MovieChat Forums > ebertfan91 > Replies
ebertfan91's Replies
[quote]Supporting performers include Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the shipbuilder who takes in Ellen while Thomas is in Transylvania, Emma Corrin as Ellen’s best friend, and Willem Dafoe as the movie’s version of Van Helsing, whose role is more about exposition than plot advancement. In recent years, the prolific Dafoe has mixed indie work with blockbuster appearances, collaborating with the likes of Wes Anderson, Sean Baker, Gorthos Lanthimos, and Eggers (having appeared in three of the director’s four movies). He also once played Schreck in Shadow of the Vampire.
Old-school vampire aficionados will find in Orlock a nightmarish creature who brings a few new wrinkles to the traditional Dracula-based type – notably, the concept that he is the embodiment of a demon and that he and Ellen have a long-standing psychic connection that dates back to when she was a child. Like the Murnau version, the relationship between these two characters forms the backbone of the story and Orlock’s obsession with Ellen becomes his weakness. Eggers delves more deeply into this, emphasizing this different interpretation of what it means to be a vampire in the most obvious deviation from Stoker’s novel. And, although religious iconographic is not entirely absent, its importance is diminished.
Although Nosferatu may be too hypnotic and moody to appeal to many of the younger horror generation’s adherents, it contains enough instances of visceral bloodiness (including a scene in which a character bites off a bird’s head) to generate shock and revulsion. With its striking images, pervasive atmosphere, and incessant sense of dread, Nosferatu leaves an impression that proves hard to shake.[/quote]
[quote]Corbet’s tendency to overwrite dialogue is most evident in Harrison and the theatricality of how Guy Pearce often delivers the lines exacerbates the issue. Pearce looks the part but there are times when his interpretation of Harrison results in a caricature. It’s difficult to determine whether this is a conscious, stylistic choice or a case of miscasting but there are times when the portrayal of Harrison feels tonally out-of-step with everything else.
With a running length that approaches four hours (including the intermission), The Brutalist demands a time commitment from those who elect to see it in a theater. (It will be more easily digestible when it reaches a streaming source.) It rewards patience not only in the way it crafts its central character but develops the era in which it transpires.[/quote]
[quote]Babygirl is perhaps not as gloriously, guiltily entertaining as some of the films Reijn used as models but it offers its own pleasures. If the relationship between Romy and Samuel is implausible, it’s no less unlikely than those in many similar pictures from the ‘80s and ‘90s. And, although violence is kept in the background, the movie isn’t afraid to address psychosexual issues in ways that most current mainstream films avoid. It’s refreshing to see this sort of story told using the “female gaze,” since it adds a different dimension to the proceedings. This is a better movie than the trailer might lead one to believe.[/quote]
[quote]The clear intention of the filmmakers is for The War of the Rohirrim to be canonical insofar as Jackson’s Middle Earth tales are concerned. Narration is provided by Miranda Otto, reprising her role as Eowyn from The Two Towers and The Return of the King (although she is only heard, not seen). Several places and structures – Edoras, Helm’s Deep, and Isengard – use the same designs employed by Jackson in the LOTR trilogy and composer Stephen Gallagher incorporates themes from Howard Shore’s music into his score. (I would have preferred that he use even more since his own material is somewhat generic.)
If The War of the Rohirrim was released as a fantasy-adventure unrelated to Tolkien’s works, it would not have merited particular attention. It’s a well-made, high-quality endeavor but there’s nothing remarkable about the overall production. It offers strong storytelling but character identification is limited and the emotional investment is surprisingly shallow. I can imagine a live-action version of this same tale that would have been stronger and more engaging. As to whether animation is a viable path forward for additional stories set in Middle Earth, the jury remains out. The War of the Rohirrim feels more like an experiment than a trailblazing film. It’s fine for what it is – bringing to life three pages from an appendix – but ultimately falls into the “entertaining-but-unnecessary” category. Anime and LOTR die-hards will enjoy it. Others, maybe not so much.[/quote]
[quote]Perhaps the greatest strength of the movie is its ability to stay on point. Although the temptation must surely have been great, September 5 never veers off course toward the landmine of maudlin manipulation. The tragedy is approached with clear eyes and the perspective never varies from that of the ABC crew. During the airport confrontation, we remain back at the Olympics with Arledge, Bader, and Mason, staying with them as differing reports come in. Fehlbaum uses actual broadcast footage to put an exclamation point on the faux accuracy, including Jim McKay’s reporting. He won an Emmy for his work in this situation and his most remembered lines – “When I was a kid, my father used to say ‘Our greatest hopes and our worst fears are seldom realized.’ Our worst fears have been realized tonight. They've now said that there were eleven hostages. Two were killed in their rooms yesterday morning, nine were killed at the airport tonight. They're all gone.” – are presented on a TV screen not through a re-creation. (McKay appears only through archival footage, although there are a few instances when we see a body double from the back or blurred in the background. No attempts are made to bring him back digitally. This old-school approach works while honoring his legacy.)
With September 5, Fehlbaum has crafted one of 2024’s most unlikely thrillers. It’s also one of the best movies to reach screens in a year when genuine tension has been too often absent from films in which it should have been a key ingredient.[/quote]
[quote]One of the most difficult things for any musical to achieve is a balance between the pageantry inherent in the medium and an exploration of serious themes. This becomes even more difficult when a filmed interpretation replaces the intimacy of a live performance. Although Chu’s approach successfully gets us invested in the characters and their relationships, the politics of Oz are a shambles and the Wizard comes across as too affable to be truly villainous. The movie drags at times, evidence that the too-generous 160-minute running time adversely affects pacing without resulting in a better-defined, deeper storyline. One wonders whether Wicked: Part 1 might work better as a clip show.[/quote]
[quote]The film’s director is John Pieplow, whose only other credit was the obscure 1996 made-for-TV movie, Jurassic Women (I know of no one who has seen it so I can’t vouch for its actual existence). Judging by the way Strangeland was shot, it’s not surprising he didn’t get another job after this one. It’s likely that Snider, who gets official credits as the writer and producer, may have been heavily involved in the directing as well. Regardless of who gets the blame, keeping them away from other projects was a public service.
Strangeland was a box office bomb. Although a cadre of Twisted Sister fans showed up, no one else did. The subject matter and word-of-mouth about “upsetting” scenes were probably enough to keep viewers away and those few who did attend were probably less disturbed by the depictions of torture than by the ineptitude of the filmmaking. Like many bad movies with a hardcore group of supporters, Strangeland has been labeled as a “cult classic.” Considering what that term often implies about general quality, it likely applies, but those who aren’t already indoctrinated shouldn’t expect to be converted by Captain Howdy and his array of piercings and tattoos.[/quote]
[quote]Anora has proven to be liked by both critics and everyday movie-goers, at least those that give it a chance. (I saw it on its local opening night and there were only a dozen attendees.) After winning the Golden Palm at Cannes, it went on to capture the Audience Award at Toronto and currently holds a 91 rating (Universal Acclaim) at Metacritic. But marketing the film has proven tricky for distributor NEON. The movie’s essential qualities don’t translate well to a two-minute trailer and the confusing platform release strategy has left some viewers uncertain when it might open at a theater near them. Here’s hoping the movie finds its audience because it’s one of the freshest and most audacious films available in this year’s sparse cinematic landscape.[/quote]
[quote]Heretic is fundamentally more satisfying than the cavalcade of low-budget horror films that Blumhouse churns out because, unlike those movies, this one has ambition. It’s not trying to capture the widest teen audience. It isn’t relying on jump-scares. It hasn’t toned down things to get a PG-13 rating and isn’t awash in fake blood. It gets under the skin and into the mind and does what good psychological horror does best: leaves the viewer unsettled and perhaps a little shaken even after the end credits roll and the lights turn back on.[/quote]
[quote]Here is in no way a sequel to Forrest Gump, but Zemeckis has brought the band back together: himself as director, Eric Roth as screenwriter, cinematographer Don Burgess, composer Alan Silvestri, and actors Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. The alchemy that made the 1994 film so beloved is almost entirely missing. As for the de-aging technology used to allow the 68-year old Hanks and the 58-year old Wright play younger versions of themselves, I’m not as much of a critic as some. There are times when it lends a “plastic” element to the characters’ features but, with close-ups rarely used, it’s far less distracting than the disjointed narrative approach.
It's hard to imagine any form of Here being a great movie. The story lacks depth and nuance and the filmmakers do it no favor by presenting it in this endlessly frustrating fashion. I kept thinking it would function better as a 15-20-minute short. I appreciate that Zemeckis tried something different – few mainstream directors would have attempted something this offbeat with A-list actors and a major studio providing funding – but, although it’s interesting at times, it’s never fully successful. In the end, I was more letdown by the movie’s inability to draw me in than impressed by its offbeat premise.[/quote]
[quote]When one thinks about film noir, images of dark alleys and long shadows come to mind. Hitchcock flips the pattern by setting Shadow of a Doubt in broad daylight in the heart of a town where people don’t lock their doors and a friendly neighbor (played by Hume Cronyn in his debut) can wander in and chat about detective novels and murder mysteries. But the shadows are there and they eventually come out, heralded by the billowing cloud of black smoke high above the train that brings Uncle Charlie to Santa Rosa and being seen frequently when he’s around.
Despite being the director’s personal favorite, Shadow of a Doubt isn’t among Hitchcock’s most accomplished films. It’s beautifully crafted but the screenplay is creaky and full of holes, some of which are evident even during a first watching. Nevertheless, the suspense is there and Cotten and Wright play off one another wonderfully. For those who enjoy ‘40s movies, this is one to see.
*: Hitchcock coined the term “refrigerator movie” to refer to a film that works in the moment but may fall apart on closer, later inspection. For example, after going home, when opening the refrigerator to get a snack, it hits you: “Wait a minute! That doesn’t make any sense!”[/quote]
[quote]Both leads, Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright, had long and productive careers. At the time when Hitchcock cast them, Wright was something of a fresh face but she was riding a wave of popularity after having been Oscar-nominated for her first three movies (The Little Foxes, Mrs. Miniver, and Pride of the Yankees. She won for Mrs. Miniver.) Despite those accolades, one can make a compelling case that the best work she ever did was in Shadow of a Doubt. Cotten was more of a veteran than his co-star but his career was also on the rise. Often associated with Orson Welles, his biggest breaks came in Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons. His work here is often cited as a career-best and it’s not hard to see why. The way he transforms from a seemingly likeable good guy into a monster is spine-chilling.
Cotten’s signature monologue, a rant delivered to Young Charlie in a restaurant where he first loses control, is an example of the actor going to the edge without tumbling into campiness. “The cities are full of women, middle-aged widows, husbands dead, husbands who’ve spent their lives making fortunes, working and working. Then they die and leave their money to their wives. Their silly wives. And what do the wives do, these useless women? You see them in the hotels, the best hotels, every day by the thousands, drinking the money, eating the money, losing the money at bridge, playing all day and all night, smelling of money. Proud of their jewelry but of nothing else. Horrible, faded, fat, greedy women.” The litany of bile and misogyny completes Young Charlie’s change in perception of her uncle. She knows what he is. And he knows she knows. What will she do about it? What will he do about it? Therein lies the root of the suspense.[/quote]
[quote]If Ghost Story has one thing going for it, it’s the film’s ability to develop and sustain a powerful and compelling atmosphere. Unfortunately, the rushed screenplay disallows viewers the opportunity to fully absorb it. As for the acting… the cast may be populated by notable names but few are in peak form. Fred Astaire, despite having the most screen time, lacks presence, reminding the audience that, although he was beloved as a song-and-dance man, his dramatic skills were middling. Melvyn Douglas, who was dying in real life at the time (he didn’t survive long enough to see Ghost Story’s release) is credible in the role of a sick old man. Douglas Fairbanks Jr. retains an element of his legendary charisma but he’s only around for a few scenes. John Houseman, whose career had experienced a boost as a result of appearing in The Paper Chase, is in top form. Of the younger actors, Alice Krige leaves a decisive impression while Craig Wasson leaves none whatsoever.
Ghost Story never achieved the success its producers envisioned. The nostalgia angle wasn’t as potent as expected and younger viewers weren’t impressed by the mangled storyline. Although the reappearance of silver screen icons in combination with the strong, spooky atmosphere was sufficient to satisfy a minority of critics, most were disappointed by the film’s mediocrity. And fans of Straub, like the author himself, were turned off by the various deviations from the source material. Ghost Story hasn’t improved with age. It remains an early ‘80s curiosity but there’s little reason to revisit it 40 years later unless one is intrigued to see the final performances of three venerated stars or to be bewitched by Krige in her signature role.[/quote]
[quote]I don’t know that Smile 2 is likely to expand the fanbase developed by the original (which is sizeable – Smile made over $100M domestic) but it will almost certainly please those familiar with Finn’s breakthrough effort. The relentless pace, which flags only occasionally, and entrancing storytelling make this follow-up an even more satisfying experience than the one provided by the 2022 production.[/quote]
[quote]Notorious represented a second collaboration for Hitchcock with screenwriter Ben Hecht, one of Hollywood’s most in-demand authors. Following a positive working relationship developed with Spellbound, they were able to assemble the script for Notorious quickly and with minimal drama. The movie was successful upon release and became a foundational block in the reputations of Bergman and Grant. Their chemistry in combination with Hitchcock’s unerring sense of how to manipulate the audience allows this movie to work for modern audiences far better than many of its contemporary releases. Notorious has stood the test of time and deserves the labels of both a classic and one of Hitchcock’s most formidable early American productions.[/quote]
[quote]Notorious becomes increasingly tense as it races toward a climax in which Alicia’s life hangs in the balance. At this point, Devlin ceases to be a bystander and jumps into action. Although there’s suspense aplenty during the final 10 minutes, there are no fights or shoot-outs. (In fact, the movie is noteworthy for its almost complete lack of on-screen violence.) Devlin springs a meticulously thought-out trap that results in a bittersweet ending.
When it comes to visual presentation, Hitchcock enjoyed pushing the envelope throughout his career, whether toying with the “single-shot” approach of Rope, the voyeur’s p-o-v in Rear Window, the spinning vortex in Vertigo, or the seemingly bloody shower scene in Psycho. Here, there are two notable sequences. The first is the painstakingly choreographed kiss. The second is a brilliant tracking shot that starts high above a ballroom and dives down to a key grasped in Alicia’s hand. It’s ostentatious to the extent that it calls attention to itself but is effective nonetheless.
There are a few aspects of the story that seem dated and/or rushed. The romance between Alicia and Devlin develops too quickly and Alex, despite being involved in a dangerous and risky endeavor requiring great secrecy, is too trusting of his old/new love, especially with Devlin hanging around. Notorious also introduces a recurring theme in Hitchcock movies about the controlling influence of a mother figure. Although she’s no Mrs. Bates, Alex’s mother (Leopoldine Konstantin), has a less-than-benign influence on her son’s politics and actions.[/quote]
[quote]Even those approaching Megalopolis with an open mind and fully expecting to see an expensive and expansive art film may be disappointed by the result. The more I reflect on the movie, the more convinced I become that the things Coppola does well are dwarfed by missed opportunities and outright missteps. Like many filmmakers in the twilight of a great and productive career, Coppola deserves to make the film he wants to make. He has apparently been kicking Megalopolis around for about 40 years and appears to be satisfied with the end result. But what works for him may not work for many of those who go to see it and I’m in that group.[/quote]
[quote]Although Burton’s sensibilities are offbeat and his humor verges on the macabre, this outing is not inaccessible to the mainstream. There’s an oddball charm to the proceedings and Burton’s low-tech special effects (the film was made prior to the advent of CGI) add to the allure. Beetlejuice is never scary (not even a little bit) but it’s not intended to be. The MPAA gave the film a PG rating, indicating that, despite the “horror” elements, the film arrived with family-friendly sensibilities. Decades later, it has stood the test of time and is just as weirdly amusing as on the day it opened in theaters.[/quote]
[quote]Is Alien: Romulus the Alien film fans have been craving since Ripley, Hicks, and Newt entered their cryo-sleep in 1986? Perhaps. It contains most of the requisite elements and, if it doesn’t measure up to the high standard established by Scott (who has a producer credit) and Cameron (who provided suggestions to Alvarez), that’s only to be expected. It’s a good showcase for the xenomorph in its various permutations and a solid horror/suspense movie in its own right. The open question is whether it will reinvigorate the franchise after numerous misfires and cash-grabs. Only time (and the box office) will tell.[/quote]