is a save. Despite the clear implications behind the manner in which this film tells it story, Miracle can be expressed more broadly as an endorsement of the idea of faith, in all its forms. That certainly includes a belief in God, one endorsed by Mr. Bedford’s saving throw at the trial, but also things like the belief in the possibility of love, in other people, in things we do not necessarily understand but nevertheless experience. Stripped of the subtext behind its message, the film can be said to simply stand for a much more neutral principle of the benefits of taking chances on things we want to believe in, even if we risk hurt and hardship in the process.
And if we twist the film’s themes a bit, if we break them down to a few basic ideas they can become something that resonates apart from a somewhat stunted and oversimplified view it espouses. Kris Kringle is right when he says that he is a symbol, that apart from his existence or nonexistence, there is an idea about mankind’s ability to overcome our lesser angels and be our best selves, for our own good, the good of the people we love, and perhaps even the good of the world, that has merit, especially in a holiday season that touches people in this country regardless of the conception of their beliefs.
Despite my reluctance at the idea that religion should be a greater part of public life, I firmly believe that it can be a force for good, that there are innumerable people prompted by their faith to be better and to do wonderful things for others. And more than that, I believe that there are a number of individuals, each of them mere mortals, who have created incredible changes for the benefit of us all, who have changed the world and dedicated their lives to causes that are tremendously admirable and grand. And these people, whatever their religious persuasion, believed, in the face of the horrible tragedies and crimes across human history, that we are a people worth saving, that human beings, whatever their natures, can come together to achieve amazing things and to be as great as we hope to be.
That is, however much or little religion is involved, a vital form of faith. And there are people – whether they be mythical like Kris Kringle or flesh and blood like the film’s producer and co-writer John Hughes -- who give us symbols and touchstones to help remind us of that. They help to rouse that belief, the trust and the hope that we can care for one another, on holidays and everydays. And that, in its own way, is a miracle.
It´s Sci-Fi, it´s action - nothing more, nothing less. Yet very entertaining if you like that stuff. Effects are really good, the whole look of the movie is on the spot. The story is interesting, I don´t think this has been done before. Not a mega cast but faces you remember from lots of TV/movie who deliver a good performance. I´d say this doesn´t have to hide.
And as far as plot holes or logical issues are concerned - has anyone counted the ones in the Marvel movies ;-) ?
If this movie fails, Ryan Reynolds will never be in a comic book movie ever again. Let's hope this movie don't fail because I really like Reynolds as an actor.
‘tis the season so I thought it was probably a good time to catch up with this one at last.
The Nightmare Before Christmas is an enchanting trifecta of Tim Burton’s signature Gothic style and wit, Henry Selick’s talent for stop-motion animation and Danny Elfman’s whimsical score.
Burton and Selick take us on an imaginative journey through Christmas and Halloween. The sets are fantastic and it’s clear that rather than just being a quick holiday money-grab, this is a film made with a lot of love and care. There’s nods to lots of films and styles here but I most appreciated the liberal borrowing from those creepy German expressionist silent pictures.
I’m not a fan of musicals though, and this is not really an exception. The tone and pace wore me out, and the film is only 70 minutes long!
Objectively, this is one of Burton’s better works (although he didn’t direct); I’m just not quite as personally enthralled by it as many seem to be.
'Jaws' succeeds on almost every level. It is terrifying without being grotesque, and spectacular without being unbelievable (if the shark looks a little fake, remember that, at the time 'Jaws' was released, 'Space Invaders' was on the cutting edge of computer graphics design and there was no such thing as 'Shark Week on the Discovery Channel'). The suspense is potent and the action thrilling, but the humor, emotion, and character development make this movie much more than a summer blockbuster.
This is considered one of the greatest films ever made for a reason. I honestly don't think I can add that much to the discussion, but here goes. I start watching it and always think I'm not going to like it as much as I remember. I'm not crazy about the opening due to the pace, but I feel like it is perfect once you progress further. Getting to know the different samurai and watching them interact is just really entertaining. Each is so distinct and relatable in a different way. Frankly, the story is wonderful and I love when they did it again in the American west.
Then there is the technical side of things. This does not feel like it belongs in the 50s at all to me. The film is shot so distinct and beautifully. I really love the way the rain battle looks in the end. The dark color of the water on the ground just looks so great to me, like a chalk drawing or something. And the theme music makes me think it is something I listen to in my car all the time, even though I hadn't heard it in a few years since my last watch. It immediately becomes a classic tune to me.
So yea, this is up there for a reason, and I say you should certainly see this before you die. Just remember to set aside a good 3 1/2 hours before you start.
