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
[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
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.
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.
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
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
“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!
Wow.
The Searchers is a timeless western classic that completely hooked me from the minute it starts. John Ford shows us how Western is done by it's breathtaking landscapes, haunting scenes and the best ending to a film I've ever seen.
John Wayne gives the performance of his career as Ethan and I don't think his other performances can top that, but then again, my mind might change. John Wayne is the soul of Western and I don't care what anyone says to change that. He's so iconic that even people who haven't seen his movies still know the famous cow boy image of John Wayne.
But I've heard a lot of issues from people with the character of Ethan. People thought the character was racist, unlikable or just a prick. Well his mother was killed by comanches, he lost the woman he loved to his brother, he fought in a war where he would have seen many people, including his friends killed, and then he returns home to his family who are massacred, including the woman he loves who was also raped. He also finds his niece's raped corpse that he buries.
I don't think Ethan was suppose to win your heart. He's a deeply troubled and sometimes bordering on psychotic, person. He's an anti-hero that I couldn't bring myself to hate but root for. He's a racist and I'm okay with that, because it gives the character Ethan an interesting conflict with Martin (played by Jeffrey Hunter), for being quarter Cherokee which Ethan hates. It's never clear if Ethan views change at the end, but it sure makes one hell of a partnership between the two.
This movie dose not mess around when it comes to it's violence. And no, I don't mean it's gory or bloody, but the movie gets quite dark at times. I only say "at times" because there is a fair share of humor in this that I did laugh at, as it fitted perfectly with the story and wasn't force. That's what I love about this movie. It manages to balance humor and dark scenes so brilliantly that's it's really difficult to pull off in movies. For a Western that's aged approved, it sure has some balls of what it presents you.
I gotta be honest here. This is the first John Wayne movie I've ever watched and I can't believe it took me this long to get around to this one. First it was Marilyn, then Dean and now Wayne. Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini and Akira Kurosawa movies I still need to see.
Don't worry people,
"That'll be the day".
I don't even know where to start. Enemy was one of my most anticipated films for this year. It is based on José Saramago's book called "The Double" (in its original Portuguese title "O Homem Duplicado") and it was constantly delayed here in Portugal but now I understand why the wait. They wanted to release it at the 4th year anniversary of the death of José Saramago, winner of a Literature Noble Prize in 1998 and one of our the greatest Portuguese writers ever! It was a beautiful homage, afterall this country unfortunately did not praised him as much as he deserved during his life. He had his very own philosophies, he was a very peculiar and different man. He was against Catholic Church and in a country where most of people are catholics, he was not very well regarded and I think his writing was damaged before the eyes of a country that sometimes cannot see through differences. I look at the writer not at the man, everyone is free to think whatever they want but well, that's another story. Now back to the film!
Enemy is a very complex thriller, very nightmarish and dark with an absolutely engaging atmosphere that will twist your mind and oh, how do I like this kind of mind-f*cking films! As a film that is based on a José Saramago's book and I know that he is a very metaphoric writer, who liked to makes us pull things from our head, mixing reality with mere thoughts, I knew that I would have to pay very attention to all of the details and that's what I did.
I also loved the claustrophobic feeling in the air, it's almost like we are trapped into the film and the absolutely creepy and dreadful soundtrack helps to create that feeling.
There are some things left hovering the air but I have a pretty strong theory for this story. This is a film that requires more than one viewing and I believe that can become more special to us in each visualization. Is very difficult to talk about it without spoiling anything. I think it is a film which is best experienced and then discussed.
What can I say more about Jake Gyllenhaal that I haven't said before? He must be one of the most underrated actors ever and he is so amazing! I can't remember to had seen a single bad performance from him. Once again he shines and what can be better than have, not one but two Jake Gyllenhaals?
I don't see everyone enjoying this film, some might think it is too slow or too boring. Some will feel very bothered with the atmosphere and with what they are watching but for me worked even better than what I was expecting.
Denis Villeneuve amazed me with Prisoners, one of my favorites of last year and he amazes me again with another fantastic work directing Enemy.
[8.8/10] There’s a funny thing about these updated, transmogrified Shakespeare adaptations like 10 Things I Hate About You. If you didn’t know better, you could call the plots convoluted. There is a complicated web of relationships and deceptions, to the point that you practically need a diagram to explain it properly.
In short, Michael helps his friend Cameron woo Bianca by convincing Joey to pay Patrick to date Kat, because Bianca, per her father Mr. Stratford, cannot date until Kat does. With me? Well then, it turns out that Kat dated Joey, and after Bianca picks Cameron over Joey, Joey picks Bianca’s friend Chastity, while Michael pursues Kat’s friend Mandella, as Kat and Patrick’s tempestuous relationship takes root.
It’s a little dizzying, and yet the complex string of friends and enemies and relationships that tow the line between put-ons and genuine affection track nigh-perfectly into the high school setting. Despite the dense qualities of that big ball of string’s worth of plot threads, the complicated social structures and intersecting circles of high school make for the perfect way to realizes The Bard’s comedies in the modern day.
But 10 things is more than just a transmogrified version of The Taming of the Shrew. It also a charming tale that captures the heart and hazards of adolescence at the same time it exaggerates them for comic effect. What’s most impressive about the film is how it has its cake and eats it too on that front. There are goofy beats and subplots that only happen in teen movies, like unexpected party scenes and famous bands showing up to play contemporary (hopefully) chart-topping hits for the soundtrack.
But amid that broader material, there is a real examination of what it is to play up or down to expectation, a theme present in the work that inspired 10 Things, but which is given new life in the guise of the teenagers who are at that point in the fraught process of growing up where they’re deciding who and what they want to be, in love and in life. The gross wager that turns into real love is a hoary trope (see also: fellow 1990s borrower She’s All That) but by rooting the romance at the core of the film in two people who embrace a thorny image and find the hidden depths behind the prickers in one another, the film does justice to its source material and resonates with a target audience trying to figure out which parts of who they are malleable, which parts are non-negotiable, and which parts are fit to be broadcast to the rest of the world (or at least, the relevant social circles)>
It is also just damn charming. The film is full of quotable lines and crackerjack exchanges between characters. The cutting aside is wielded well and often, and side characters like teachers (including the great Allison Janney) and parents (Larry Miller, who nails both comedy and emotion as Mr. Stratford) provide a backdrop of colorful characters for the main story to flourish in. The writing stands out in 10 Things not just for the amusing lines which liven some otherwise familiar teen material, but for the way it allows the film to, in true Shakespeare form, shift tones into more serious material when it needs to.
The same goes for the characters. Kat shoots off the best zingers in the movie, and with her rebellious attitude and literary bent, it would be easy to turn her into a one-dimensional avatar rather than a character. Instead, the film roots her perspective and demeanor in an experience with Joey that gives form to her concerns of Bianca following in her footsteps, and gives just enough context to her mom leaving to make the crisis of conscience and turning point understandable.
By the same token, Bianca could easily be a generic popular girl, and in fairness, at certain points of the film, she is. But she too has a simple but meaningful arc of playing to expectations only to realize that she doesn’t necessarily like what that gets her, and it allows the two sisters to grow in their understanding of one another in strong scenes that deepen their relationship.
The objects of their affection receive a bit of shading as well. The reveal that Patrick, who puts on a gruff exterior and bears the reputation derived from many humorous urban legends about him, is not as wild as he seems is, perhaps, a predictable one. But he gains strength from the way that he and Kat see bits of themselves in one another, Cameron is a bit flatter, learning a trite if endearingly-put lesson about not accepting the notion that he doesn’t deserve what he wants, but there’s enough there to give ballast to the enjoyable-if-disposable teen romp elements.
Even Mr. Stratford, who is arguably the most outsized major character in the film, gets a bit of shading. While he spits out awkward-sounding nineties slang and is comically overprotective and paranoid of his daughters getting pregnant, the film balances that with a subtext to his insecurities about Kat leaving for Sarah Lawrence. There is a Daria-like quality to the film’s ability to poke fun at the parent-child relationship, but also find the sweetness and sincerity in it.
That’s what makes 10 Things more than the sum of its byzantine bets and love triangles. Some twists are convenient, some gestures a little too big to work anywhere but on the silver screen, and some bits of forgiveness come a little too easy. Still, the film keeps its plot, humor, and drama working in sync, where one scene can make you chuckle, the next will let you get to know a character a little better, and the one after will tug at your heartstrings, just a little bit.
The oh-so-nineties soundtrack immediately places in the film at a specific moment in time, but it speaks to the relatable qualities of that quest to figure out both who you are, and who’ll accept you for who you are, that feel like life and death for all seventeen-year-olds. 10 Things is a touchstone for those who grew up with it, both for the quips and clever asides that let the film crackle, and for the notion of young men and women, cutting through pretension and presentation, and finding something true beneath it, in themselves and in the people they love.
Initial Reaction
After two viewings
The Good
• Deadpool himself is as funny as ever. Ryan Reynolds keeps up a fantastic performance and really gives it his all.
• Cable is also really good. Josh Brolin, despite being in many movies this year. Has given a great performance.
• Jokes are really funny when they hit, and they hit hard.
• Secondary characters are also really well done. Some anyway. More on that, below in the spoilers
• It has a true charm to it. Making it more distinct than the first. But not outshining it.
• The action was on point. The director really knows how to capture a great fight scene, and there are plenty here to enjoy and marvel at.
• Villain. This point is actually a fairly good one, but also has spoils. So read below if you really want to know. What I can say is that Ajax is nowhere near as memorable compared to the bad guys here.
• The amount of balls this movie has. It just does things, I would never expect them to do. The first movie gave us shocks at what they could say and show. Now they just go and toy with that to the next level. And I loved it.
The Bad
• Plot. It's not the best. It's also not that simple. The first Deadpool was very straightforward even with the time jumps. Here, it's a bit of a mess. Not to mention it's kind of a rip off of T2. But it acknowledges this at least
• Some jokes don't quite land. They reuse some of the same lines from the first movie, and it feels as if it really is lazy writing. As far as it seems, they are trying to make Deadpool's catchphrases more clear. But to me, it was just annoying.
• The jokes seem to build off the story in this. Whereas the first one felt more improvisational and made it seem like the plot revolved around the humour. Here it just seemed like the comedy was slotted into this action film. But it's not all that bad, just let down the overall tone of the movie.
• CGI is actually pretty bad. It's so distracting, it takes away from the comedy they try to sprinkle over it.
• Wade. He is focused on more than the first. And I just didn't like how they were trying to go about it.
• Along with the focus on Wade, the emotional scenes don't mix that well with the comedy like they did in the first.
Other Things
• You're going to want to stick around for the mid-credit sequences. They are some of the best ever in a Marvel movie, and in movies in general.
• There are two mid-credit scenes (almost back-to-back) and no end-credit scenes.
Spoiler Things
• The X-Force joke is so damn good that I can forgive the lack of build in the team up until the very humorous end. Again such a great ballsy move. Props to the studio.
• The villains in this movie, aren't really present in terms of villains. The first Deadpool had a villain, he had to beat him. Done. This sets it up to be all about Cable, but it actually gives us villains that turn out to be the same as Wade. Which is great for a Deadpool movie to show anti-heroes having a connection with the villains they are fighting.
Conclusion
DP2 is not better than the first. It lacks the simplicity and catchy humour that it had. But, it does grab onto you and takes you on a ride that is not as funny, but is just as enjoyable than the original. I don't see it being as rewatchable like the first. But as its own movie, it holds itself up for a fun experience, wonderful character portrayals, and a damn good time.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dul boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no plany Makes ack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dul boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play make Jack a Dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All workand no play maks Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no plany Makes ack a dull boy
All work and no play make Jack a Dull boy
My god... Does Ava DuVernay know that you can actually zoom out a camera? I've never seen so many "closeup" face shots in a single movie in my entire life. I'll never be able to get Oprah's giant-sized face out of my mind...
As for the movie itself, It's a bit all over the place. Some parts and themes are very well-done, such as Meg's journey to accept herself, while others are really half-baked (especially the relationships between Meg & Charles Wallace, Meg & Calvin, etc). Too many things just get thrown together or just suddenly happen by sheer "coincidence" without a solid lead-in or development. This could have definitely used some additional scenes and runtime to flesh characters and their relationships between each other out a bit more. Reese Witherspoon's character is actually my favorite of the 3 "Mrs."'s. Oprah and Mindy Kaling's characters definitely did not hit home.
Visuals were pretty stunning for the most part, but sometimes went a bit too overboard. Don't even get me started again on the cinematography and editing... This movie definitely had potential and I was excited to watch it, but it just misses out on some major points. It was enjoyable overall for the visual fest and seeing the world of A Wrinkle in Time, but other than that it is just an average film. I'd temper my expectations for sure. 5/10 as it is just an average movie...
Apparently this is just the third $100+ million budget movie directed by a woman. I'm not sure that Ava DuVernay's movie is going to help buck that trend...
LIFF31 2017 #2
"Nature has cunning ways of finding our weakest spot."
There is no doubt how incredibly beautiful "Call Me By Your Name" is. Putting aside your age and sexuality, the film offers more than romance. It's not sad or tragic, but a peaceful one. It's all about falling in love. What's been said by many will be repeated here, so none of this is gonna be new to you, because it's all true.
Armie Hammer, Michael Stuhlbarg, and newcomer Timothée Chalamet all deliver terrific performances. Not a weak or unconvincing actor in sight. All of them were perfectly cast in the roles and there was no shred of doubt during the emotional parts. Especially Stuhlbarg monologue towards the end is as moving as anything I have ever seen.
The way Luca Guadagnino manages to play on your emotions and present gay romances is really mesmerizing. The warm and summer spectacle of Italy makes you want to be there. With the scenery, sunny waters, and the food which look so good, all through Sayombhu Mukdeeprom brilliant cinematography. It's paradise.
Even the sexual tension never once came across pornographic. I don't mind sex or nudity in movies and people seriously just need to stop being so sensitive about it. Ever thought that making little things a huge deal only makes it a huger deal. Or your sloppy description.
The sexuality in this film is more of an emotional connection you personally experience through the characters. And you don't have to be gay to enjoy those scenes. It avoids the typical tropes you find in movies that isn't as perfectly presented as this.
This is a truly special movie that I easily got lost in.
Home Alone is a perfect movie, not in the sense that there is zero room for improvement or it's the greatest artistic achievement in human history, but in that it does what it sets out to do in a nigh-flawless fashion. It is impeccably paced, shot, and edited. It has the right balance of escapist fantasy, relatable family drama, humor, heart, and even slapstick comedy to keep the film lively without making it a piece of fluff. And miraculously, despite a cast full of ringers like Catherine O’Hara and Joe Pesci, the whole thing hinges on the acting talents of a nine-year-old boy who pulls it off with flying colors.
Because as great as O’Hara is as the mother desperate to get back to her son, as amusing as Pesci and Daniel Stern are as a pair of robbers who get more than they bargained for, as hilarious as the inimitable John Candy (who steals the show with less than five minutes of screen time) is as a polka-playing good Samaritan, Home Alone is, first and foremost, a story about Kevin McCallister, and even at that tender age, Culkin (with a huge assist from writer John Hughes and director Chris Columbus) sells that story like a champ.
That’s part of why Home Alone works so perfectly as a family movie that plays with both kids and adults. As a child, the more outsized elements of the story loom large. The iconic scenes of Kevin tormenting his pursuers offer a spate of perfectly deployed slapstick, worthy of Looney Tunes or The Three Stooges and apt to elicit any number of giggles from the younger members of the audience. By the same token, there’s an escapist fantasy for kids in the early part of the film, where Kevin jumps on the bed, eats junk, and “watches rubbish” without anyone being able to tell him otherwise. There is an incredible sense of fun to these scenes, whether it’s the ACME-inspired antics and great physical performances of the “Wet Bandits” or Kevin living out the immediate joy of his wish to be family-free.
But what makes the film more than just an insubstantial flight of fancy is the way it mixes that holiday mirth with enough heft, enough of the downside of that wish and a stealthily nuanced depiction of a young child maturing in both his ability to take care of himself and his understanding of the world.
When we meet Kevin in the film’s frenetic opening sequence, showing an entire household abuzz with cousins and uncles all in a state of pre-travel frenzy, Kevin cannot even pack his own suitcase. There’s recurring jabs from his siblings and cousins that his mom has to do everything for him. Over the course of the film, when pressed into service by being the all to his lonesome, Kevin becomes a surprisingly self-sufficient little boy. When not smothered by a score of other siblings, he shows a surprising resourcefulness, proving himself able to go to the store, do laundry, and even leave out cookies for Santa Claus when the time arrives. This culminates in the cornucopia of traps Kevin sets for the robbers, proving that he is even capable of defending his house from those who would do his family harm.
In the process, Kevin overcomes a number of his fears, which provides another thematic throughline for the film. Chris Columbus and Director of Photography Julio Macat help this part of the story tremendously by the way a series of normal things are made frightening by shooting them from Kevin’s perspective. From the low shot on the furnace in the basement as it seems to taunt and beckon Kevin while he’s doing laundry, to the scene in the store where Old Man Marley is introduced only by his big black boots, seeming to glower down at Kevin from high above, Macat’s camera keeps us inside Kevin’s head, seeing the terror in these otherwise quotidian interactions. That cinches Kevin’s transition when he tells the furnace not to bother – we understand what he’s overcoming.
The heart of the movie, however, comes through in the scene where he conquers his other big fear – his scary looking next door neighbor, whom his brother described as a secret murderer the cops couldn’t catch. When Kevin runs into him at church, he discovers that Marley isn’t some serial ghoul, but rather a kindly old man who offers him a bit of solace and comfort in a time of need.
It’s an incredibly well-written scene, bolstered by the stellar performance of Roberts Blossom as Marley and Culkin playing Kevin at his most precocious and worldly. Blossom sells the utter warmth and humanity of Blossom behind his icy visage. His sitting next to Kevin as a friendly presence, telling a small part of his life story, and speaking to the lad as something approaching an equal provides a big leap for the film’s protagonist. It’s part of that maturation process, the realization that he shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, that he can’t necessarily trust his brother’s accounts, and that the people who seem the most unnerving can be the people you want in your hour of need. In one scene, Old Man Marley goes from being the film’s great threat to being its heart.
And he ties into the other big motif running through the film – an appreciation of one’s family. What could easily be a trite Hallmark card of a message from the movie has real force from the way the lesson is delivered. When Kevin wishes he had no family, the film helps us understand why, putting him in that relatable little kid situation of causing a scene, feeling you were goaded into it, and that nobody takes treats you nicely or appreciates you. And then when his wish comes true, it takes some time to let the audience, and Kevin, revel in his newfound freedom. But it also show’s Kevin slowly but surely realizing that he misses them, and that as much as they drive him nuts sometimes, having them back is what he really wants for Christmas.
That’s why the scene and story of Old Man Marley’s estrangement with his son is so important. It’s center on the idea that the issues Kevin is dealing with – fear, family discontent, loneliness around the holidays – are not unique to him or his tender age, but are universal obstacles that people of all ages confront at various points in their life. It’s a sign of Kevin’s broadening perspective, the way he’s being changed by this experience and learns that it’s possible to love your family even when you’re angry with them.
It’s also his realization that even in those impulsive moments, whether you’re an old man or a little boy, that you make grand declarations about not wanting to be a part of your family anymore, you may soon find yourself regretting it, yearning for the thing you were so ready to give up. Kevin starts to understand this in Home Alone, and it’s why his sincere plea to one of Santa’s “messengers” (who amusingly offers him tic tacs and can’t get his car started) to bring his family back has weight and meaning.
All of this is able to come together so well because so many of the technical, or less showy parts of the film are all done extraordinarily well. John Williams’s score expertly matches the mood of the film at every turn, whether he’s playing yuletide pop classics or an orchestral score that fits a grand escape or moment of tension. The writing has a clockwork quality to it. Hughes’s script accounts for the circumstances in which a nine-year-old would left alone by himself, unable to be contacted by his parents or the authorities in a nicely plausible fashion, and he constructs a series of events in which Kevin believes he wished his family away and then wished them back in a way that is equally convincing for the kid and the viewer.
And the film is shot and edited superbly, with amusing cuts like Kevin calling out for his mother with an immediate smash cut to a roaring airplane, or the frenzied fashion in which the McCallisters are depicted racing through the airport. Every part of this film works in sync, to deliver a visually exciting, narratively sound work that lets its humor, story, and message, land without a hint of friction.
So when we reach the end of the film and see Kevin’s reunion with his family, and Old Man Marley’s reunion with his, both moments feel earned. Chris Columbus tells a nigh-wordless story in the final scene, with O’Hara’s Kate McCallister silently marveling at how great the house looks and Kevin offering an expression of reluctance, one that suggests he might still be holding onto the anger he unleashed at this mother the last time they were face to face, before quickly sliding into a smile and running to embrace her. Their expressions tell the story, of the way both mother and child now see each other differently on this Christmas Day. The same goes for the expression of gratitude, of near-tearful camaraderie, between Kevin and Old Man Marley as Kevin witnesses his new friends’ reunion with a family of his own. Everyone here has grown; everyone has taken chances despite their fears, and come out better for it.
Throughout all of this, Home Alone manages to be cute, sweet, thrilling, funny, sharp, clever, and hopeful. For films set alone the holiday, it’s all too easy to lean into maudlin sentiment or cloying comedy, but Hughes’s and Columbus’s collaboration produced a film that manages to be nimble and amusing from start to finish, with enough meaning and mirth in it to make the story told feel as important as it is small. Home Alone tells the tale of a young man learning that despite his fear, his inexperience, and his familial resentments, he’s ready to take his first step into adulthood, and finds in the process that what he needs most are the people he was afraid of or wanted to wish away.
This is my go-to joke-answer when people ask me what my favourite Christmas film is (the truth is I don’t have a favourite anything), but what always catches me out is just how Christmassy Die Hard really is. From end to end, in his own way, McTiernan captures the spirit of Christmas nicely without making a saccharine or overbearing film.
Bruce Willis is just a regular guy trying to get home to see his kids, and patch up his failing marriage. What says ‘Christmas’ more than family? Alan Rickman is the Grinch that tries to get in the way of his plans. I don’t know who Santa is in this analogy; maybe the limo driver. The cop on the outside is Joseph and the film itself is baby Jesus.
In all seriousness though, something about Die Hard clicks with me every time. The regular-guy-having-a-bad-day idea borrows from the better Hitchcock films, and the way it melds with the action scenes is so fun to watch. Willis clearly enjoys playing a bad-ass. His cocky charm is infectious, as is his determination.
It’s not easy to take a simple idea and execute it well, but Die Hard shows that with carefully orchestrated action scenes and slick screen writing one can achieve greatness without having to stray from a central story. Makes a very difficult job look easy.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/12/19/diehard/
Slow. Built to a finale but a terrible ending. Bacon suddenly stopped being a cop for no reason and allowed Penn's character who is at least a murder suspect to walk away drinking whiskey. This is moments after some forced sentimental talk about the past to try and neaten up the story. Again. The ending was that the bad guys win ending. The bad guys being local bully mobster Penn with his two annoying cock sucker friends. Obviously true to life in that evil prevails but it didn't work for me in this movie by its own logic failures. Was it true to Penn's character, a man so proud with truth and paying for his crimes, how he never even confessed? Again, Bacon stopped caring about being a cop about the man he was just protecting?. Why didn't Robbin's just tell the truth instead being an obvious suspect? Instead of confessing he asks for a Sprite. That'll make you seem innocent yeah. Why could a boy that didn't talk secretly talk or was hinted to being able to? How did the cops just happen to show up in time? Was Penn's wife so sick that she really called him a king for being a murderer? Yes. Did Robbin's wife more or less get Robbins killed by presuming he murdered her to Penn thus leaving her child fatherless? Yes. Did Penn just kill a guy based on his own forced confession with no asking for evidence and then he's actually suprised when he got the wrong guy? Yes. And what was Kevin Bacon's wife's about, especially when we had over two hours to explain her? But it's OK... because Bacon makes a gun sign at the end to Penn and that has to mean something.
It's like the ending was a different movie which also revealed split personalities and a terrible movie.
What about the portrayal of Dave by Robbins. Acted well but a cliché abuse victim or what?
Talk about a movie with bad morals and holes
Wonder Woman is... well... wonderful! This movie is a true representation of the characters I have grown up with and loved from DC comics and the justice league animated series. This movie is about how Diana the princess of Themyscira becomes Wonder Woman, a classic fish out of water tale of innocence and heroism.
The chemistry between the two leads feels so natural and it is because of this chemistry that Steve's sacrifice is so heartbreaking . While the movie may not be as layered or multifaceted as other DCEU offerings such as Man of Steel, making use of a more classic 'by the numbers' superhero formula, it is undoubtedly a more meaningful movie. It shows us the true nature of humanity through the eyes of an Amazon who has no preconceptions or history with our species. It shows us the ugliness of mankind, how cheaply we value human life with the wars we create, and how stereotypical gender roles have been/are to the detriment of women without bashing us over the head with a heavy-handed feminist agenda. On the other hand, through her eyes, we also see the things humanity is capable of through the power of love.
Despite the importance of this movie, Wonder Woman doesn't depress or bog the audience down. It conveys these important messages within the context of an uplifting film filled with fun, action and romance.
Critics have voiced their approval for this movie, but that shouldn't make fans of the DCEU fearful. Wonder Woman seamlessly fits in with the DCEU, making use of similar colour palates, action direction, and story telling. While this is a movie all little girls must watch, it is truly a movie for everyone... it is simply... WONDERFUL!
