MovieChat Forums > ebertfan91 > Replies
ebertfan91's Replies
[quote]Performances are key in making the characters real. Kirsten Dunst is especially good as a woman who has buried herself so deeply in an emotionless cocoon that, when there are cracks, they make demands on Dunst as an actress. Stephen McKinley Henderson is the voice of reason who realizes this may be his last rodeo but is determined to see it through. Cailee Spaeny, who recently played the title character in Sofia Coppola’s Priscilla, faces the most difficult arc as the horrors around her shred the remaining vestiges of her naivete and force her to understand what she must sacrifice to become who she wants to be.
Alas, the ending cheapens the overall experience. Especially without a better understanding of how things got to that point and who The President (Nick Offerman) is, the cheesy action and silly narrative contortions of the final 15 minutes are a difficult pill to swallow. Garland fumbled the ending of his previous film, Men, and that same problem is evident here. He knows how to tell a story but can’t stick the ending. This flaw diminishes Civil War but it isn’t a fatal blow. There’s still enough captivating and disquieting material here to make the experience worthwhile. And this isn’t an easy movie to shake off.[/quote]
[quote]The passage of time has been kind to Batman Returns. Upon its initial release, it was greeting with a mixed reaction by critics and movie-goers. The box office, although buoyant during its first weekend, ultimately disappointed (resulting in Warner Brothers deciding not to offer Burton the director’s chair for the third Batman movie). Now, some three-plus decades later, this is generally viewed not only as the best of the Burton/Schumacher series but one of the best superhero movies of the century. Whether watched as an alternative Christmas movie or at any other time of the year, Batman Returns illustrates offbeat possibilities that were once possible in the superhero genre. The Burton aesthetic remains Batman Returns’ most memorable aspect and one reason why the film’s reputation has escalated during its history on home video.[/quote]
[quote]There’s less action in Batman Returns than in Batman, but there’s violence aplenty. Batman remains an elusive figure, mostly staying in the shadows. One of the contemporaneous complaints about the film was the lack of a focused, action-oriented climax but, in retrospect, that represents a strength, helping Batman Returns seem less like a cookie-cutter comic book movie and more like something with its own identity. Unlike the other two sequels, this one doesn’t seem committed to selling toys. In terms of marketing, the only major deal was with McDonald’s, which sold a Batman Returns Happy Meal coinciding with the film’s release. This caused a minor controversy when watchdog groups pointed out the inappropriateness of the production’s material for young children. Although rated PG-13, it skated close to the boundaries of an R with blatant sexual double-entendres and a matter-of-fact attitude toward violence.
Each member of the Trio of Nastiness brings something different to the proceedings. DeVito’s Penguin couldn’t be more different than the Burgess Meredith interpretation in the Adam West TV show. Although possessing a warped comedic edge, this villain is best remembered for the extensive prosthetics that made him frightening to some small children. Michelle Pfeffer’s catsuit became iconic (although she hated wearing it) and her character is the embodiment of BDSM. Latex and whips – what could be more obvious? As for Shreck, he’s Christopher Walken in his creepy prime. Burton later admitted almost not casting him because he found the actor to be intimidating.[/quote]
[quote]Tone is something Wingard struggles with. Although the best Godzilla movies have been serious endeavors with allegorical elements, the team-ups/smackdowns have tended toward high camp with WWE-style flourishes. Starting with King Kong vs. Godzilla, the Toho-produced movies grew increasingly silly during the Showa era. Had Godzilla x Kong fully embraced this tone rather than trying for things like “emotional resonance,” it might have been more enjoyable. However, while there are comedic/satirical aspects, the movie as a whole takes itself too seriously.
When watching something like this, I occasionally feel like deferring to my eight-year-old monster movie-loving self. I think that version of myself would have been a little bored by the lengthy periods of setup then delighted by the three big battles (Kong vs. King Scar, Kong vs. Godzilla redux, Kong/Godzilla/Mothra vs. King Skar/Shimo). But even for those who have an orgasmic reaction to kaiju confrontations, far too little of the film is devoted to them and the overreliance on CGI leeches away the immediacy and awe associated with the spectacle. This isn’t as bad as the 1998 Godzilla misfire but it’s perilously close. If there are to be any more Monsterverse movies (something I don’t favor), turn them over to Takashi Yamazaki. He knows how to do it right.[/quote]
[quote]Umberto D. is an almost-perfect slice-of-life. It has no true beginning and no firm ending. It fades in and fades out, affording us an opportunity to spend some time with one old man and get to know him and the world in which he lives. As with many older films, the value of this approach – a contemporaneous look at minutia that many other movies don’t provide – is amplified. Umberto D. provides a window into the past – an opportunity to experience an unvarnished perspective of things more often represented in sepia-tinged photographs. It’s often said that good films “don’t age.” In this case, the quality of aging is a strength.[/quote]
[quote]Note: The copy currently available for streaming at Amazon Prime is nearly-unwatchable and should be avoided at all costs. It appears to be a dupe of a pan-and-scan VHS copy that was originally recorded at SLP speed. It is virtually unwatchable. Other, better copies are available for rent and anyone who is serious about watching the movie is advised to seek those out.[/quote]
[quote]As a big-screen spectacle, Part Two exceeds Part One. The cinematography is grand and at times hauntingly beautiful. The battles are bigger, more raw, and more intense. The desert is a character in its own right. Hans Zimmer’s percussive score thrums and thrills. Villaneuve makes a persuasive case for why movie theaters still exist post-pandemic. Although the storyline is strong enough to preserve Part Two as a viable streaming option, much of the experience will be lost outside of a venue with a giant screen and sound-system to match. The film was made for IMAX and, although it will play effectively in generic multiplex auditoriums, this is one instance when the adage of “bigger means better” is applicable. Dune: Part Two is a spectacle to behold with an underlying arc that makes it more satisfying than a 2 1/2-hour bite of eye candy.[/quote]
[quote]Three major new characters enter the fray during the course of Part Two and Villaneuve gives them sufficient backstory and screen time that they don’t feel like they have been awkwardly dropped into an already-developed narrative. They are Feyd-Rautha, the psychopath nephew of Baron Harkonnen (and his would-be heir), who gets an entire 20-minute segment of introduction (mostly shot in black-and-white). The Emperor, name-checked in Part One, appears in the flesh in Part Two alongside his daughter, Irulan. Additionally, Anya Taylor-Joy has a small role as Paul’s sister, Alia, whom he briefly meets in a dream sequence.
The returning stable of actors - Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Dave Bautista, Stellan Skarsgard, and Charlotte Rampling – reprise their roles with conviction. The most impressive turn belongs to Chalamet, whose character faces numerous life-altering and personality-shifting changes. In a film where many of the important men and women represent archetypes, Paul is unique. Chalamet’s performance emphasizes not only Paul’s impetuousness and charisma but the growing tragedy that underlies the embrace of his destiny.[/quote]
[quote]Sadly, Madame Web fails to rise above its pedigree as a lesser superhero movie. It does nothing to convince viewers that there’s value to be found in a story not featuring a marquee comic book character. There’s a growing sense that Sony is overreaching by plumbing the bargain bin of the IP for which it owns the rights and trying to force-feed the public with characters like Venom, Carnage, Morbius, and Madame Web. We’ll never know whether a well-crafted, riveting Madame Web might have made this an early-year box office gem because that’s not what director S.J. Clarkson has delivered. Her vision – or at least the one Sony allowed to reach the screen – is a tired, infantile exercise in exploring the worst tropes of origin stories.[/quote]
[quote]At the beginning of the movie, I focused on the words, allowing myself to settle into the rhythms of the conversation between these old friends getting re-acquainted. Over time, however, I found myself becoming less interested in what the characters are saying and more intrigued by how Malle chooses to present the conversation: shot selection, editing close-ups into the master shots, etc. Expressions and reactions (especially Shawn’s, because much of his emoting occurs without words) are of paramount importance. Although My Dinner with Andre may be of minimal interest to mainstream movie-going audiences in the 2020s, it should be required viewing for would-be actors and behind-the-camera craftspeople. Although what Gregory and Shawn have to say may have lost a share of its relevance, how it’s presented offers a clinic in the importance of the non-verbal aspects of filmmaking.[/quote]
[quote]Originally, Donen wanted an established actress (albeit a young one) to play Jennifer but the nudity (which he was upfront about) scared potential choices away. At the time, Michelle Johnson was a model and he was captivated when he saw her on the cover of a magazine. Looks, therefore, became the prime motivation for hiring her. Her inability to act wasn’t taken into account. Granted, she looks great (with or without clothing) but her thespian abilities are threadbare (as evidenced by her post-Rio filmography, which was highlighted by a stint on The Love Boat). Her reason for making the film was that she felt it might advance her career. Thinking about this, I get distinct vibes of Elizabeth Berkeley and Showgirls.
For Stanley Donen, this marked the end of a career that spanned 35 years. It wasn’t the last time he would be behind the camera – he subsequently directed an episode of the TV series “Moonlighting,” a music video (Lionel Richie’s “Dancing on the Ceiling”), and a made-for-TV-movie (1999’s Love Letters) – but this was his last theatrical offering. As swansongs go, this was lamentable. For Michael Caine, it was a bump in the road, a paycheck to cash. Two years later, he would win an Oscar. A year after that, he would make Jaws: The Revenge, probably the only movie on his filmography to contend with Blame it on Rio as the worst thing he made. (Although he had a great quote about the Jaws sequel: “I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.”)
A lot of bad 1980s films have long since been forgotten but the co-association of Donen and Caine has kept this one floating around, like flotsam in a stream of sewage. Sometimes, bad old movies can be enjoyable to revisit but that’s not really the case with Blame it on Rio. It’s so misbegotten and awkward that it’s better being left ignored.[/quote]
#1 on his Top 10 of the year:
[url]https://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1704292333[/url]
#2 on his Top 10 of the year:
[url]https://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1704292333[/url]
#3 on his Top 10 of the year:
[url]https://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1704292333[/url]
#4 on his Top 10 of the year:
[url]https://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1704292333[/url]
#5 on his Top 10 of the year:
[url]https://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1704292333[/url]
#6 on his Top 10 of the year:
[url]https://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1704292333[/url]
#7 on his Top 10 of the year:
[url]https://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1704292333[/url]
#8 on his Top 10 of the year:
[url]https://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1704292333[/url]
#9 on his Top 10 of the year:
[url]https://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1704292333[/url]