#all the beauty and the bloodshed film review | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

moviewarfare · 1 year

Text

A Review of “John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)”

John Wick is one of the best action franchises in modern cinema. When John Wick first came out in 2014, it was one of the most surprising yet most enjoyable experiences I had. What is even more amazing is that the 2 sequels it got were also amazing! We are now on the 4th entry and the question is if it continues to maintain the quality it has so far.

Let's get the obvious out of the way, the action scenes are still absolutely amazing! One thing each entry in this franchise continues to do is to make the action bigger and crazier than the last. There are so many incredible actions set pieces with a roughly 30-minute action scene in Osaka with bows and swords, a stunning sequence in Paris with cars and traffic, a Hotline Miami style action sequence with overhead shots, and one of the best action sequences ever involving stairs. I give every single praise to the stunt people who worked on this as they take some very painful falls in this film. This entry is also the best-looking one in the franchise. The set design and cinematography are phenomenal. John Wick killing people has never looked as beautiful as it does here.

Keanu continues to be awesome as John Wick by still doing the action choreography at the age of 57. We get to see him fight with nunchucks and shoot goons while driving a car. Ian McShane, Lance Reddick (R.I.P) and Laurence Fishburne return as Winston, Charon and the Bowery King respectively. They're all still great but have a smaller role this time. There are many new supporting characters are great as well. Donnie Yen joins the franchise as Caine, a blind assassin, who is an old friend but now foe. Donnie Yen always gives his A-game and here is no exception with how he does action as a blind character makes him interesting to watch. Hiroyuki Sanada is Koji who is the manager of the Osaka Continental Hotel who is just a badass and cool guy, Rina Sawayama makes her acting debut as Akira and she does a good job in her small role with some good action as well. Shamier Anderson plays an assassin who tracks John Wick and he also does some great action. What they do with his character is interesting but the best thing is that he has a dog which makes him 100% better. Scott Adkins plays Kilia and he does a good job as a minor antagonist. The main antagonist, Marquis Vincent, is played by Bill Skarsgard and he does a great job of being hateable.

What Chapter 4 has over Chapters 2 and 3 is more emotional elements to the story. John Wick is deservingly angry after 3 but you also get to see him contemplate more about when this bloodshed will end. You see him question a lot of what he is doing and whether these conflicts that are bringing his friends into are worth it. Additionally, his relationship with Caine (Donnie Yen) adds some weight to the conflict by making close friends fight each other. The stakes in this film feel bigger as well. Some people complain about the 2-hour 45-minute runtime but the pacing never felt bad and the quieter moments are enjoyable too. If I had to give a negative then the only one, I can think of is the post-credit scene which dampens the ending a little bit.

Overall, what an outstanding film! It's insane to think that even on its 4th entry, this film continues to be entertaining and somehow still amazing! Director Chad Stahelski has made an extraordinary franchise and shows everyone in Hollywood, how to make an action movie. With the inclusion of a post-credit scene, I wonder if the plan is to make a new cinematic universe which worries me a bit. There are a lot of potential spinoff ideas such as a Caine (Donnie Yen) spinoff or a Tracker spinoff (Shamier Anderson) or a spinoff with the John Wick 3 character Sofia (Halle Berry). Whatever they do, if it is the same quality as the John Wick movies, then I will be first in line to watch.

For more reviews like this visit:

https://moviewarfarereviews.blogspot.com/

#movies #Movie Reviews #film #Film Review #Keanu Reeves #John Wick #john wick chapter 4 #ip man #donnie yen #the Matrix #anime #bill skargard

7 notes · View notes

bisamwilson · 1 year

Text

mak’s 95th oscar picks

i have somehow managed to watch all 54 films nominated for an academy award this year (!!!), so here’s my #1 pick for each category and my runner up! this isn’t what i think the academy will choose, but what i think personally deserves it

(note: these don’t necessarily represent my favorite film in each category, for example my runner up in best picture is not what i enjoyed second most, but what i think is second most deserving of the oscar)

some categories will also have a “i will be actively angry if this wins” pick and also some major snubs (only of films i’ve seen though. for example, many agree danielle deadwyler was snubbed for Till but i have not seen it so that snub will not be listed)

to find my review out of 5 stars for all these films, and also a list of 2022 feature length films (non-documentaries) ranked in my personal favorite order, check out my letterboxd!

best picture:

winner: everything everywhere all at once

runner up: the banshees of inisherin

second runner up (bc this category is huge): all quiet on the western front

will be actively angry if it wins: tr*angle of sadness, t*r, avatar: the way of water

snubs: the woman king, NOPE

best director:

winner: steven spielberg, the fabelmans

runner up: the daniels, everything everywhere all at once

will be actively angry if they win: t*dd field, t*r; ruben ostl*nd, tr*angle of sadness

snubs: park chan-wook, decision to leave; jordan peele, NOPE; gina prince-bythewood, the woman king

best actor:

winner: colin farrell, the banshees of inisherin

runner up: austin butler, elvis

will be actively angry if he wins: br*ndan fr*ser, the wh*le (do NOT @ me for this if you haven’t actually seen the movie. i love him as a person and an actor too but that movie was a dehumanizing spectacle that shouldn’t have been nominated for anything, and his performance wasn’t great bc the script wasn’t anything that lent itself to a good performance)

best actress:

winner: michelle yeoh, everything everywhere all at once

runner up: cate blanchett, t*r (blocking this out bc i’m otherwise really negative about the movie)

will be actively angry if she wins: an* de arm*s, bl*nde

snub: viola davis, the woman king

extra note: whatever the FYC said, michelle williams was not a lead in fabelmans. her performance was fantastic, but she deserved a best supporting nom, bc the solo lead was gabriel labelle, but we don’t appreciate young actors enough to acknowledge that

best supporting actor:

winner: ke huy quan, everything everywhere all at once

runner up: barry keoghan, the banshees of inisherin (though a very close runner up race with brian tyree henry for causeway)

snub: paul dano, the fabelmans

best supporting actress:

winner: angela bassett, black panther: wakanda forever

runner up: stephanie hsu, everything everywhere all at once

will be actively angry if she wins: jam*e lee c*rtis, everything everywhere all at once (if she wins over both bassett and hsu i swear to GOD)

snubs: keke palmer, NOPE; lashana lynch, the woman king

best original screenplay:

winner: everything everywhere all at once

runner up: the banshees of inisherin

will be actively angry if it wins: tr*angle of sadness

best adapted screenplay:

winner: women talking

runner up: all quiet on the western front

best animated feature film:

winner: puss in boots: the last wish

runner up: marcel the shell with shoes on

best international feature film:

winner: argentina, 1985

runner up: all quiet on the western front

snub: decision to leave (dir. park chan-wook)

best documentary feature:

winner: all the beauty and the bloodshed

runner up: fire of love

will be actively angry if it wins: nav*lny (which will most likely actually win)

best documentary short subject:

winner: the elephant whisperers

runner up: haulout

will be actively angry if they win: stranger at the gate, how do you measure a year? (not bothering to block these out bc stranger is actively infuriating, and how do you measure barely anyone saw)

extra note: i didn’t super care for any of these, but i found the elephant whisperers cute and heartwarming, so it definitely gets my vote

best live action short film:

winner: the red suitcase

runner up: an irish goodbye

will be actively angry if it wins: night ride (please don’t watch this. the vast majority of the film is just a bunch of transphobia couched in a “happy” ending to make it apparently okay)

best animated short film:

winner: ice merchants

runner up: an ostrich told me the world was fake, and i think i believe it

will be actively angry if it wins: honestly anything in this category that isn’t ice merchants bc it deserves it that much, but particularly the flying sailor and the boy, the mole, the fox, and the horse

best original score:

winner: justin hurwitz, babylon

runner up: volker bertelmann, all quiet on the western front

snubs: michael giacchino, the batman; harold faltermeyer, hans zimmer, lady gaga, and lorne balfe, top gun: maverick

best original song:

winner: “naatu naatu,” RRR

runner up: “lift me up,” black panther: wakanda forever

will be actively angry if it wins: “applause,” tell it like a woman

snub: “i ain’t worried,” top gun: maverick

best sound:

winner: top gun: maverick

runner up: the batman

extra note: the academy needs to split this one back up into best sound mixing and best sound editing

best production design:

winner: elvis

runner up: all quiet on the western front

best cinematography:

winner: all quiet on the western front

runner up: bardo, false chronicle of a handful of truths

will be actively angry if it wins: t*r, emp*re of light (this category SUCKS this year)

snubs: decision to leave; NOPE; top gun: maverick; the batman (this category SUCKS this year!!!! the only one of the nominees that should be there is all quiet and these four should’ve gotten the other spots)

best makeup and hairstyling:

winner: all quiet on the western front

runner up: black panther: wakanda forever

will be actively angry if it wins: the wh*le

best costume design:

winner: black panther: wakanda forever

runner up: mrs. harris goes to paris

will be actively angry if it wins: babylon (those costumes are NOT period accurate!!!!)

best film editing:

winner: everything everywhere all at once

runner up: elvis

will be actively angry if it wins: t*r, the banshees of inisherin, top gun: maverick

extra notes: literally the other three don’t come anywhere near fucking close to the top two. i switched back and forth between my winner and runner up a decent amount tbh, they’re both fantastic editing wise)

best visual effects:

winner: avatar: the way of water

runner up: top gun: maverick

will be actively angry if it wins: anything but avatar. the movie sucked but it’s the obvious winner here. the special effects are insane

#mak rants #mak watches movies #oscars #academy awards #95th oscars

7 notes · View notes

disappointingyet · 9 months

Text

Variety

Director Bette Gordon Stars Sandy McLeod, Luís Guzman, Nan Goldin USA/West Germany/UK 1983 Language English 1hr 40mins Colour

Weird but absorbing indie noir

What kind of film is this? When it begins with a conversation between Christine (Sandy McLeod) and Nan (Nan Goldin) in a locker room, it feels like this could be an early example of the young-woman-trying-to-do-something-arty-in-NYC-and-struggling microgenre, and that would be fine. Instead, a rather weirder plot is set in play when Christine surprises her friend by saying she would take the one job that Nan knows is available: working the ticket booth at the Variety, a cinema that shows dirty movies.

Christine initially seems pleased with the job, but it seems to have some unsettling effects on her. During conversations in public places with her earnest, somewhat uptight boyfriend Mark (Will Patton), she’ll break into long monologues describing erotic scenarios.

Then she starts following the besuited middle-aged regular at the Variety who has invited her out. It’s clear he’s involved in dodgy stuff, which might be connected with the corrupt fisherman’s union Mark is doing an investigative report about. Less clear is what Christine is up to, and whether she grasps how much danger she might be in.

Contrasting with the thriller elements are scenes in the bar where Nan works, with groups of women just talking about their lives.

So what we’ve got is part offbeat noir, part psychological drama and part slice of life. I’m not sure all of that fully gels, and there were occasionally bits where I thought I had missed something but the film works nonetheless.

I think the thriller elements are surprisingly effective (some other reviews seem to disagree). Like the film as a whole, they gained from being shot in the real world. We get the assorted filth-industry locations of the type so carefully recreated in the David Simon series The Deuce, but these are actual working peep shows etc. We also get the crumbling boardwalk at Asbury Park, a huge fish market and even Yankee Stadium (I was wondering if they had permission to film there or somehow snuck a camera in - not easy to do with the equipment they had in those days.)

There’s an interesting mix of folks involved, some then experiencing their moment, some whose time would come later. Writer Kathy Acker – whose work was daring or notorious, depending on your perspective – gets a script credit. I don’t generally like a sax-driven score, but this one is excellent – it’s by John Lurie, who around the same time was starring in Jim Jarmusch’s breakthrough Stranger Than Paradise, which was shot by Tom DiCillo, who (yes) was one of the cinematographers on Variety.

There are a couple of character actors making early appearances here who are still busy in the 2020s. I’ve already mentioned Will Patton – the other one is Luís Guzmán, who plays Christine’s co-worker at the cinema. I’m here to report that Guzmán arrived in the movies fully formed – to say he’s easily recognisable in Variety is an understatement.

But I’m guessing it’s Goldin’s presence that meant I could see this in a cinema in 2023. Clips from Variety appear in All The Beauty And All The Bloodshed, the recent critically beloved documentary about Goldin’s life and work. She seems to be playing herself: the character is called Nan, she’s a photographer and she works in a bar, as Goldin did at the time. (I'm assuming the bar she worked at and the one in the movie are the same place, but don't know that for sure.)

Variety had a slightly strange origin – Bette Gordon was an underground New York-based film-maker offered a chance to make a bigger film by a German TV channel (Britain’s recently established Channel 4 contributed too). Gordon came up with idea and asked Acker to write it – but three other people get a credit for the screenplay and I think I can guess which bits are left from Acker’s draft.

It’s very much a snapshot of a moment in early 1980s New York, but it’s also an involving and fascinating movie. I like it a lot.

#1980s new york #1980s movies #film noir #nan goldin

3 notes · View notes

hyperfixasian · 2 years

Text

Just some general random thoughts/review about BP:WF since the last time I saw an MCU film opening weekend was Thor: Ragnarok in 2017. And this is without consuming most of the prerelease material

Spoilers under the cut I suppose...

Cons:

Movie was ridiculously long. I’m not a fan of anything that almost taps out at 3 hours, and it only ever happens with action flicks. If you need 3 hours to tell a story, most of the time you’re doing too much

Shuri being the next Black Panther was ridiculously drawn out. We knew it was going to happen but it wasn’t even acknowledged by the narrative until like 75% of the way in

Related to the pacing, the conclusion wrapped up far too quickly for a conflict that was drawn out for like 60% of the film. Personally thought it was great for Shuri to choose compassion over vengeance but my god this huge conflict with much bloodshed was suddenly over in like 10 seconds

Thought the plot with Riri/Ironheart was kind of awkward... Even as we’re going into the MCU’s 300th movie, I’m always bothered that these people who exist in this universe just get scooped up out of their lives and then they go back to living, and this is just a thing that happens with no protocol in place

Hated every time Laura Dreyfuss’s character was on screen, and thought Agent Ross was poorly used in the film. I don’t know how they could’ve integrated him better but every scene with the American portion of the film took me out of it

Did they ever explain the sonic siren attack or is that something the Talokanians can just do?

Pros:

A fantastic homage to the late and great Chadwick Boseman. Respectful and loving but not placing too much focus that detracted from the story or made the tone too sorrowful

Black Panther remains one of my favorite film series within MCU because of the wide array of strong female characters from leaders, warriors, and scientists to mothers and teachers

Shuri’s arc was fabulous. Her character is a tragic one, much like Thor, Wanda, and Peter before her and yet she still finds her own specific way to grieve. You can see her tackle each stage of grief but what makes it special is that she doesn’t even have time to finish mourning T’Challa before her mother is taken from her, and you can see her, still in the anger phase, multiply that rage exponentially

The city of Talokan was sooo beautiful, and I love that it and its citizens appeared to Shuri just as much as Wakanda did. I love that the narrative remembered that the Talokan were not just a warring army, there were thousands of citizens who lived happy and peaceful lives just as the Wakandans. Would’ve shortened that scene but it was skillfully used

Nakia/Lupita looked sooo beautiful every scene she was in, I could not look away

Love that Black Panther always knows the tone it’s setting. There are plenty of moments that had my theater roaring from laughter, Agent Ross, Okoye, and Riri especially. But the sorrowful moments of mourning Chadwick were respectful, and the serious moments focusing on colonization/war profiteering/racism/imperialism were always taken completely seriously. None of the jokes ever felt out of place, and I appreciate it for a film series tackling very serious subject matter

Neutral:

The post credits scene??? Ummmmm... T’Challa and Nakia had a whole ass child (looks to be like 4-6 years old so I’m wondering how that fits in the timeline) and they just kept it a secret??? And Ramonda knew but not Shuri

Idk why my girl Okoye has to go through some shit every film. She’s a complicated woman but I feel like the story likes to punish her very often when she is just sticking to her principles

Love that my man, Michael Bae Jordan/Killmonger, got to show up a little, was a pleasant and almost scary surprise. Did they explain why he showed up in the ancestral plane rather than Shuri? Is it because she didn’t believe and that’s why he was called to her?

Probably have more thoughts but this is all my 11pm brain can produce. Would love to hear anyone else’s thoughts on it! All in all, I loved the film and can’t wait for it to be released on D+ (just wish it was 30 min shorter for my ADHD brain)

#my stuff #mcu #black panther: wakanda forever #thoughts #mcu spoilers #black panther spoilers #pls talk with me about this i have so many thoughts and no where to put em

7 notes · View notes

agentnico · 2 years

Text

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) Review

Before we start, serious question - WTF is a banshee??!

Plot: On a remote island off the coast of Ireland, Pádraic is devastated when his buddy Colm suddenly puts an end to their lifelong friendship. With help from his sister and a troubled young islander, Pádraic sets out to repair the damaged relationship by any means necessary. However, as Colm's resolve only strengthens, he soon delivers an ultimatum that leads to shocking consequences.

Slowly but surely the awards season has begun, and right off the gate we have a strong contender with The Banshees of Inisherin, which is a mouthful of a title, though that is acknowledged in the film by one character, who observes that it sounds interesting with all the ‘sh’s. And he is not wrong! Also, I have now learnt the meaning of ‘banshee’, it means a female spirit whose wailing warns of a death in a house. So yep, that’s some casual foreshadowing in the title. However I’m not here to review film titles, I’m here to talk about the motion pictures themselves! So, this one reunites the entire main team of In Bruges, which was a 2008 crime comedy about two hitmen hiding out in a town in Belgium after a crime gone wrong. Those two hitmen were played by Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, and they now return in The Banshees playing very different characters, though not losing any of the chemistry that made this duo pairing work in the first place.

Martin McDonagh who wrote and directed In Bruges is also back and at the helm, and even though the cast of this film are all great and we shall get to them, the real star here is McDonagh who brings his absolute A-game from both the fantastically written screenplay and direction. It’s nice to see McDonagh back in this more smaller scale indie-like medium, as for a while he was taken away by big Hollywood projects such as Seven Psychopaths and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and though those were enjoyable, I did find them a bit overstuffed and messy. McDonagh comes from a theatrical background as a playwright, so naturally in his experience he works better in simplicity. In Bruges was located in one small town with a very simple premise, and that worked wonderfully. He’s also directed a short film (also starring Gleeson) called Six Shooter which is actually on YouTube now which I’d say is very worth your time. And again - small scale and set mainly on a train. So with The Banshees McDonagh once more returns to his roots so to speak, by setting the scene on this remote tiny Irish island where a very small population live, so much so that everyone knows everyone. Irish Civil War is raging on in the mainland, however all is quiet on the western front so to speak, as this island is separated from all the bloodshed with only some gunshots heard in the distance, creating this very isolated and lonely feel, with the latter playing a major ongoing theme throughout the movie. So what could possibly go wrong in the island of peace and harmony?

Before anything else lets address the island itself. The Irish landscapes are absolutely gorgeous and the cinematography takes full advantage of this natural beauty. Like this is an wonderfully pretty looking movie. Throughout all the farce and madness, the camera never shies away from showing off the green plains, the bright blue skies, the rocky cliffs, the various animals running about. Speaking of the animals, there are some really adorable ones here, especially a pony and a dog that literally pull at your heartstrings. As a whole though the film really makes the island of Inisherin feel like a character in itself. So props to McDonagh and the cinematographer Ben Davis for really honing in on those photographic landscapes.

That being said, besides the landscapes the narrative itself features little to no beauty. This is actually a really dark tale - a tragedy of male friendship gone sour. You really do feel sorry for Farrell’s Pádraic, as he is “one of life’s good guys”, and witnessing him descend into madness starting from being hurt, sad and confused when his friend all of a sudden doesn’t want to be friends with him no more, it is indeed tragic. What’s worse is both men have good points as to why one wants to get the friendship back and why the other wants it to end. Gleeson’s Colm is depressed by a sense of time slipping away, and determined to do something creative with whatever years he has left. As such he’s ridding himself of the “aimless chatting” of “a limited man”. Whilst Pádraic, well, the guy just wants his friend back, you know? That’s all he wants. Naturally both of them are very extreme in their decisions, with Colm especially being very blunt and at times shocking with his choices, but that again is a comment of the stubbornness of men. So much so that Pádraic doesn’t even notice the loneliness and sadness of his smarter sister Siobhán (played by Kerry Condon), or his dismissal of the town fool Dominic (Barry Keoghan) as the island’s premier dullard (an assessment that is tragically untrue) mirrors his own mistreatment by Colm – an unjust hierarchy of hurt.

That being said, through all this darkness this movie is f****** funny!! It’s hilarious from the lines of dialogue to the character expressions, this movie is one if the not the funniest movies of this year. There are plenty quotable laugh-out-loud moments, ranging from oddball comedy to satire. And here is also where the cast absolutely excell. Colin Farrell’s facial expressions throughout this movie, as he tries yet fails to process why his friend isn’t his friend anymore are nothing short of hysterical. Brendan Gleeson as Colm, though the less flashier role and relies on him being more stoic and calm, still results in humour through the sheer fact of how much this guy does not care. And the things he ends up doing throughout the movie are done so non-chalantly, when others would be horrified and traumatised. Kerry Condon is also powerful as the only real voice of reason in the movie, as she speaks on behalf of the audience as she exclaims “you can’t just stop being friends with someone! It’s not nice!”. But the real scene stealer is Barry Keoghan as the ‘foolish’ Dominic, who is very eccentric in his movements, but also has this endearing quality to him that he asks or says things very honestly without reading the room, and its funny of course but also you do feel sorry for the chap. He really gets the brunt of it all so to speak. Also all the other cast of characters you meet on this island all to provide moments of amusement and humour.

Overall The Banshees of Inisherin balances its dark themes with absurdism so-so well, and the cast are all at the top of their game, the cinematography is sublime, the writing is on a whole ‘nother level. Equally hilarious yet tragic, I honestly find it difficult to find a fault in this one. Even the ending that really dials up on the dark madness feels deserved and the only direction for these characters to go, especially with the Irish folklore and myths behind it. Immensely enjoyed this one. Naturally after my viewing I had to head to the nearby pub and have a pint of Guinness. Seemed only right.

Overall score: 9/10

4 notes · View notes

wutbju · 3 months

Photo

This one has a surprise. Can you see it?

"Wine of Morning," with scenes of bloodshed, shipwreck, intrigue, murder, love and redemption, filmed in color, provides one of the most moving gospel messages that this reviewer can recall.

Produced by Unusual Films, a Bob Jones University enterprise, it features a huge cast, magnificent settings and gorgeous costumes. And it provides a tremendous spectacle of life in the time of Jesus from Nazareth, to Cana of Galilee, to Capernaum, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Antioch and Caesarea.

The two-hour production is based on the novel, "Wine of Morning," by Dr. Bob Jones Jr., university president. It deals with a fictionalized story of Barabbas, the man freed by Pilate in response to the cries of the mob in preference to Jesus - and on whose cross Jesus died.

AWARD WINNER

The film has won international recognition, was the first to win all four top awards of the National Evangelical Film Foundation and was shown at the International Congress of Motion Picture and Television Schools at the International Film Festival in 1958.

Its technical excellence has been featured in a number of manuals and textbooks, particularly the realistic results achieved in the storm and ship wreck scenes.

Director Katherine Stenholm, who won the 1953 National Evangelical Film Foundation award as outstanding director, and whose remarkable career with Unusual Films is told in some detail in another feature on the studios in this edition, makes her talent clearly evident in this moving production.

Produced on campus, with a cast of students and faculty members, it stars Al Carter as Joel, called Barabbas; David Yearick as Prince Manaen; George Hennix as Omah; Bob Jones III as Dysmas; Bob Jones Jr., Pontius Pilate; Thomas Woodward, King Herod Agrippa; Howard Burns, Joseph, the carpenter; Jack Buttram, Stephen; Vincent Cervera, the Paul, Apostle; Katherine Helmond, Irene of Cyprus; Joan DeVolk, Myra, an Egyptian dancer; and Robert Pratt, the father of Dysmas.

Did you see her?

MIRACLES DEPICTED

The latter as Jonathan proves to be the man let down through the roof and healed by Jesus. The audience is witness to other miracles, either on screen or seen through the eyes of the film's characters. Jesus is never glimpsed as being recognizable -- always as a shadow, a hand, a portion of His robe and then, in the scenes at the time of the crucifixion, as an identifiable figure, but still unrecognizable as a cast member.

Most powerful scene, to the reviewer, is Prince Manaen's story of redemption as told to the mature Joel, offering him hope that he, too, may be saved.

Years earlier Joel had turned from Jesus at the time Jesus attended the farewell dinner given by Levi, the tax collector, after the latter was called by Jesus as a disciple.

Joel then becomes actively involved as revolutionary seeking with a small organization headed by the powerful and wealthy Prince Manaen "to drive the brutal and tyrannical Romans from our lands."

After six months of training, Joel becomes a full-fledged and hardened "freedom-fighter," with only occasional pangs of conscience for the deeds that are performed in the cause of freedom. And he becomes Barabbas, who preys on the wealthy as they enter Jerusalem to provide funds to finance the campaign for freedom.

RICH IN COLOR

The story moves even more quickly now. Tragedy follows tragedy, climaxed with the scenes before Pilate. Certainly the greatest spectacle in the production is that where Pilate's retinue descends a great staircase while the mob clamors in the street.

But all the color is rich.

Opening on shipboard during the storm, the mature Joel re views his days in Galilee as he returns after many years to his native land. One sees the child romping in scenes of great pastoral beauty in rural Galilee, a boyhood that jumps into maturity when he falls in love with Irene of Cyprus -- already bethrothed to his best friend Stephen.

The first miracle is that of the transformation of water to wine at the wedding feast.

But Joel, an orphan, finds life unbearable with Irene the bride of his best friend and he goes to Capernaum to work for Jonathan (before the latter is the beneficiary in another miracle), With Jonathan healed, Joel no longer seems needed and he becomes a revolutionary.

Opulent Eastern luxury in the palace of the Prince, in Pilate's chambers and in the home of the wealthy father of Irene are contrasted with the humble homes of Jonathan, of Stephen and others. Even food, all of the smallest details, have been researched and provide a historically correct recreation of the days of Jesus and the years following.

The title? It comes from the letter written by Joel to the widowed Irene (after Stephen had been stoned) as he tells her of his conversion, his joy in his new faith and concludes: "I am drunk on Wine of Morning." Soon afterward, captured as he walks with Paul, we leave Joel in a cell in Herod's palace, content to die for his faith if it is so decreed, or to go forth and preach the gospel if he is freed.

The death of Herod before Joel's execution decree is signed leaves his fate in doubt, but not his faith.

#Bob Jones University #1967 #Greenville News #YeahTHATGreenville #Advertisement #Anniversary #Unusual Films #Wine of Morning #Katherine Helmond

0 notes

kevinsreviewcatalogue · 7 months

Text

Review: Vampire Circus (1972)

Vampire Circus (1972)

Rated PG

<CW: antiziganism/anti-Roma content>

Score: 3 out of 5

One of the last good films made by Hammer Film Productions during the famed British horror studio's latter period, Vampire Circus delivers exactly what it promises: a creepy circus run by vampires. It makes smart use of its premise, it has an engaging and alluring villain, and it has exactly the mix of bloodshed, sex appeal, and period glamour that make Hammer films at their best feel dangerous and classy, at least to me. Is the supporting cast a mixed bag? Are there way too many unfortunate stereotypes of Romani people in how the circus is portrayed? Yes and yes. But when the finished product works as well as it does, I can push all that to the side and enjoy what is still an entertaining vampire flick.

The film takes place in the Eastern European village of Stetl in a vaguely 19th century time period where, fifteen years ago, the locals, led by the schoolmaster Müller, murdered the nobleman Count Mitterhaus after learning that he was a vampire responsible for the disappearance and death of numerous local children. Before he died, he cursed the town, telling them that their children will die to bring him back to life. Meanwhile, his mistress Anna, Müller's wife and a willing servant of the Count, escapes into the night to meet up with the Count's cousin Emil, who runs a circus. Now, a plague is laying waste to Stetl, which has caused the local authorities to block all the roads out of it. Somehow, the traveling Circus of Nights got through the blockade to come to the town; the locals aren't too inquisitive about how they made it through, not when they're eager to just take their minds off of things. The circus has all manner of sights to show them, and what's more, the beautiful woman who serves as its ringmaster looks strikingly familiar.

This isn't really a movie that offers a lot of surprises. Even though she's played by a different (if similar-looking) actress, the movie otherwise makes it obvious that the ringmaster is in fact an older version of Anna even before the big reveal. I didn't really care, not when Adrienne Corri was easily one of the best things about this movie, making Anna the kind of (pardon the pun) vampish presence that it needed to complete its old-fashioned gothic atmosphere. She made me buy the villains as a dangerous force but also as a group of people and vampires who would seduce the townsfolk into ignoring their crimes, enough to more than make up for Anthony Higgins playing Emil, her partner in crime and the main vampire menace for much of the film, far too over-the-top for me to take seriously. The circus itself also made creative use of how the various powers attributed to vampires in folklore and fiction, from animal transformations to superior strength and senses, might be used to put on a flashy production of the sort where those watching might think that what they're seeing is all part of the show. And when push came to shove in the third act, we got treated to the circus' strongman breaking down the doors of people's homes, the dwarf sneaking around as a stealthy predator, and the twin acrobats (played by a young Robin Sachs and Lalla Ward) becoming the most dangerous fighters among the villains. It exploited its premise about as well as you'd expect from a low-budget film from the '70s, which was more than enough to keep me engaged.

Beyond the circus, however, the townsfolk generally weren't the most interesting characters. Only Müller had much depth to him, concerning his relationship with his lost wife Anna that grows increasingly fraught once he realizes who the ringmaster really is. With the rest of the cast, I was waiting for them all to get killed off by the vampires, as none of them left much of an impression otherwise. It was the circus that mostly propped up the movie. I also can't say I was particularly comfortable with the old-timey stereotypes that this film relied on in its depiction of the Roma. Notice how I'm calling Anna the "ringmaster" throughout this review. The film itself never uses that word, but instead uses a rather less polite anti-Romani slur to describe her, and it only gets worse from there, with the villagers using that word to describe the circus as "vermin" who need to be exterminated. This is why I've never been a fan of modern vampire fiction that, in trying to portray its vampires sympathetically, invokes the real-life history of persecution of marginalized groups (True Blood being one of the more famous examples). Given the history of both vampire legends and bigotry, especially that of real-life blood libels, pogroms, and hate crimes, it is a subject that can easily veer into suggesting that certain groups really are preying on people in unholy ways, especially when you bring children into the equation as this film does. Yes, Anna originally came from Stetl and isn't actually Romani, and for that matter, neither is the Count. But it's a subtext that this film, by invoking those parallels with a decidedly villainous portrayal of vampires, lays bare, and it had me feeling queasy at points in ways I'm sure the film didn't intend.

The Bottom Line

It's a movie that's very "of its time" in a lot of ways, and has problems fleshing out its supporting cast. Fortunately, it's buoyed by some great villains and that trademark Hammer horror mix of sex appeal and gothic flair. It's easily one of the better films to come out of their late period.

#vampire circus #1972 #1972 movies #hammer horror #vampire #vampire movies #horror #horror movies #period horror #adrienne corri #lynne frederick #lalla ward #robin sachs

1 note · View note

warningsine · 9 months

Text

And the winner is...

The 80th edition of the Venice Film Festival has come to a close, with this year’s Competition jury, led by American filmmaker Damien Chazelle (La La Land, Babylon), awarding the coveted Best Film Golden Lion to Yorgos Lanthimos’ Poor Things.

The film succeeds last year’s documentary All The Beauty And The Bloodshed by Laura Poitras (a member of this year’s jury), and was a firm favourite this year on the Lido.

Scroll down for the full list of winners.

We predicted that it was a two-way race between Poor Things and Agneiszka Holland’s Green Border for the top prize, and both got awarded major awards, with Holland’s stunning film taking home the Special Jury Prize.

Poor Things was the highest rated feature of the Competition with an average of 4,24 / 5, followed closely by Evil Does Not Exist (3,80 / 5) and Agnieszka Holland’s Green Border (3,76 / 5).

Lanthimos, considered the leading Greek Weird Wave exponent, directs an adaptation of Alasdair Gray’s 1992 cult novel, a “diabolical fuckfest of a puzzle” (as one character says referring to the adventure that slips from his grasp) which uses the language of Gothic conventions – with clear parallels to 'Frankenstein' and 'Alice in Wonderland' – to talk about the role of men and women in society. The director’s usual mastery of tone is a joy to behold, as is Tony McNamara’s mordantly funny screenplay. Thematically layered, raunchy, stylistically executed and above all fun, it’s got it all and feels like a well deserved win for Lanthimos. Read our full review.

The director’s previous Venice premiere, The Favourite, managed to accomplish the rare task of getting two separate awards in 2018: the Grand Jury Prize and the Volpi Cup for Best Actress for Olivia Coleman. The film went on to receive nine Oscar nominations, including for Best Picture and Best Director, and coming home with the Best Actress Oscar for Coleman.

Considering the oldest international film festival has a proven track record for premiering future Oscar contenders, you can expect Poor Things to be an early frontrunner for next year’s Oscars - alongside Oppenheimer, Barbie, and Killers of the Flower Moon – which premiered earlier this year at the Cannes Film Festival. You can also bet that lead actress Emma Stone, who has never been better than in her turn as the hilarious and evolving “pretty little retard”, will hoover up the performance awards in the coming months.

The runner-up prize went to Aku Wa Sonzai Shinai (Evil Does Not Exist) by Ryûsuke Hamaguchi.

After this masterful 2021 double-tap of Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy and the Oscar-winning Drive My Car, the Japanese filmmaker surprised everyone with the announcement of his new film, Evil Does Not Exist. It came out of nowhere and went straight into Venice’s competition selection. No complaints here.

The film follows a father and daughter who live in a small village close to Tokyo. One day, the village inhabitants become aware of a plan to build a glamping site, a project that will have a negative impact on the local water supply and endanger the ecological balance.

It sounds straightforward but it’s anything but. Enigmatic and allusive, Hamaguchi's parable offers up no easy answers and is a much tougher sell than his previous films. However, Evil Does Not Exist is a gently haunting revenge film of sorts that demands to be rewatched - and deserves to be celebrated.

The Special Jury Prize went to Zielona Granica (Green Border) by Agnieszka Holland.

Many saw the film winning the top prize; still, the Special Jury Prize is an important recognition for a vital viewing experience.

“It was a struggle but it was a duty,” said Holland when accepting the prize, referring to the challenges of filming this unique work.

Green Border was one of the most talked about films of the festival. It tackles the migration crisis at the Poland-Belarus border over the past two years, and is an incisive indictment of a continuing EU crisis, as well as a reminder that many are still dying on Europe’s borders.

The migrants from the Middle East and Africa are caught up as pawns in a geopolitical standoff, and the film looks critically at the way Poland's security services pushed back migrants who were lured to the border by Belarus, an ally of Russia.

It also asks vital questions about collective responsibility and inaction in a geopolitical landscape Europe – as a collective – finds itself in.

“We are dedicating this prize to the activists,” concluded Holland on stage during the awards ceremony, in a moving speech.

Written by Holland, Gabriela Łazarkiewicz-Sieczko and Maciej Pisuk, Green Border is based on meticulous research, including interviews with refugees, border guards and activists – an urgent and compassionate work, which has already drawn the ire of Polish Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, who labelled Green Border as “Third Reich propaganda.”

“In the Third Reich, the Germans produced propaganda films showing Poles as bandits and murderers. Today, they have Agnieszka Holland for that," wrote Ziobro on X (formerly Twitter).

Holland noted that Ziobro, who serves as prosecutor general as well as justice minster, commented on her film without having seen it and that she believed his words amounted to defamation, calling them “despicable.” She has demanded an apology from Ziobro and stated she plans to bring defamation charges against against him. She also demanded that he make a charitable donation of 50,000 Polish zlotys (approx. €10,800) to an association that helps Holocaust survivors.

Holland said the comparison to Nazi propaganda was offensive because of what Poland suffered under Nazi occupation during World War II and given her own background. She noted that she was both the daughter of a liaison in the Warsaw Uprising, the city's 1944 revolt against the occupying Nazi German forces, and the granddaughter of Holocaust victims.

“In our country, which experienced death, cruelty and the suffering of millions during World War II, a comparison to the perpetrators of these events is extremely painful and requires an appropriate response,” Holland said.

Its topicality and governmental slamming aside, Holland’s film cannot be reduced to its subject matter, as it is a brilliantly directed and acted black-and-white gut punch, and one of the Polish filmmaker’s very best in an already impressive filmography (Angry Harvest, Europa Europa, Spoor).

The Best Director Prize went, rather surprisingly considering many expected either Bradley Cooper (Maestro) or Bertrand Bonello (La Bête) to win, to Italian filmmaker Matteo Garrone for his film Io Capitano. The film tells the story of the journey of Seydou and Moussa, two young men who leave Dakar to make their way to Europe. It is a contemporary odyssey through the dangers of the desert, the horrors of the detention centres in Libya and the perils of the sea.

Like Green Border, it tackles the topic of immigration and the pursuit of the Europe dream – its promise and sombre reality. Garrone’s film offers a reverse shot compared to the images we’re used to seeing from a western perspective, and like Holland’s film, gives a voice to the ordinarily voiceless.

The film proved to be a favourite amongst both Italian and international press, with an overall average of 3,62 / 5, ranking it the fourth best reviewed film of the Competition.

The film also saw its main star Seydou Sarr win the Marcello Mastroianni Award for Best New Talent.

On the acting front, Peter Sarsgaard won the Volpi Cup for his note-perfect performance in Michel Franco’s Memory. He plays Saul, a man suffering from dementia, and his performance is the furthest thing from caricatural. Sarsgaard delivers a deeply moving portrayal of a gentle man subjected to a disease that he has no control over.

The American actor referred to the “shared communal experience that is a sacred sacrament of society” in relation to cinema and namechecked the ongoing Hollywood strikes. In particular, he referred to the threat of AI, stating that “an actor is a person, a writer is a person” – and that we risk of experience of the “sacred sacrament” being handed over to the “eight millionaires who own (AI)”.

Both Jessica Chastain and Peter Sarsgaard are excellent in Memory, which is stomach-knotting stuff - at times gut-wrenching, but also surprisingly tender. The way the film deals the topics of sexual abuse, dementia, denial, and Festen -level family dynamics is well judged and makes for an incredibly memorable addition to this year’s Competition.

Cailee Spaeny won Best Actress for Sofia Coppola’s Priscilla, which was the furthest thing from the toothless, estate-approved biopic it could have feasibly been. Instead, it was a sensitive and absorbing adaptation of Priscilla Presley's 1985 memoir 'Elvis and Me', central to which is 25-year-old Spaeny’s uncaricatured turn as the leading lady.

We thought she would win the Marcello Mastroianni Award for best newcomer, but the jury decided to give her the top prize. You may have glimpsed Spaeny in Bad Times at the El Royale, as the young Lynne Cheney in Vice, or in series like Devs or Mare of Easttown. However, this is without a doubt her big break, showing that she’s capable of shouldering a big production and acing the assignment.

Full list of winners:

Golden Lion - Best Film: Poor Things (Yorgos Lanthimos)

Grand Jury Prize: Aku Wa Sonzai Shinai (Evil Does Not Exist) (Ryûsuke Hamaguchi)

Special Jury Prize: Green Border (Agnieszka Holland)

Silver Lion - Best Director: Matteo Garrone (Io Capitano)

Volpi Cup for Best Actress: Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla)

Volpi Cup for Best Actor: Peter Sarsgaard (Memory)

Best Screenplay: Guillermo Calderon and Pablo Larrain (El Conde)

Marcello Mastroianni Award for Best New Talent: Seydou Sarr (Io Capitano)

#yorgos lanthimos #Agnieszka Holland #venice festival

0 notes

moviecriticseanpatrick-blog · 1 year

Text

#All the Beauty and the Bloodshed #Laura Poitras #Documentary #Nan Goldin #adam sackler #sackler family #Big Pharma #Movie #Movies #Movie Review #Movie Critic #Film #Film Review #Film Critic #Film Criticism

0 notes

rookie-critic · 1 year

Text

Rookie-Critic's Film Review Weekend Wrap-Up - Week of 3/6-3/12/2023

-Return to Seoul (2022, dir. Davy Chou)

I wanted to like this more than I ended up liking it. What could have been an incredibly moving story about the detriments of trying to fill voids in your happiness with the idea of others and not with love for yourself is kind of lessened by a main character that was very selfish, mean, and outside of her life situation, was mostly unrelatable. I just couldn't find an in with the protagonist of the film, Freddie, and it kept me from fully enjoying what is mostly a well-made film.

Score: 7/10

Currently only in theaters. See my full review on here.

-Argentina, 1985 (2022, dir. Santiago Mitre)

An incredibly gripping courtroom drama about a piece of South American history that more people in the world should know about. A true, mostly inspiring, but also frightening in ways, story about fascism in 1980s Argentina and how, even after it was defeated, the seeds of it remained in the democratic government set up in its place. The struggles of a handful of young law professionals as well as the work of Argentinian DA Julio Strassera. At a whopping 140 minutes, Argentina, 1985 never once feels its length, and that is just one of the many impressive things about this film that makes it one of the best non-English language films of last year.

Score: 9/10

Currently streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

-Rocky V (1990, dir. John G. Avildsen)

I've heard that his is the Rocky film that fans of the franchise don't want to touch with a 10-foot pole and I don't really understand why. It's not really bad, it's more just kind of boring. The story just doesn't really go anywhere and the final fight, while an interesting subversion on the previous 4 films' largely similar structure, isn't particularly gripping and is very aged, and not in the best way. Sage Stallone does a decent enough job playing Rocky Jr. and Sly Stallone is just as motor-mouthed and lovably dumb as ever as Rocky, but again, everything here mostly just ok. I don't really think I'll remember too much about this going forward.

Score: 5/10

Currently streaming on Netflix.

-All the Beauty and the Bloodshed (2022, dir. Laura Poitras)

This was a wonderful documentary about renowned photographer/activist Nan Goldin; half about her life coming up in the counterculture of 80s New York City during the AIDS crisis, and half about her more recent work as an activist against the Sackler family and their involvement in the opioid crisis. The two halves of Goldin's story are weaved together and related to each other wonderfully by the film's director Laura Poitras and editors Joe Bini, Amy Foote, and Brian A. Kates. Goldin's own photographic slideshows are mixed with other archival footage and modern interviews to make a story that way more succinct and whole than I was expected from something that, one the surface, seems like it would be disjointed.

Score: 8/10

Currently available to rent/purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc.) and coming soon to Blu-ray & DVD through Criterion.

-Blonde (2022, dir. Andrew Dominik)

I really wanted to give this one a chance. Ana de Armas does a brilliant job as Marilyn Monroe, but really the film dips it's toe too often into the wrong side of exploitation, and it makes the film hard to watch. Not in a way that makes it profound or thought-provoking, but in a way that feels cruel and unusual. The film is shot well, but the things happening on screen are more often than not too bizarrely horrible to keep your eye on. At certain points it almost felt like it reveled in portraying Monroe's suffering. This isn't to mention that it is based on a book that is self-admittedly more fiction than fact by the author. I'm interested in learning about Monroe's actual life, and I don't feel like this gave a clear image of that at all.

Score: 4/10

Currently streaming on Netflix.

-Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre (2023, dir. Guy Ritchie)

I was not a fan Ritchie's last film, Wrath of Man. I thought it took pride in all the worst parts of machismo and was an oddly self-serious film in his filmography. Thankfully, Operation Fortune doesn't have this issue. The Guy Ritchie that made Snatch and The Gentlemen is back. The misogyny that is normally the dark spot on most of his movies is dialed way back here, which is nice. Now, the plot is almost non-existent and non-important and the characters and their motivations and personalities are similarly non-important and paper thin, but the film is funny and entertaining, and that's all I ever really want out of a Guy Ritchie film. Hugh Grant gets a special shout out for stealing every single moment he's on screen.

Score: 7/10

Currently only in theaters.

-Rocky Balboa (2006, dir. Sylvester Stallone)

Overall, probably my favorite of the Rocky films. Rocky is just a sweet old man looking to connect with his son and remember his wife fondly. Bringing back the little girl from one scene of the first film as a fully fleshed-out adult character was an inspired choice, and, while Paulie is still a giant pile of trash on fire, he actually shows a bit of remorse for his actions over the previous five films, and that can't count for nothing. Just a very impressive, deceptively incredible late-stage entry in a beloved franchise.

Score: 8/10

Currently streaming on Paramount+.

-Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris (2022, dir. Anthony Fabian)

As someone who hasn't seen either Paddington film, I imagine this is as good as a film can make you feel without actually being Paddington. Lesley Manville is absolutely marvelous and beautifully kind as Mrs. Ada Harris. This was one that I skipped out on seeing in the theater because it didn't seem like something I would enjoy, but it ended up stealing my heart and making me feel ashamed for shrugging it off before. Watch this if you're feeling down for an instant shot of serotonin.

Score: 9/10

Currently streaming on Peacock.

-Scream VI (2023, dir. Tyler Gillett & Matt Bettinelli-Olpin)

I won't gush about this anymore than I already have. Radio Silence have done a great job picking this franchise up from where the wonderful Wes Craven left it off. The acting is superb, the horror is superb, the story is superb, Scream continues to be the best slasher franchise by a significant margin. Way to go.

Score: 10/10

Currently only in theaters. See my full review here.

-Tell It Like a Woman (2022, dir. Catherine Hardwicke, Taraji P. Henson, Lucia Puenzo, Leena Yadav, Maria Sole Tognazzi, Mipo O, Lucia Bulgheroni & Silvia Carobbio)

As well-intentioned as this is, it's not a film, it's a PSA. Half of these are barely stories and more like a video that would play in the middle of a self-help seminar to prove a point. Only one of these seven stories feels like a legitimate short film, the one directed by Japanese director Mipo O, and it's the only stretch of the film that doesn't feel like a complete waste of time.

Score: 3/10

Currently available to rent or purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc.).

-The Quiet Girl (2022, dir. Colm Bairéad)

Last year, right as I was about to cut off my viewing for the 2022 season and post my Best Of list, I saw The Worst Person in the World, a non-English language film the ended up ranking towards the top of my list. This year I didn't think that was possible, as 2022 was a truly magnificent and special year. My Top 20 (hell, my top 35-40, even) are all so amazing it's hard to imagine anything cracking into the upper echelon of the list. Yet, somehow, The Quiet Girl has managed just that. This massively slow-paced film managed to not only to maintain my interest, but right at the end. When you wonder how the film could possibly bring all of its themes and messaging together in a way that feels uniquely whole and satisfying, the titular Quiet Girl, Cáit (played with the emotional depth of a thousand oceans by newcomer Catherine Clinch), utters two words; or rather, the same word twice, but with two deliveries so utterly different that it shatters your soul into a million little pieces and breaks the walls of the even the most hard-hearted person on the planet down until you're just a mess on the floor of theater (not really, that's nasty, but you get the idea). Any qualm I may have even remotely had with the slow trot at which the majority of the film clips along in is immediately dashes, thrown out the window and never to be heard from again, all from just two softly spoken little words. It's truly powerful and within the next couple weeks when you see me make my Best of 2022 posts, I guarantee you'll be seeing this somewhere, and most likely pretty high up.

Score: 10/10

Currently only in theaters.

-Mandy (2018, dir. Panos Cosmatos)

Watched as a part of my college friends' Nic Cage Fridays movie night, I was very, very excited to see this. I was shocked when we were three quarters of the way through the film and everyone else except for me and one other person was cracking jokes and making fun of the film like it was The Room. It for sure has a decent number of issues: the beginning act of the film is dreadfully slow and begins to outstay its welcome, the plot of the film (if you could call it that) is so unbelievably thin, and Cosmatos' work and experiments with color in frame, while definitely a strong vibe that I liked, doesn't necessarily add anything artistically to the film. I wouldn't say, however, that it is worthy of the ire it was receiving from the crowd. Nicolas Cage's performance as Red, while sparse throughout the first half of the film, kicks into absolute high gear in the second, and manages to make the film have one of the craziest, most fun, and absolutely phantasmagorical third acts of any film I've ever seen. I guess it's not for everybody, but please, if you haven't seen it, Google it, take a look at some stills and read the basic setup of the plot, and if it sounds even remotely interesting, give it a shot. I found it to be a very rewarding watch.

Score: 7/10

Currently available for rent or purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc.) or on Blu-ray & DVD through RLJ Entertainment.

-Champions (2023, dir. Bobby Farrelly)

This ended up being surprisingly heartwarming and funny. A film about intellectually disabled adults that never centers them as the punchline of the joke, but rather the ones delivering said punchline, Champions excels at giving these oft-belittled members of the human race their own voice and space to be not only taken seriously as individuals, but also raucously hilarious. Directed by one-half of the Farrelly brothers (of Dumb & Dumber and There's Something About Mary fame), there are only a few moments of the signature gross-out Farrelly humor, and honestly they're the most out of pocket, odd moments of the film. Woody Harrelson and Kaitlin Olson give good performances as the central protagonists of the film, but truthfully the spotlight and the majority of the kudos should go to the basketball team at the heart of the film, namely Madison Tevlin, Kevin Iannucci, and Casey Metcalfe. Honestly, the entirety of the Friends (the name of the team) deserves the highest of praise, and I don't mean that patronizingly. They steal the show every moment they're on screen. The framework and overarching story isn't really anything special or new, but criticizing a film with this big of a heart feels disingenuous, so I'll just say I liked it and leave it at that.

Score: 7/10

Currently only in theaters.

-Thirteen Lives (2022, dir. Ron Howard)

I don't have a ton to say about Thirteen Lives other than that I really liked it. I think this is the big awards snub of the year, receiving basically no attention which, for a film like this that Academy voters generally eat up, is very surprising. It's Ron Howard's best film since 2013's Rush and, much like Argentina, 1985, is a film about real-life events that runs over 2 and a half hours that absolutely never feels like it. A thoroughly enthralling and awe-striking cinematic experience. It's an Amazon Prime Video original, but one can imagine how magical this would have been to see in the theater.

Score: 9/10

Currently streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

-65 (2023, dir. Scott Beck & Bryan Woods)

This was definitely a movie. There was a story and an Adam Driver and spaceship crashes and dinosaurs and a kid and everything that a movie needs to be, well, a movie. It doesn't make the most of its premise, which is disappointing, and also doesn't make much use of the dinosaurs, which is disappointing. I think what saves the film is Driver's general talent and the parent-child chemistry of Driver and Ariana Greenblatt, which is good and generates an interest in seeing them survive this prehistoric sci-fi ordeal together. This will be something I'll most likely forget a lot of in the coming months, regardless of how much fun I had while my butt was in the seat watching it. I'm not going to say don't see it if you were already interested, but I'm also saying that if this wasn't something that interested you in the first place, you're not really missing out on anything spectacular.

Score: 6/10

Currently only in theaters.

1 note · View note