A slow-burn, slice-of-life drama about the lasting effects of trauma and the agonisingly slow road to recovery. A delightful bit of introspective cinema that highlights friendship and platonic intimacy over the usual cliche'd romance as the ailment to all our problems. Causeway does the delightful thing of slowly opening these characters lives through passing dialogue and insightful conversation, highlighting what has lead these two characters to their respective places that aren't so different, even if the path to get there was wildly far apart. Great piece of contemporary drama with stellar performances from Lawrence and Henry, so much is conveyed with so little and really helps the delivery of this sensitive movie. Some will probably bemoan that "nothing happens" upon completion of this movie, but I'd argue that is the entire point; these characters are contemplating and stewing on what has lead them here and how to move on. It is a character first drama, and if you're not prepared to sit back and understand the nuances of these people, you'll probably have a bad time. For me, this was some stellar drama with a fresh angle highlighting friendship instead of romance as the crutch that can keep us going in the darkest times in life. It possibly lacks a layer of depth to make it truly great, but what there is here is very good stuff for the right audience. Really good stuff indeed.
--- Spoiler filled musings beyond this point that might be off-base ---
I'm still trying to fully place the metaphor of pools and large bodies of water throughout the movie. I assumed they were representive of the brain/mind; gunking up and filling with moss/trash/rubbish that life throws in that we must continually clear ourselves of to stay functional and clear. Only then, much like at the end of the movie when Lynsey dives into the public pool, are we able to dive in amongst everyone else and lead a stable life?
The truck is also symbolic of Lynsey I suppose, giving herself over to James to work on her while she's broken down. The parts to fix her might not be in the town she grew up in, but the people can find them from else where to get her back up and running? Maybe a stretch but I like it as an allegory.
I liked the constant reminder of "matching pairs", with Lynsey playing Memory a few times throughout. Lynsey and James obviously being the main matching pair, but also their parents, Lynsey and her brother being equally ruined by their upbringing, both of them having crutches to deal with everything etc. I'd be intrigued to see if there are any other dualities throughout the movie to pull out.
It's very obvious but I enjoyed how, while Afghanistan and the bombing were obviously the main catalyst for Lynsey's issues, it's heavily implied that the unstable, rocky upbringing probably had more of a hand in her instability than the IED. While it was probably the bomb that demolished the camels back (so to speak), the uneven foundation of her childhood clearly made it much harder for her to get back on equal footing with no support system in place. As someone with very "hands off" parents, this resonated with me more than I expected and made my stomach drop a few times during the scenes with her Mom.
Unlike other movies, I was also happy to see that the movie was critical of Lynsey and her coping mechanism for her trauma too. Many of these drama films only navigate the trauma from the perspective of the main character and never usually question if their actions are justified or correct. While running away is a very easy fix, staying and being compassionate is the harder, but ultimately righteous choice that will probably lead to sustained stability and growth. We assume Lynsey will run after she/her truck have been fixed, but she finally sees that she cannot keep running and must stay to fix the wounds that are there.
I look forward to reading all the Reddit analysis and essays that come from this movie that prove me wrong or highlight things that I missed :smile:
Not only is Endgame the most ambitious movie Marvel has made, but it also is the grandest. Even more so than Infinity War. No other movie can utilise the emotional ties that have been embedded within our hearts over the build of 11 years. And boy does it use them well. Stringing together scene after scene of nothing but impactful tension in the third act. But this doesn't leave the other two boring or bland. It allows these parts to build off of the aftermath of Infinity War. Never once was I bored, or felt like I was sitting there for three hours. For the action is no letdown, lovely dynamics are interwoven for a fantastic spectacle.
I don't want to say much, but it is hands down the best Marvel can offer. It is not Infinity War, Part II. It's something much better, the true culmination of everything and I do mean everything. The fan service here is through the roof and done so damn creatively. Not one thing feels hammered into the story. Even some major elements in its plot stem from the smallest details of previous movies I would have never seen coming. Taking even lesser liked fragments and stringing them into a more meaningful poetic story than the original movie would have ever told.
Using style and grace to tell this bold epic is strong with this movie. Gone are the golds and purples of Infinity War. And in comes a bleak atmosphere with hope lingering yet far. Visual storytelling is a bit lacking, but that is not what you come here to expect. You have been supported with all the exposition you need in previous movies. Since this is the case, it must be judged as a singular part of a series.
The themes in this movie are unity, utilisation, and more importantly; revelation. Kevin Feige has given this movie a lot to work with through these themes and has finally made his magnum opus.
Yes, there are a few hiccups. But that's to be expected. Captain Marvel was not given her full potential again sadly. But worked well with what was given. There is an amazing moment within the third act that truly gives her and a certain cast of characters time to shine. Plus the time it takes to leave out is a bit jarring. Not to mention, that to me Thanos seemed less threatening than in Infinity War because of something that happens. Still great impact by Josh Brolin of course.
Everyone will cry. Everyone will laugh. Everyone will leave sad yet satisfied with this amazing conclusion to the MCU so far. It's no Dark Knight, but then again, that was more drama than superhero epic. But this is modern hero gold. Here is the Holy Grail of superhero cinema.
9.6/10
8/10 After second viewing - Hype obviously had its hands around my neck I admit. Review doesn't meet my current thoughts about the film
Check here for my rankings on the MCU:
https://trakt.tv/users/corruptednoobie/lists/my-mcu-rankings?sort=rank,ascCheck here for my 2019 movie rankings that I've seen:
https://trakt.tv/users/corruptednoobie/lists/best-to-worst-2019-movies-so-far?sort=rank,asc
Wow, just wow. Kinda been in a teen/high school movie phase as of late but had no idea what i was getting myself into with this one. Not your typical teen movie where you meet girl fall in love with girl movie plot so much meaning and value in this story and not even a romance really at least I don't really think it is. Such a great cast Emma Watson is obviously good, Ezra Miller and Paul Rudd are both great, and Logan Lerman is phoneomeal I mean phoneomeal, kid really did a great job. For a high school movie where you would expect such upbeat and happy themes this movie wasn't afraid to constantly stay real. Don't get me wrong this movie isn't depressing just it's so real I mean you could feel it through the screen where at times you didn't want to watch, because of the awkwardness or tension cause you could feel it as if you were the character in the movie, this movie definitely surprised me.
[7.4/10] Captain Marvel is essentially a phase one Marvel movie. That’s not a bad thing! The original dose of MCU superhero flicks are generally doubles more than they’re home runs, but each is enjoyable and establishes their characters nicely. The journey in each is clearly a personal one, as much about the hero becoming who they’re meant to be as it is about defeating the forgettable bad guys. That’s certainly true for Captain Marvel, where the nominally cataclysmic stakes, already diminished by the period setting, take a backseat to the audience getting to know this new character and her path to self-actualization.
And yet, it’s hard not to be a little disappointed in the staidness of the formula here. Over the last few years, Marvel has given us character introductions films in the way of Black Panther, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and even the fine-but-not-great Doctor Strange that offered something a little different, a little more striking than the old norm. Captain Marvel is a solid and entertaining rendition of the phase one form, but it’s tough not to wish for a film that broke the mold a little more.
Then again, maybe it’s enough that the MCU is breaking a different mold that it took Marvel Studios 20 films to crack. Captain Marvel is the MCU’s first female-led solo flick, and is self-conscious of that fact. The film is unabashed about the specific challenges faced by its title character because of her gender. And the movie carries a laudable message about embracing the emotion and the strength that women are otherwise encouraged to quell because it’s not expected of or embraced in them. To their credit, directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck didn’t just make a superhero movie starring a woman; they made one about being a woman.
The problem is that the film is fairly heavy-handed and cliché on this front. I’m not averse to important lessons needing to be shouted for the people in the back. But the bluntness of the “powers as emotions” metaphor, montages of generic sexism, and lines to the effect of “I don’t need your approval” lay it all on very thick. In an age where certain corners walked away from Black Panther thinking it was somehow an endorsement of the current U.S. administration, maybe films need to be that direct to make their points understood. But the foregrounding and standard delivery of those points lessened their impact for me.
But there’s plenty that the film does well. For one thing, it features an outstanding twist, where the squared-jawed, slick-looking heroes turn out to be the bad guys, and the orc-looking, shape-shifting scoundrels turn out to be sympathetic refugees. There’s a solid dose of Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s influence on Captain Marvel, but no more so than in the chosen one and her pals having casual, even jokey conversations with prosthetics-covered monsters who have more depth and character than their first impression would suggest. Ben Mendelsohn emotes through the rubber appliances with endearing aplomb, and reorienting of the game board that comes from his character’s reveals is one of the film’s strongest choices.
I just wish we saw more of an impact on Captain Marvel herself. For being the epiphany that changes which side of the fight the title character is on, the movie doesn't really linger on it, or give us much time to see our hero processing it. Instead, it’s just sort of a given that she’s swayed and bothered by this, and the movie jaunts off to Captain Marvel and her allies striking back. For such a devastating reveal, with lies that Carol Danvers had been catching onto already, I wanted more time seeing the protagonist dealing with it rather than the film just dashing off into the next set piece.
But they’re good set pieces, by and large. The third act CGI-palooza becomes too much at some points, with some odd Super Saiyan-y choices for Captain Marvel herself and the perfunctory, stakes-lowering presence of the villain from Guardians 1. But a series of cat and mouse chases through the stacks of a military facility, and a handcuffed throwdown with the Skrulls all have some nice verve and character in them. Like all of the cosmic-set Marvel movies, you lose a little punch (figuratively, definitely not literally), when the setting makes things seem a bit too unreal, but there’s plenty of high points to enjoy.
It’s also easy to enjoy the dynamic between Captain Marvel and her unlikely allies. The aforementioned human/Skrull friendship is an unexpected source of warmth in the film. But Carol’s relationship with her forgotten friend Maria and her daughter Monica (a.k.a. Lieutenant Trouble, a downright adorable nickname), gives the film its heart. The strength of that friendship (and Lashana Lynch’s performance) adds the emotional ballast that helps ground Captain Marvel’s wrong-side epiphany and bring her back to Earth. Even the presence of Goose the cat adds some levity and surprise to the movie.
But the gold standard is the quick camaraderie between Carol Danvers and Nick Fury. A Captain Marvel movie rightfully ought to have solid snootfuls of cosmic chicanery. But this film left me wishing that we could lean less on intergalactic intrigue and more on the outstanding buddy cop movie starring Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson that took up the middle of the film. Their dynamic is the best thing in Captain Marvel and manages to humanize both characters in the midst of these otherwise world-shaking, life-changing events.
Captain Marvel also does well with its 1990s period setting, and other bits of texture. The song cues are all enjoyable and, while becoming more standard, still have the novelty as the soundtrack for superhero film. There’s a few moments in the film that feel a little cheesy -- like the “here’s why my suit is this color” or “here’s how we named The Avengers” bits that seem awfully close to something out of Disney stablemate Solo: A Star Wars Story. But by and large, the film is good at parceling out the inevitable superhero origin story details judiciously and mixing them with humor and more particular character beats.
It just doesn't do much to subvert or change-up the Marvel intro-movie formula that had, given recent output, seemed to be more a thing of 2009 than 2019 (or 1995 for that matter). Captain Marvel is thoroughly enjoyable, with a neat twist, a strong central pairing, and a commendable message. It just can’t quite transcend its “self-realization + punching” roots to become more than another link in the great MCU chain. But if this formula is still in play, if it’s still Marvel’s preferred method for establishing a new pillar of its uber-franchise, then I’m still glad to finally see it used on a different sort of Captain.
[9.0/10] There are some losses that you can’t come back from, that change you so fundamentally that even the most vital pulls and connections cannot bring you out of it. That is the core idea at the center of Manchester by the Sea. It is a film about grief, how we deal with it, and how its tendrils wrap themselves around the rest of our lives, to where some can wriggle free and some cannot.
The emblem of that is Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) a Boston handyman who is the film’s protagonist. When Lee’s brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) dies, he is called back to Manchester to settle his affairs, including what’s to be done about Lee’s nephew Patty. These events call on Lee to face the site and memories of his own traumas, as he’s trying to do right by his brother and help his nephew with his own grief.
What’s striking is the way that even before the exact contours of the loss that made Lee into the person he is today are revealed, it’s clear that he is a broken man, someone who is not fully present in the world. Some of this comes from the flashbacks pepper into the film, which show a much more jovial and engaged individual, cutting a contrast with the dead-eyed janitor who lurches through life in the present day. But a great deal of it comes from an outstanding performance from Affleck, who evinces a detached hauntedness from the first minute of the film.
When it is revealed, at the halfway mark, that Lee’s three young children died in a fire, a fire that he accidentally caused, its crystalizes the reasons for Lee’s demeanor and his difficulties in returning to Manchester and acceding to Joe’s wishes that he become Patty’s guardians. But to the film’s credit, it never underlines these points too heavily, to where they’re barely uttered or even acknowledged out loud, but permeate the background of every scene and every moment.
It’s never says that Lee so resists the notion of living in Manchester because it’s the place where his children died. It just shows him looking out onto the city and intersperses that with scenes of the grisly aftermath. It never says he’s reluctant to be a father because he blames himself for what happened to his kids, it just shows him struggling to give any meaningful direction to Patty. It never says that he’s overly cautious when it comes to safety, particularly the safety of children, it just shows him overreacting to a misunderstanding when Patty tries to get out of the car while he’s driving. It never says that Lee won’t grant himself the chance for human connection again because he doesn’t believe he deserves it and because he’s scared of where it might lead, it just shows him having ample opportunities to connect with people and invariably turning them down.
Much of this is conveyed in Affleck’s bravura performance. He portrays Lee as completely hollowed out by the horrors he’s been a part of, so convincingly deadened by them that he’s no longer fully alive, just this inert, barely there thing that continues to exist without any reason to. The little details of the performance win the day. There is his sublimated anger, at himself and at the world, that prompt him to get into bar fights to feel something. There are the moments where a real human being breaks through so that Lee can comfort his nephew. There are hints, in a heart-rending scene with his ex-wife (Michelle Williams, who makes a big impact in limited screen time) at the recriminations, self-inflicted and otherwise, that leave such overwhelming guilt lingering within him.
But the best thing to recommend the film is its ending. In so many movies in this same vein, the natural move would be for Lee to have his troubles with being back in Manchester and faced with the ghosts of his past, but that the importance of Patty’s upbringing and his brother’s wishes would be enough for him to overcome them. Instead, in a quietly emotional moment, Lee confesses to Patty that he “just can’t beat it.” The memories of his children’s deaths, of his inadvertent hand in them, are too much for him to bear, even for this, one of the few people, if not the only person, that Lee still loves.
There is boldness in that choice. It’s too much to call Manchester by the Sea subversive, but the heart of storytelling, particularly in quiet character dramas like this one, is change. It’s the old story circle again – a character is called to adventure, has an experience, and comes back changed. Manchester uses that structure, but subverts it. It shows Lee on the cusp of recovering, on the cusp of making a breakthrough, coming ever so close to having that change and epiphany and recommitment to a new life, and then faltering in the face of inescapable reminders of what he was running from in the first place.
It is, in that way, one of the truest testaments to grief imaginable. There are some things in life that cannot be outrun or overcome. It is not a heartening notion, but it is true to live, and Manchester by the Sea examines it with conviction, empathy, and grace.
It would be easy for Lee to be the bad guy, for Patty to be a brat or the piteous kid who lost his father, for the community of Manchester to come together to raise them both up. Instead, there is complexity in the film’s DNA, to where Lee is equal parts unreachable and understandable, Patty experiences genuine pain and difficulty but also reads as a genuine teenager with all the rough edges that come with, and the people of Manchester help the Chandlers as best they can, but help them with well-warranted reservations as well. And it posits that recovery, even when necessary to take care of others you love, may simply not be possible.
And yet, for all that the film has been decried or championed for its depressing qualities, it ends on a note of measured and earned hope. Lee is not ready to be a father again, to be back in the place where his children died again, even for Patty. But he is ready to open his life again, just a little bit. His new apartment will have an extra room so that his nephew can come visit and stay. We see him out on that boat, on the water once more, symbolizing the times when he could be happy and his old self, and it’s a sign that he is not better, but that for the first time in a long time, there’s room in his life for something better.
Lee may never recover from this, may never become the person he was or even a person who a stranger could stand to have a conversation with for a half an hour. But he is, it seems, ready to become more, to open himself up to the last person in this world that he cares about. Manchester by the Sea ends on a note of hope. That hope is measured, balanced out by the cloud of grief that Lee will likely never fully escape, but it is a sign that even amid the harshest of losses, the ones that take away everything, there are people who give us something to hang onto, something to live for, something that makes us just a little bit more who we were before.
I will tell the truth: if I had not known that the story of the two main characters is taken (partly) by the story of Pawlikowski's parents (in fact the movie is dedicated to them), I would have been slightly disappointed. But knowing that, everything appears to me in a different light. It is clear from the outset that the director does a little construction of the characters: it is as if he knew them too well and had no interest in forcing descriptions and dialogues and in highlighting their personalities. This leads the viewer to witness a story of unconvincing love: platonic, but often fleeting; strong, but fragile. But there's simply no time to become attached to the two. And one can also see this in the film's duration of only 80 minutes. Passion is not an easy feeling to cultivate, and distance is a double-edged sword.
The strength of this movie is the tenderness of this love story: mystical, silky, ordered even if impossible. To lose oneself, to find oneself again, to lose oneself again and find oneself again: it's the circle of love.
The black and white technique contributes to weave the plot. One thing however needs to be noticed more than the B&W: the editing is just stunning. There are some black frames just perfectly included between two sequences, also with the sounds, giving the impression that the earliest sequence is not over yet, but it is. The moments of silence of this movie are among the best you can find in contemporary cinema.
Stalinist Poland is a background that adds mystery and difficulty, but comes out in the end in all its cruelty when the male protagonist (a pianist) is sentenced to fifteen years of forced labor that forever destroy his hands, forcing him to not play ever again (music is a strong part of the movie: Wiktor is a pianist and a composer, Zula is a wonderful singer and dancer, and they met the first time during an artistic audition).
In the end, their love is crowned, but in the only possible way: fleeing from the world and rising. The last seconds show a field crossed by the wind, a force of nature, nature that constantly fights against entropy, like the two characters.
7/10
A really good, enjoyable film but so NOT what I was expecting. A Liam Neeson film where he's a tough guy out for revenge? Well... not really... Think "Fargo" or "In Bruges" or early Tarantino. It's a quirky, off-beat comedy with some moments of violence and a LOT of black humour. Enjoyable, with a great supporting cast but don't expect "Taken" Neeson.
While the film is an incredible and affectionately made tribute to the boys, there is a fair amount of artistic licence used and the film’s story differs from real life events.
“Zenobia” - The Elephant Film....
In “Stan and Ollie”, the film portrays Stan at Fox Studios ready to sign a contract but Ollie doesn’t turn up because he’s still at Hal Roach Studios, making “the elephant film” ( the actual title was “Zenobia”).
In reality, after leaving Roach Studios in 1940, both Laurel and Hardy made 6 films with Fox Studios and 2 films for MGM between 1941 - 1945. (Therefore Ollie did actually turn up to sign the contracts.)
“Zenobia” was made in 1938, when Stan’s contract with Roach had terminated and he was unwilling to sign a new contract with Roach until Ollie’s had expired too. Therefore they could sign a contract at the same time together. It was the next best thing to having a joint contract.
While the “Stan and Ollie” film portrays them both as remaining bitter about “the elephant film” and eventually having an argument in public about it, the reality was that it was never an issue between them. By all accounts, they always remained friends and never had a falling out.
“Stan and Ollie” doesn’t mention the fact that Ollie appeared in two further films without Stan. “The Fighting Kentuckian” (1949) starring John Wayne and “Riding High” (1950) starring Bing Crosby.
If “the elephant film” was such a big issue between them, it’s doubtful Ollie would have appeared in two more films without Stan.
Nobby Cook.....
In the biopic, when Ollie falls ill, tour manager Bernard Delfont convinces Stan to temporarily join a new comedy partner named Nobby Cook. Due to his loyalty towards Ollie, Stan backs out at last minute, causing them to cancel the show.
Nobby Cook was actually a fictional character created for the “Stan and Ollie” film. There was never any attempt to form a new partnership. In reality, Ollie suffered a mild heart attack in Plymouth in May 1954. He recovered at the Grand Hotel and they both sailed back to the United States on 2 June. Ollie sadly passed away in 1957.
The UK Tours....
Laurel and Hardy toured the UK in 1947, 1952 and 1953-54. They had also arrived in the UK for a holiday back in 1932, however the huge crowds of people that greeted them prevented any relaxation they might have hoped for.
The “Stan and Ollie” film portrayed it as though they’d lost their popularity and that they were initially playing to almost empty theatres. In reality their first tours were highly successful. The crowds that greeted them at each public event can only be compared to Beatlemania.
It was only on their final tour in 1953-54 that audience numbers occasionally dropped but certainly not to the same extent portrayed in the film. Contemporary reviews of this tour were also mixed, most likely due to Ollie’s failing health.
On all of their tours they were part of a package variety show with a number of different acts on the bill.
Hal Roach Studios - The Lot Of Fun.....
Laurel and Hardy’s film producer, Hal Roach was nothing like how he was portrayed in the biopic. All of his actors and crew were extremely well paid.
In 1934, Roach paid himself $2,000 a week, Ollie also received $2,000 a week and Stan was on $3,500 a week. Therefore Roach was paying Stan Laurel more money than he was even paying himself. This was reflective of the many extra hours Stan spent working with the writers before and during the production and then working with editor Bert Jordan after photography was completed.
If certain scenes didn’t play too well in the previews, Roach never objected to spending more time and money to make it a better comedy film.
According to Laurel and Hardy film historian, Randy Skretvedt: “Roach actually lost money by making the three and four-reel films because the agreement was for a set number of two-reelers.”
On making the four-reel Laurel and Hardy film “Beau Hunks” Roach told Skretvedt: “It was already sold as a two-reeler; we couldn’t get any more dough out of all the circuits because they’d already bought it. But it was just one of those things; it was intended to be a two-reel comedy, but it kept getting funnier.”
Roach kept Laurel and Hardy on separate contracts that expired six months apart. This was to encourage them to stay at his studio. While some would say that this was a manipulative arrangement, it is understandable that Hal Roach wanted to keep the biggest comedy stars of the day at his studio. Especially considering the fact that his first major star, Harold Lloyd left his studio in 1923 to produce his own films.
In the Laurel and Hardy Encyclopedia, Glenn Mitchell writes: “Though necessarily ruthless, Roach permitted his employees a mostly free hand with an agreeable environment; most agree that there was no finer boss.”
“There’s been no other studio to date like it. MGM, Fox, Universal - they were nothing but machines. The Roach lot was very individual. And the people there had talent with a wonderful sense of humor. The Roach studio was nicknamed ‘The Lot of Fun’ because it was a comedy studio - and it was a lot of fun”. - Roy Seawright, optical effects department. Quote from “Laurel and Hardy, The Magic Behind The Movies”, Skretvedt.
"Much of the time, you feel like you're beholding the real duo, so thoroughly conceived are the actors' physicality and performances”. - Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter.
While “Stan and Ollie” is a fictional re-imagining of the events and creative with the facts, it is certainly an excellent tribute to their work and legacy. Many skeptics have been astonished by the skilled performances of Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly and most agree that they couldn’t have chosen anyone better to play the parts.
The costumes and set designs for the film are nothing short of phenomenal. During the re-creation of the famous dance sequence (from their 1937 feature “Way Out West”), they were able to use exactly the same background footage used in the original film. It’s this attention to detail which makes the viewer believe they’re watching the original sequences.
Most importantly, the film has helped put Laurel and Hardy back in the limelight and encouraged parents to show their children the greatest comedy films of all time. Their timeless humour appeals to all ages and this film has helped introduce them to a new generation.
It is a very funny and moving film made with genuine affection for the comedy of Laurel and Hardy.
The thing I like most about Ridleys movies is the fact that he uses CGI only when absolutely necassary and does as much practical shooting as possible. And he always tells a story. Just watched the extended cut which gives it a little more depth.
I can`t remember a bad movie from him but Gladiator sure is one of Ridleys masterpieces.
Wildlife is a methanol fire: it burns slower and you can't see the flames but it does the same sort of damage as a regular blaze.
Because Wildlife burns like a fuse that's building slowly to a soft explosion, all of the elements must be primed to prevent the spark from going out. The actors, the script, the directing must all be optimum to keep the fragile pyre burning. Fortunately, that's the case with Wildlife.
Young Ed Oxenbould (who I remember best from Shyamalan's The Visit) continues to show promise as an up and coming actor, Jake Gyllenhaal makes all the right choices in keeping his portrayal subtle and strong, and Carey Mulligan turns in what may be her best performance to date.
Paul Dano passes behind the camera for the first time and delivers a film full of subtle poetry that many with far more experience will envy, bringing to life a nicely paced story penned by himself and partner (in every sense of the word) Zoe Kazan.
So why not a perfect 10? The film fills its art-house, family drama niche perfectly, but doesn't try to go beyond that. It's content to be just a small film and not a small film with universal aspirations (like Jim Jarmusch's Paterson). There are, as well, some story lines that are threaded then neglected (the friend Ruth, for example) and finally, I felt some of the changes the characters went through were too hurried.
But those are small drops in the ocean of Wildlife, and do little to dilute or douse its power.
World Premiere Review:
It's a decent feel good movie, but has some rough edges. Casting Emily Blunt was spot on and Lin-Manuel is wonderful and some of the musical numbers are fantastic. Unfortunately the beginning and middle drag, with Meryl Streep's bit being not great and completely unnecessary. It was also disappointing that none of the original songs made it into this sequel. Dick Van Dyke steals the show at the end, and yes, he does all his own dance moves at 92 years old. Also seeing Angela Lansbury still with it at 93 put a smile on my face. Mary Poppin's exit is surprisingly cold and seems like a missed opportunity to tug at some heart strings. They should have cut the chase scene in the middle (that also felt completely shoehorned in) to make room for it.
ever since i first saw Carol in theatres on opening day back in December 11, 2015 after missing my flight to mexico, cinema has gone downhill. i genuinely can't think of a more perfect movie than Carol. this is a film about seeing and being seen, looking and being watched, longing and being received. it's a film about women finding redemption in a world made small, unfriendly and inhospitable by stupid, egotistical, controlling men. every single look or touch shared between carol and therese is so deeply imbued with unspoken feeling and warmth.
this movie makes me shout let's go lesbians but it also makes me sad, angry, and sob. there's a million things i could say about this movie, this movie means so much to me... but specifically therese means so much to me because it's so true to my Life. SOME MOVIES CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER. Carol makes me wanna set myself on fire but it also gives me hope.
Great movie! What a fun time. It's a great zombie movie, it's a great musical, it's a great Christmas movie. I was bumping the soundtrack on the way home. Also, at least 3 of these songs will be in regular rotation for Christmas music each season.
An interesting gothic horror film which is more atmospheric in the first two acts but veers sharply (and successfully) into gore at the end.
Apostle is well written, if a little slow at the beginning, but Dan Steven's uneven performance (he over-does it quite a bit at the end) is distracting.
There's also an argument to be made that a subplot is 'the environment'. That man is trying to harness nature and feed her poison to feed their own greed, yet by doing so they're destroying themselves and their community.
In short, Apostle is nature horror that grows on you.
What do you call a movie in which fantastic beasts have 15 minutes of screentime, and a character named Grindelwald commits 1 or 2 crimes? Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald? That’d be weird, right?
Pros:
- JK’s imagination. Even when a movie messes up as much as this one does, it’s still one of the most charming and imaginative universes put to screen.
- Pretty well directed with great performances
- Newt (gets more development here) and Jacob
- Queenie’s storyline (if you pay close attention, I think it all adds up)
- The beasts, who are reduced to tools for Newt here, are a fun and creative addition
- The climax, Grindelwald’s speech and motivation
- Visuals, score and CGI (this was especially improved after the first film)
- Action scenes (opening scene and bookstairs chase)
Cons:
- Incredibly incoherent (they really should’ve scrapped a lot of characters and their storylines, in my opinion: Leta, Nagini, the black wizard, and even Dumbledore, as they don’t contribute a lot to this particular story).
—> Also, a lot of scenes are pointless (like the underwater creature)
- Two characters are still incredibly annoying (in my opinion those are Credence and Tina), although I’m not sure it’s the writing or acting that makes me hate them so much
- The ending feels like bad fan fiction; good twists should have subtle hints, JK should know this above anyone else
- Too much exposition
- A few scenes are underlit, or too dark
- Some continuity errors (and no, I’m not just talking about the one that has already been reported everywhere)
- The CGI on those cat creatures wasn’t that great
4/10
Random person: "Do you always get teary eyed on Snapes death scene ?"
Me: "Always..."
The only film in the series where Voldemort does not appear in some form.
Didn't really think about it until this re-watch... Dumbledore pretty much set Malfoy up to be Potter's enemy at the end by yanking the house cup away from Slytherin, no?
"Slytherin is in first place by a whole bunch, but here, let me give Gryffindor exactly enough points to bring them from last to first."
Bit of a dick move.
I love this movie so much. A completely bad ass lead slashes her way through some bad guys and a few great twists. I don't understand why people have a problem with the ending. The ending is amazing!! Seriously, I don't know why Sharni Vinson isn't in a million horror films by now. Also....of course, I can't not mention the original horror icon, and my personal favorite, the one and only Barbara Crampton. I LOVE THIS MOVIE!
An excellent film noir with great performances by the leads and a social commentary that not only was potent for the time, but still resonates.
I got the motive which is money and the body which is dead.
-Chief Gillespie
I love the way the film isn't just about Sidney Poitier versus the racists, but about a simple murder that would have probably been solved faster not just because of the racists, but because of how it alters Tibbs own behavior.
See you don't just have the hick town not wanting to listen to Virgil Tibbs because he's black, but because Virgil lets it effect his judgment. The best example is that he seems look past the racist remarks of the first suspect, maybe because he recognizes the ignorance in the uneducated man and gives him the benefit of the doubt.. but later on when he's confronted with racism from an educated successful man he wants to accuse him of murder with minimum evidence because you can't excuse his behavior with ignorance. Not only is this second guy a racist asshole, but he's benefited off it.
Of course Poitier is great along with Rod Steiger.
"Well, nobody's perfect" but this movie is.
Searching is the new thriller directed by Aneesh Chaganty. Widowed father David Kim (John Cho) searches for his missing teenage daughter (Michelle La) with the help of multiple laptops and hard-talking detective Rosemary Vick (Debra Messing). All the action takes place on screens; the mystery unfolds through texts, FaceTime, YouTube and video blogs.
While some may have their doubts about watching what is essentially a filmed set of screens for nearly two hours, this unusual set up soon feels natural. After all, many of us spend a lot more than two hours without looking away from a screen in our daily lives.
The portrayal of familiar online habits on the big screen is cleverly used for comic effect. The constant rewriting of messages and the replacement of the jovial exclamation mark for the famously passive aggressive full stop is fully relatable and funny to watch. Some of the visuals are also arresting because they are taken out of their familiar context. Most notably, David’s screen saver is transformed into an enormous malignant jellyfish when shown without the borders of a laptop.
The clever parallels between the title, Searching, and the extensive use of search engines (particularly Apple’s “Finder”) throughout the film invite us to look at how we use the internet. Google asks us to “Search Google or type URL,” but when the missing object is a person rather than the answer to inane questions, these words take on a much more frightening currency.
Searching maintains a fantastic tension throughout the search for Margot. The contrast of the horror of the situation and recognisable ordinariness of the technological format is extremely effective in unsettling the audience.
The twists are truly chilling. By the end, there are perhaps just too many wrenching turns, which slightly dents the believability of the film. This is the only thing stopping Searching from getting a solid five-star review. It is a wonderfully sharp, brutally tense and inventively shot thriller that shows the blossoming possibilities of technology in film.
This is how an action movie should be like!
Biggest problem with most action movies is that they take themselves way too serious. "True Lies" is mainly fun and entertaining and on top of that, the action is top class!
Finally a movie of which I can say: "Budget well spend!" The action really jumps off the screen but it never feels overdone or forced, which is thanks to action-director veteran James Cameron. He should stick to directing action movies like this, the Terminator movies and "Aliens". Please no more movies like "Titanic"! (not that it was a VERY bad movie) Stick to were your talent lies.
The movie can be described as an American James Bond, meaning that everything is bigger and I'm not just talking about Arnie's chest. Just like the James Bond movies, it doesn't take itself seriously without making itself ridiculous.
Many people seem to have problems with the whole "wife side track, story-line" I guess I'm one of the few that doesn't mind it at all and actually find it an extra addition to the story.
The movie has everything a good action movie need: A believable action hero, explosions, chases, gun fights, a stereotype villain and a high entertainment value. Packed with awesome action scenes and some really terrific hilarious moments this is what an action movie should be. Not too serious and not too pointless.
Rated R: violence and profanity
7/10
Bill Paxton steals the show lol. Oh and for once Tom Arnold kind of does as well. While of course Jamie Lee Curtis' sexy dance scene is also memorable.
On top of that you get one of Arnold's best and most corny one liners "you're fired!"
Kimble: "I didn't kill my wife!"
Gerard: "I don't care."
When Kimble (Ford) gets the jump on Gerard (Lee Jones) in the sewers, instead of shooting the marshal and making things worse, Kimble pleads his case to him. Gerard, responds with a simple, but brilliant and ad-libbed, "I don't care."
The line wasn't part of the script but those three words reinforced to Kimble, and audiences, that it didn't matter to Gerard whether the doctor was guilty or innocent of the crimes for which he was accused. He was going to get his man - no matter what.
Real people playing versions of themselves in a real story is what makes this art film stand out. A young and gifted rodeo star suffers a concussion and must face the reality of the situation with his hard drinking father and mentally challenged sister (who also play themselves in the film).
As haunting as a lone cowboy's ghost on a long ride down a trail that leads nowhere.
The amateurish acting is distracting and endearing. The landscapes are mundane and immense. The emotions are personal and universal. I left the cinema steeped in memories of moments I'd never lived, like carrying a tattered postcard from another life in the back pocket of my oldest pair of jeans.
Wow.
I'm not a teenage girl, and I never have been, but somehow I felt connected. While this is a comedy, you feel the emotions Kayla are going through throughout the whole movie. The soundtrack and the pacing are done exceptionally well, leading to a truly real feel.
The dialog of this movie is done in such an amazing fashion that you really get the sense of reality while watching. I can't think of a scene in the movie that didn't feel like it could actually happen.
Highly recommend this movie.
“Your mission, should you choose to accept it." I wonder, did you ever choose not to? The end you've always feared is coming.”
WOAH!
You know, I normally stay cool and collective when movies with this amount of hype blows up, but f**k it. This freaking lived up to the hype. I mean, wow. Probably one of the best action movies of the year. From start till finish, you’re captivated by the practicality of these action sequences. Never feeling repetitive or boring. Foot chase, car chase, or helicopter chase - It’s going to be awhile for any action movie to top what they did.
This franchise has age like fine wine.
First Things First, the action scenes - where do I begin? Or which scene to talk about. Oh yeah, THE BATHROOM SCENE! Holy sh*t, talk about a white-knuckled hand to hand fight. No dialogue, no music, and no shaky cam whatsoever. Rough and brutal with nothing pretty about it. Also Henry Cavill reloading his arms was the cherry on top. We will come back to Cavill later.
The halo sky dive scene was amazing and nuts, but what’s even more nuts when you find out Tom Cruise did the stunt over 100 times. Along with poor Craig O’Brien, who captured the stunt from the massive IMAX camera. This explains why it was so intense to watch. Of course the helicopter sequence, which could have been 2 hours and 27 minutes long and I wouldn't be bored.
The sound design is really fantastic and really detailed with everything that's going on. You can hear the whoosh when someone throws a punch. Gunshots hitting brick walls or whizz by, brought up the intensity.
Christopher McQuarrie returns as director for the sixth installment and I think he outdid himself. This guy knows how to set up ’the domino’ effect with certain scenes to surprise and make your jaw drop. Masterpiece in film making and shot composition - beautifully done by cinematographer Rob Hardy. While it’s unknown (right now) who will take over directing for the seven movie, but oh boy they got some shoes to fill. I don’t think McQuarrie can top himself. Then again, I said something similar about ‘Rogue Nation’. I will never learn.
And hey, the villains were pretty menacing this time around. A rare thing sometimes in these movies.
Tom Cruise is nearly 60 years old and yet, continues to prove age is just a number. You can hate or criticize Cruise all you want, but you gotta respect someone who puts this much dedication in life threatening situations for the right take. An action star who puts in the hard work. He’s basically killing himself for two hours.
Henry Cavill makes a welcome addition to the franchise as a mustache twirling agent. Cavill is best known for playing superman and made a big name for himself, however the movies themselves failed to meet his success. In this movie, he plays a big bully who isn't afraid to kill on instinct. There’s something deeply unpleasant about him. Every time he walks in frame with this stone cold look adds to the uneasiness. Especially during the fight scenes where Cavill shows off his physicality and fast brutal punches. This is the best I've seen from him. Justice League? Never heard of it.
The team dynamic was excellent and gives plenty of room for character development among the anarchy. Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, and Rebecca Ferguson are all terrific.
How is the actual story of the film? Well, nothing original just like the previous ones. Elevating on presentation and ties in with events on the other movies - Involving plenty of twist and turns. Some people may have an issue with that which I can understand. The film demands your attention throughout, as references are dropped left and right. The movie builds a lot off the previous film which you have to see or remember about, because if not, then you’re lost.
If I have to pick any issue, it will have to be some of the score. Now don’t get me wrong, I thought the score was good and blends perfectly along with the action scenes, but it did sound familiar. Yeah, ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ score. People have already brought this up, so I become more aware when listening. Bit distracting as I had the Every Frame a Printing video on ‘Hollywood Scores & Soundtracks’, in my mind. That’s it really.
Overall rating: Please do yourself a favor and see this on the biggest screen you can. The action, sound work, characters, and acting were all superb. Believe the hype!
