Directed By: Graham Moore Written By: Graham Moore & Jonathan McClain Cinematography: Dick Pope Editor: William Goldenberg
Cast: Mark Rylance, Zoey Deutch, Dylan O’Brien, Johnny Flynn, Simon Russell Beale, Alan Mehdizadeh, Nikki Amuka-Bird
An expert cutter must outwit a dangerous group of mobsters in order to survive a fateful night.
The film makes a nice attempt at trying to breathe life into a throwback gangster tale. The cast is willing to throw their hearts and efforts into it to seem authentic.
The film takes place mainly in one location and is dialogue-heavy. So that it feels more suited for the stage rather than the screen. The constant twists the characters and story take will keep the audience’s interest. The double crosses galore. Which is one of the film’s strengths. As if not for that the film might have been more of a display in dress-up and been somewhat stiff.
What saves the film overall is the performance of the lead Mark Rylance who takes over the role and the film. As he stays focused and is so mesmerizing to behold that you wish the rest of the film was up to his level.
This also leaves the cast just trying to catch up to him In Strength and charisma. Even if sometimes it feels like the younger cast members get lost in their costumes and various period-era accents. That places them more trying in the land of make-believe but good enough to keep the film going
The film is more of a dark tale but never feels like it wallows in it. It is a nice presentation but doesn’t rise to the level overall that various parts of it do. So it feels unbalanced but a pleasant experience.
Directed By: Anthony Drazan Written By: David Rabe (Screenplay/play) Cinematography: Changwei Gu Editor: Dylan Tichenor
Cast: Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright, Meg Ryan, Garry Shandling, Anna Paquin, Chazz Palminteri
Hollywood movers and shakers dissect their own personal lives when everything seems to clash together.
Based on a play this film feels very theatrical. Though it never comes alive or feels vivid it more feels like everyone is going through the motions.
Even as it shows the dark side of Hollywood as the characters aren’t likable at all. They never exactly redeem themselves. We just keep watching them torture themselves and others in this kind of well dressed he’ll
As the lead character of Eddie seems to be the only character who realizes that he should loath his actions and character
While the trailer makes the film Look exciting and alive. Watching it feels drab and almost colorless. Strangely it feels like while there is a great cast most of them feel miscast.
Again though originally a play. Being set in Los Angeles it feels like the movie should feel more open. The film sometimes leaves the apartment that is shared by the two main characters but not enough. As Los Angeles is a place where your home is kind of your sanctuary but it is also Hollywood and the characters are all involved in that life. Which requires being more social and going places
It’s not a total loss as the cast are all serviceable in their roles. Most seem to try so hard to be out of their usual roles and onscreen personae they are known for.
Sean Penn brings his usual immersion to the role and feels electrifying no one else feels that way except maybe Garry Shandling, that is more him playing a producer creep that feels inside of his wheelhouse.
Kevin Spacey is fine in his role but his dyed blonde hair is distracting. Meg Ryan is good in her role and quite natural but it also feels like stunt casting
None of these characters would you like or want to really spend any amount of time with. Though they complain quite a bit. These are characters who work for a theatrical price because you stay for the acting and character more than the story and are more trapped with them in play form. If only for the amount you paid to see it and made an investment and are not going to walk out as easily. When it comes to film you care about acting and characters, but an audience usually mostly is interested in where the story is going and plot and if it doesn’t move it feels stuck
Maybe if director Anthony Drazan wouldn’t direct it as he is more a theater director and he can refine the performances and lock but a different director might have tried to make it more visual and open the movie up even though admittedly as a theatrical piece the strength is in the script, performances, and dialogue. The film called for more of a director with flair visually.
So this feels like an all-star cast wasted not on a project not worth their time but one that doesn’t live up to its pedigree.
Written & Directed By: Aaron Sorkin Cinematography: Jeff Cronenweth Editor: Alan Baumgarten
Cast: Nicole Kidman, Javier Bardem, J.K. Simmons, Nina Arianda, Tony Hale, Alia Shawkat, Jake Lacy, Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox, Clark Gregg, Nelson Franklin
September 6, 1953. With Hollywood facing the ever-present threat of Joseph McCarthy’s smear campaign, Lucille Ball, America’s beloved redhead and star of the tremendously popular CBS sitcom I Love Lucy , finds herself confronted with the Red Scare hysteria. As the American columnist and radio personality Walter Winchell drops a bombshell at the end of his broadcast, Lucille and her Cuban-American actor husband Desi Arnaz must survive one long, overwhelmingly eventful week, as if navigating a rocky marriage wasn’t enough. As a result, in the following seven distressful days, scandalous gossip and ongoing infidelity will put the couple’s relationship to the test.
This is a film where you get what you expect for the most part. A look behind the scenes of the television show I LOVE LUCY in dramatic fashion. You get the gossip and some of the histories that made Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz such icons.
Though there are flashbacks most of the film takes place during a charged week of their lives. Where Lucille ball is in the papers for being an alleged communist. Dealing with all This backlash while we see how much of a perfectionist she is when it comes to the show and the comedy. Where she will stand up to the writers and the directors and for all her success she still has to ask her husband to put his foot down to follow her orders.
We also see her worrying about her marriage as more and more evidence of Desi’s wayward eyes become apparent and also dealing with the constant arguments of her co-Stars who always feel she is short-changing them.
The innovative part of the movie is setting this all in one week and trying to give an overview of not a life but a certain period in the lives and exploring the culture of the day.
Even if at first weren’t necessarily that confident in the casting but while never quite looked like the real-life characters they are supposed to be playing. They do certainly come alive and make the characters their own and give them a familiarity that we recognize from watching the classic episodes.
The film certainly feels like Oscar bait and has a certain prestige. It certainly looks great and the actors give it their all.
When Not as impressed by their performances at least they follow or come into Their own when it comes to instinctually play up the dramatic motivations and character moments
The only false moments are I. The end when they all start to get along and praise one another as heroes because of the uncertain nature, but what also saves that moment to feel a little more uncertain is a revelation that makes it not quite such a cookie-cutter ending.
While a captivating experience the film quite comes as alive as an audience might expect. As the direction is plain and never quite vivid. It certainly fits the material and makes the stages, offices, and studios come alive and seem bigger, studied, and a little exotic to give us pretty backgrounds to frame the action and actors.
There are breaks in the action so we get to know the main characters’ pasts in pieces.
Also Rather than reading classic scenes, we see behind the scenes as we know why we liked her in the first place on the screen. It shows how much work Lucille Ball put in and how much control she strives to have to provide quality for the audience.
Writer-Director Aaron Sorkin finds a way for plenty of walk-and-talk shots and tries to throw more obstacles to be more impressive.
Written & Directed By: David Mamet Cinematography: Oliver Stapleton Editor: Barbara Tulliver
Cast: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Alec Baldwin, William H. Macy, Sarah Jessica Parker, Clark Gregg, Julia Stiles, Patti LuPone, Charles Durning, Rebecca Pidgeon, Ricky Jay, David Paymer, Jonathan Katz, Matt Malloy, Laura Silverman
Having left New Hampshire over excessive demands by the locals, the cast and crew of “The Old Mill” move their movie shoot to a small town in Vermont. However, they soon discover that The Old Mill burned down in 1960, the star can’t keep his pants zipped, the starlet won’t take her top off, and the locals aren’t quite as easily conned as they appear.
A movie about the behind-the-scenes world of movie making and how it wreaks havoc on a small town and how the town gets seduced to a certain degree. While also throwing in a kind of love story in the middle.
The film’s heart really relies on Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Character a writer. Who is constantly having to change the script due to the whims of the actors, Star, or producer, and when controversy happens he has to decide to do the moral thing or be dishonest but help the production proceed.
It offers commentary on movie stars and Hollywood at that time. While showing how easy it is to be corrupted and lead astray. How easily tot can get caught up in something you know is wrong for the supposed greater good.
Yet very few characters seem to have actual emotions and just deliver one-liners at the ready. Especially his love interest played by Rebecca Pidgeon. Making it seem more stage or sitcom ready. Even as it tries to be a morality play but comes off as false.
While a satire instead of coming across as biting, clever, or even cynical. It instead comes across at times as smug. As half of the humor comes across as an inside joke rather than inclusive. Showing who they prefer their audience to actually be for the film.
It’s set in a small town yet nothing feels down to earth about it.
Though when it does work it is on fire. As it works best when it is more of an ensemble. As it is entertaining with sharp dialogue.
The film has a great cast. It just feels like a bitter pill too much at times, but funny a lot of times. It ends up feeling too theatrical to be natural.
Though it seems like everyone tries to come off as cool and all-knowing. So it never comes off as exactly identifiable as it seems so practices and knowledgeable
Written & Directed By: Woody Allen Cinematography: Wedigo Von Schultzendorff Editor: Alisa Lepselter
Cast: Woody Allen, Tea Leoni, Treat Williams, George Hamilton, Debra Messing, Mark Rydell, Isaac Mizrahi, Erica Leerhsen, Aaron Stanford, Fred Melamed, Douglas McGrath, Lu Yu, Barney Chang, Marian Saldes, Tiffani Theissen, Greg Mottola, Mark Webber
A director is forced to work with his ex-wife, who left him for the studio’s boss, bankrolling his new film. But the night before the first day of shooting, he develops a case of psychosomatic blindness.
This is where Woody Allen lost me after having a period of disappointing films. At this point, I eagerly awaited every new film he had made since 1992. When I saw HUSBANDS & WIVES. Even though some were not as good as others I stayed loyal though I can admit to not seeing the previous two years’ films.
CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION and SMALL TIME CROOKS even to the day that I am writing this review, but I took a chance on this film and saw it in theaters as I figured it would be a return to form in making fun of himself. That comes across as a tone-deaf parody of himself.
Unfortunately, the jokes are stale and the situations Seem like a good setup but don’t ever come around to getting the best use out of them. It makes him seem out of touch to a certain extent and tries to portray youth he doesn’t exactly understand. Which is characterized by the character of his punk rock son who calls himself scumbag.
There are plenty of Hollywood and anti-California Jokes but even the movie he is trying to make within the movie seems pretty bad.
The film feels almost like it was put together or written like a puzzle. Where it is trying to put itself together as it goes along. To kind of have a running theme and story.
It seems to try and spoof Allen himself with the preference of foreign-born cinematographers who speak little English. Which opens up the avenue of having to hire a translator. Who he confides in about his condition. Who pretty much is his confidante, but who he begins to have artistic conflicts with as the translator who is not into showbiz or movies. Becomes almost a co-director and has artistic opinions of his own. This could have been a great side story of giving more time to it, but sadly more wants to focus on past loves and mental trauma as well as blind director Jokes.
The film is one of the few of his films. At least at the time that felt like an assembly line production. He usually puts out a film a year, comes up with a story fast, and tries to build a screenplay around it without feeling it out or doing follow-up drafts. As it feels like he isn’t trying to have any interest in the material. This might have worked more in the ’80s or ’90s but when it came out it felt. I curated it without any nuance. Jaded for no real reason. Almost a Rushed homework assignment.
As always it feels like a prestige film but has little input and feels haphazardly put together. Especially when it comes to casting which seems very random.
The romance in the middle of the film seems sloppy and unearned other than being entirely predictable.
The film lives up to Its title, but overall the film deserved better and more.
Directed By: Pablo Larrain Written By: Pablo Larrain, Giillermo Calderon and Alejandro Moreno Cinematography: Sergio Armstrong Editor: Sebastian Sepulveda
Cast: Mariana Di Girolamo, Gael Garcia Bernal, Santiago Cabrera, Paola Giannini, Cristian Suarez, Giannina Fruttero
A couple deals with the aftermath of an adoption that goes awry as their household falls apart.
Watching this film is more of an experience. the base there always seems to be a running rhythm or one that the film as well as its Characters seem to be running On.
How a beat builds, how it takes many different elements put together to make not only A song but even a bear which is the Love force the heartbeat of the entity known as music. The same can be said of life, art and That is how this film Works
At first, it seems like the main character is acting irrationally and randomly but as the film goes along we see how she is putting everything together to get what she wants essentially any kind of reward for all of those with who she is involving without their knowledge as to the overall goal.
For a film that seems to be about Mostly dancing there are no sustained long-term dance sequences. As some of the scenes are edited more briskly With plenty of cuts more like a music video.
You believe everything to be random out of freedom then in the third act a reveal happens that brings it all Together.
This is one of the horniest yet not erotic films I have seen recently. As it is erotic but doesn’t exactly aim in that direction. Though the characters seem more exhibitionist and more Hedonistic. As it seems to open itself and showcase open and polyamorous relationships
As the film presents sex and sexuality as non-judge mental more open and quite naturalistic and feral. As more matter Of fact
Directed By: Julia Hart Written By: Julia Hart & Jordan Horowitz Based On Characters from the novel STAR GIRL By: Jerry Spinelli Cinematography: Bryce Fortner Editor: Shayer Bhansali & Tracey Wadmore-Smith
Cast: Grace VanderWall, Elijah Richardson, Judy Greer, Uma Thurman, Judd Hirsch, Tyrel Jackson Williams, Chris Williams, Al Madrigal, Nija Okoro, Sarayu Blue
Stargirl Caraway as she journeys out of Mica into a bigger world of music, dreams and possibility.
while better made than the first film. As it seems to have a larger scope. it also seems to have lost a little of its heart. This one might be a bit better because you know what to expect throughout.
As it tries to keep a positive and romantic tone. It still is paced morosely.
As even though it’s a kid’s film it feels like doom or the rig will get pulled under at any minute.
This one also benefits from a more well-known cast of supporting actors. Who gets more time to actually have their presence felt. Instead of the last film which focused primarily on the main couple.
Star girl still seems to be a beacon of optimism And the guys she falls for seem to be the same type. Here she is not quite as mysterious. Not offering a surprising knowledge of music and classic hits. Though there are plenty of singing scenes.
Not quite a musical in the classic sense but more songs were performed without any choreography or dancing. The difference between seeing a performer and a show.
This film is also a romance but maybe as in the last film they spent more time on the romance and her doing the chasing while staying mysterious. This time around we get to know more about her and the romance just seems to happen. It’s sweet but doesn’t feel like it has as much depth this time around.
It pretty much goes through the numbers and is a sweet film. None of it is really believable but keeps your interest. Especially when it is more made to please its audience of Disney viewers
Though everything feels rushed its pace is like molasses.
Written & Directed By: Ken Russell Cinematography: Peter Suschitzky
Editor: Stuart Baird
Cast: Roger Daltrey, Paul Nicholas, Ringo Starr, Sara Kestelman, Rick Wakeman, Fiona Lewis, John Justin, Veronica Quilligan, Nell Campbell
Composer and pianist Franz Liszt attempts to overcome his hedonistic life-style while repeatedly being drawn back into it by the many women in his life and fellow composer Richard Wagner.
This is a movie it has taken me a while to finally watch and its legend has only grown over the years. It’s writer Director Ken Russell’s second collaboration with The Who singer Roger Daltrey as his star.
This is definitely a film of its time period a very experimental look at the composer Franz Liszt. A very hedonistic film and the character
The film sets the tone early as we are introduced to the character in the middle of a sexual seduction with a married woman. Whose encounter is interrupted by her husband and a sword fight happens meanwhile Liszt is mostly naked throughout.
After that we kind of fast forward into little vignettes of surreality that happen throughout the film. W see him perform to roaring crowds of teen girls who all cry and want to touch him as he plays. That is where we are introduced to many composers but mostly It’s Richard Wagner who will become important later in his life and this film.
Next, we see him in domesticity with his wife the woman from the opening scene. Here we see their life played out like a silent film homage to Charlie Chaplin and his leading ladies. Though we know the road and his hedonism will tear away from this seemingly love story bliss.
The early parts of the film play more like a traditional biofilm as far as pace and l learning about the character. Once he decides to become an abbey and therefore more religious while still maintaining His monstrous libido. The film takes a strange turn that allows for the return of Richard Wagner as a kind of vampire. Who decides to build his own Aryan Frankenstein
At that point, the film becomes more of a surreal fantasy film with history and politics thrown in. As with most Ken Russell films you never quite know what you are going to get, but it will be original and quite shocking. As he is a provocateur.
He made many biographical films about composers. This is one of the mroe outrageous ones. Where he tries to make it fun and a kind fi satire. Though can admit at the beginning it is kind of slow but as the film goes along he keeps building the scenes and sets. So that by the end you can’t help but watch in awe. He doesn’t always hit his targets, but he gets close often.
It’s hard to believe but at a certain point, the film becomes somewhat predictable for the most part. Though offers plenty of homages and allegories
The music throughout is actually Franz Liszt’s compositions only with added lyrics to make them mroe modern songs that express emotions. Which isn’t needed and doesn’t exactly work. As it is like trying to update masterpieces.
This film doesn’t reach the heights of TOMMY, maybe because this film is forced to stay within certain boundaries when it comes to facts. While it doesn’t seem to have as much Joy and deeper meaning as that film. This is quite a nice attempt at offering something different and artistic. Even with the melancholy sadness that the film Carries at times
Directed By: John Landis Written By: John Landis and Dan Aykroyd Cinematography: David Herrington Editor: Dale Beldin
Cast: Dan Aykroyd, John Goodman, Joe Morton, Nia Peeples, J Evan Bonifant, Frank Oz, Darrell Hammond, B.B. King, Junior Wells, Aretha Franklin, Matt Murphy, Erykah Badu, Johnny Lang, Eddie Floyd, Wilson Pickett, Eric Clapton, Steve Lawrence, John Popper, Sam Moore, Paul Shaffer, Clarence Clemmons, Issac Hayes, Bo Diddley
Elwood, the now lone “Blues Brother” finally released from prison, is once again enlisted by Sister Mary Stigmata in her latest crusade to raise funds for a children’s hospital. Once again hitting the road to re-unite the band and win the big prize at the New Orleans Battle of the Bands, Elwood is pursued cross-country by the cops, led by Cabel the Curtis’ son (and Elwood’s step-brother), the Russian Mafia, and a militia group. On his new “mission from God” Elwood enlists the help of a young orphan, and a strip club bartender.
I remember when I went to a screening of THE BLUES BROTHERS for a yearly Special festival that played at RADIO CITY MUSIC HALL. That was part of the movie street festival in years past. Where they would screen classic films as a double feature for one week. They showed a special message from Dan Aykroyd on this film’s set and to be prepared for another classic.
I was excited when the Film came out. It, unfortunately, fell Very short.
Watching a documentary on the artists or their performances would be more entertaining than unfortunately watching this film.
How the mighty have fallen, this film feels strictly like a cash-in on the original and franchise.
All the things the first film does brilliantly. This film either repeats badly or just doesn’t know what to do with it. Even more disappointing is that the original film’s director came back to direct the film. Director John Landis
This is why the films only have good scenes other than the Musical performances. Are the car chase scenes and even there the film seems to go over the top and ruins a good thing
As the story is very thin and badly put together to the point it drags along and comes across as an afterthought.
Dan Aykroyd’s Character is just so unresponsive to most things. It doesn’t make his character interesting or entertaining and desperately needs to bounce off of someone. Even when there are two others who try. Leaving the audience just witnessing acts with no rhyme Or reason. Things just seem to happen and characters just seem to change magically all of a sudden.
Joe Morton’s character for instance and John Goodman go through a total character change due to wardrobe changes.
John Goodman is wasted as he has very little reason to be there and is given very little to actually do.
Truly the performance scenes Are the film’s only Saving grace. This is why most of the cast is made up of them performing and relegated to cameos.
Some are returning from the first film and others seem more who were more popular at the time and maybe missed being in the first film. As this film is mainly mostly a retread of the first film.
The film is way too long, and the jokes don’t work and never would. Unlike the musical scenes, the humor seems odd to base, like it was hilarious when conceiving but didn’t play well at all.
If you must watch it. This is the Rare film where I say feel free to fast forward to the performances. If anything it reminds you of how good the original film was and how this film deserves its Legacy.
It is one of those projects that was good in theory but should have been shelved. It comes across as an almost kid-friendly Version of the first film.
Set at an institute devoted to culinary and alimentary performance, a collective finds themselves embroiled in power struggles, artistic vendettas, and gastrointestinal disorders.
This feels like almost self-parody and wanting to say something about artistic institutions. Though it almost feels that with each new film Of Writer-Director Peter Strickland. He goes step by step away from conformity and genre with Jisnfilms and into his own interests and inspirations showing himself to be a true auteur with any care to please his audience
As his films are always visually Stunning and captivating as far as production especially when it comes to surreal visions and the same Goes along with costuming
Whereas previous films seem to take aim at breaking down genres. This film Feels like a satire and exploration of the artistic creation of his own imagination. As at least this is captivating instead of confusing even if only visually and thematically
It is always a film That will Appeal to Or repulse the senses. Also offering a look at the absurdity of it and creation and expressing it. So beautiful that the Film Looks like it is Constantly Taking Place during a photoshoot.
I Don’t Understand what was going on half the time but I liked it and its Visuals if looking for some sense exactly This might not be the Film For you.
The power struggles involved in collaboration the drama inside of it and how your creation is perceived by the outside world as well as directing and guiding it For the best way for it to be remembered.
How Much even when you Investigate and try to examine the art or get to the heart of it. how easily it can be pulled into the creation and become a part of it. As you have input me can help shape it even just by being a witness and spreading the word about it affecting its development
As journalists can do in profiling a celebrity becoming Part Of Their Lives for Short Periods of Time but still having that experience and bonding for short periods of time. Persuasions participation, Now even when trying to be a fly On the wall and just document you Can’t help But be pulled into the orbit and be part of that universe
Where the Audiences appreciation and feedback we barely get Glimpses of and are more like a sexual orgy. Getting more and more absurd, not as strictly Over the top comedy, but more detached and obscure as it Goes along even as we learn more information about everybody.
Though constantly Stays avant-garde and close To its art-house roots
The film Almost Feels Like a chronicle of a band at each other’s throats as they try to make their next album and all The fears coming to a head during the process, especially when trying
To work It out with others you know so well and need one another but also desire space though feel like you are the only ones who know and understand one another.
Done it plenty of times but this time feels different and somehow more important. Always on the edge of the perverse and even fetishism
Just as the head of the institute comes across as either the Producer or record exec trying to shape the product and collective themselves while Trying To Be part of the creative process thing offering nothing of more creatively and if anything trying to water down or Make it
More accessible which goes against everything the collective seems to be about. Even if it means using seduction to get insider information and flip a member to have a person on the inside and being able to use them To spread their influence.
Each act seems to focus on a different member of the group or so it would seem as one character barely Gets center stage but is always shown and in the background and the character who seems to Come To More Prominence in the second act soon seems To be a major focus event high in the front act barely Spoke
Though the third act is the shortest maybe it makes sense that the character who It seems To focus on feels underserved throughout but is the glue practically the middle child Also the most Melodramatic. While the doctor represents the old-school Patriarchy.
The filmmaker Exerts himself as a filmmaker of His own unique vision and view.
How in art you Seem To reveal Yourself though only when it feels Personal do truly Realize maybe you revealed too much or See how Power and jealousy are at the heart of everything
Cooking Food Is its Own Art It takes Steps In the form Of Recipes and you are always struggling to get it right and is Essential in survival and is used by most as an expression of Care for health. Yet also is A process in which someone can be kissed and can mean something to so Many Others who follow and Look at it for insight.
You Can Also look at it as an examination of the relationship between the artist, the enthusiastic backers and Money men, fans, critics, and The Audience
High concept and our reporter man on the inside all of this half the time Of more insight into his farts and stomach problems rather than exposing his findings.
This film Was definitely an experience. Where it makes little sense to me. Though I admire the craft & stays interesting. Peter Strickland goes more into his artistic interests and visions. I look at this as a film about creation. Almost like a band trying to finish an album and what they have to face to finish. To truly reach their artistic vision and breakthrough
A movie only director Peter Strickland could make, sticking to his vision, interests, and instincts. Displaying his talent and unwavering in his direction. Even when it seems the film will go for conventional methods, it resists. Though dealt with seriously the film can be seen as a comedy of sorts. It’s not vague but has many ways of looking at it and finding definition in the details
Cut To The Chase 