I just watched the S1E1 show of the 2004 Battlestar Galactica, called “33.” I confirm that it is one of the best television episodes I’ve ever seen.
I had forgotten how much “shaky cam” is being used. There is no scene that does not involve the camera moving, even if it’s slightly so. For this episode, that direction is perfect.
So many plot elements are here: Helo on Caprica killing Centurions and meeting new Sixes and Eights; Baltar and Six heatedly arguing about God; Billy and the President with their running count of survivors; two Viper pilots shoot down a civilian ship.
It’s all so perfect. The strain of the crew is evident in all their faces. In the first half of the episode, Kara makes a joke about Boomer, saying “that’s because she’s a Cylon.”
Since I enjoyed the latest collaboration between Martin McDonagh (writer/director), Colin Farrell, and Brendan Gleeson, I decided to go back to their first effort. In Bruges is a movie I’ve heard a lot about, and I’m sorry I didn’t give it a look sooner.
Just like in The Banshees of Inisheerin, I found wonderful performances, tight dialog, and a suspenseful story. Bruges is more conventional, being a story about hit men and their job-related struggles.
Along with the two main characters, there are quality supporting roles for Ralph Fiennes and Clémence Poésy (that French girl in Harry Potter movies).
As this movie was actually filmed in Bruges (a city in Belgium), the countryside is replaced with the streets of a quaint European town. I don’t want to reveal too much about the twists and turns of the delightful story, but there are many Chekov’s Guns introduced that pay off in spectacular fashion as the movie progresses.
I loved this movie… I loved it a lot. In Bruges is in my Top 100 Favorite Movies list (with apologies to Surf’s Up).
A three-hour movie about a lonely widow doing her daily chores, Jeanne Dielman is often in the mix for best movie ever made. As a primary example of the genre known as slow cinema, you really have to see it for yourself.
The movie explores three days in Jeanne’s life in excruciating detail. We see her wash the dishes… from the back. Shots like this would be a couple of seconds in any other movie, but several minutes are spent here. The camera is fixed and there are no closeups or reaction shots. Everything is orthogonal; like a Wes Anderson movie with no pans or zooms.
The first day establishes Jeanne’s routine, beginning in the afternoon. She answers the door and meets a dapper gentleman. They go together into a room and close the door. Later, he pays her some money and she dutifully places it in a tureen in the dining room.
This movie was hailed to be a feminist achievement upon release. Jeanne’s sex worker afternoons are not shown behind closed doors, but we see her cooking dinner and taking a bath in languorous single takes. Along with the writer/director Chantal Akerman, reportedly the entire crew was women.
As the first day ends, the second day begins, and before the end of that day we see tiny cracks in Jeanne’s routines. She drops a fork. She overcooks the potatoes. She looks confused, like she forgot why she entered a room. She sits at the dining room table, unmoving, for a time.
Yes, something shocking happens in the third day. I won’t describe that here, because it won’t mean the same unless you’ve spent hours watching Jeanne’s daily life.
I suspect that proponents of this movie as the best ever argue that it is a movie experience that must be watched all the way through. It is completely a product of the craft of cinema. No other medium can achieve what it does.
I can’t say it’s my favorite movie, but it certainly is an amazing cinematic accomplishment. I give it my highest rating, and encourage any real fans of the movies to watch it.
Let me first say that I’m a big Haim fan. Both of the band and the girls. Paul Thomas Anderson described this movie as a “friends and family production” since it includes all the Haim family, sisters and parents, and some of PTA’s family as well. The girls used to babysit Cooper Hoffman, son of Philip Michael Thomas. All of these associations show on the screen in the ways the actors effortlessly play their parts.
It’s a coming-of-age story, and that’s easy to see from the beginning. Most such stories don’t have much of a plot, but this one is a doozy. Be prepared for wacky performances from several mighty actors: Bradley Cooper, Tom Waits, Sean Penn.
Alana Haim’s motion picture acting debut is terrific. The will-they-won’t-they that she dances with Cooper Hoffman is delightful to watch. The rest of Alana’s family play their parts well, and we’re even treated to a song-filled Jewish dinner on Shabbos.
A period movie that depicts a time you remember… for this movie 1974… can be hit or miss. Most of the time, there are key locations or set dressings or old songs that try to evoke the period. They usually do this with middling success, as you are able to pick them apart since you were there.
Sometimes a movie gets it pitch perfect, and that’s not only wonderful to see, but really feels like you time traveled and you’re living it again with new characters. Almost scary. The songs are deep cuts and wisely chosen. Every detail you can imagine is here, and it’s lots of fun.
To sum up, I love this movie. I think maybe it’ll be on my Top 100 list soon.
Like many comic readers, I hold the original run of Neil Gaiman’s Sandman in a very special exalted place. As I followed the progress of this particular version, I was excited to see that Gaiman was involved with the writing and casting in a big way. My faith in him knows no limits.
I haven’t read the early Sandman issues since their original run starting in 1989, but many of my memories still remain. To say that this version is not like the comics in every way seems to be no surprise. There will always be differences when a story is adapted to another platform.
Like the Watchmen movie before it, Sandman is squarely in the spot that says, “They can’t adapt this for the screen.” However, I was wrong. I wish I had more clever phrases to add to my review, but I’ll just say that these episodes were exquisitely beautiful.
For the comics readers, some scenes are taken directly from printed panels, and that’s always a wonderful feeling. The casting of many of the characters produced familiar looking faces, for example with The Corinthian or Cain and Abel.
Someone said that Tom Sturridge looks like he was engineered in a laboratory to play this part. He could not be more perfect.
Some of the casting choices bring new flavor to the characters, such as Constantine, Death, and Lucifer. No complaints from me; these are marvelous choices.
To sum up, I give this my highest recommendation, both to readers of the comics and those lucky new viewers. It took thirty years, but it was worth it. How often can you say that about something you love?
I have a long history with this movie, even though I just saw it for the first time. I noted Emma Stone in the cast, who I like a lot, and was sure she’d do a great job. Andrew Garfield seemed way too pretty to be Peter Parker, so I thought he would be terrible. Mostly, I had no desire to watch yet another telling of Peter’s origin.
So here we are ten years later. I’ve seen Andrew Garfield in a couple of movies, and he has impressed me. Particularly, I saw him on an Actors’ Roundtable video and he seemed really into his craft. I still thought he was too pretty to play Parker.
This telling of Peter’s story has many differences from the Tobey Maguire version. Gwen (the original, in the comics) instead of Mary Jane, adding Captain Stacy, no J. Jonah, the involvement of Oscorp in Spider-Man’s origins, and the manufactured web shooters, showing Peter’s science aptitude.
I like these changes. The first and only time I wrote to Marvel comics was when Gwen Stacy died. (I was terrified that I’d have to watch that again in this movie, but it wasn’t in this one.) Mary Jane was like a trashy slut compared to Our Lady of the Gwen Stacy back in those days. Anyway, I was right, Emma Stone was perfect.
Garfield impressed me (again) with his acting job here. He was awkward, conflicted, and maladjusted with his new family (Martin Sheen and Sally Field are a great pair to play anything, they are terrific here). We learn more about Peter’s father also, which may be from the Ultimates comics, which I haven’t read.
At any rate, Garfield was absolutely excellent in the part, both as Peter discovering his abilities and his girlfriend, and as Spider-Man constantly cracking jokes like the OG Stan Lee version. His performance made me sorry I hadn’t watched this sooner.
So many other things to recommend this movie… they used practical effects whenever possible, which is always a great touch in these kinds of movies. Rhys Ifans was truly tragic as the Lizard, and gave another great performance.
Garfield is definitely my favorite onscreen Spider-Man now (sorry Tom Holland). I’ll be adding this movie to my Top 100 Favorites list.
Yes, that’s right, I’m 18 years too late, but I finally watched this flick all the way through. I had seen it many times on cable, but always just this part or that part. It is amazing.
I chuckled quite a bit all the way through, but I have to admit that the line that nearly killed me was “I am in a glass case of emotion!” I’m happy to say that the ending was satisfying, if not stellar. It’s hard to write an ending for a movie like this.
The best part was that every character had their own schtick, and each one got at least one scene to shine. Except maybe Seth Rogen. The second bit that almost killed me was the dog talking to the bears. They each had a lot of personality.
I think it’s possible that this could make my Top 100 Favorite Movies. I’ll have to consider that for a bit. I’m tired from laughing right now.
Definitely one of my favorites. Every Shakespeare play/movie I see in full for the first time has quotes that I’ve heard for years, but Hamlet not only has the best, they are so much more meaningful in context. Instead of a brooding king fighting destiny, Hamlet seeks revenge and plays at being mad.
The play within a play is genius. Laurence Olivier is masterful as director and actor as well. The movie has a stark impressionistic look which is fascinating. Much like Romeo & Juliet, the engine of the plot creates detours and contrived situations to run up the body count.
Evidently Shakespeare didn’t think it was a real tragedy unless almost everybody ends up dead. (I am also convinced that he had a side hustle involving investments in poison makers.) When I redo my list, this will be one of my Top 100 Favorite Movies.
This is not your typical Batman “origin” story. For one thing, all that is backstory and flashbacks for this movie. We find a Bruce Wayne that is a truly tortured soul. No happy-go-lucky playboy here. Robert Pattinson plays him with a thousand-yard-stare that makes you feel sorry for the poor rich guy. He’s got issues.
The pacing and music in this movie are absolutely excellent. They have a languorous beauty and makes this into an epic tale. It’s not really a superhero movie, and really, Batman is not a superhero. He’s a detective, and this is a crime story, and that’s where it should be.
I was very pleasantly surprised by this movie and I eventually became entranced by its look and feel. I won’t give away the ending, but I’m happy to see Batman do more for Gotham than swat away the crazy villains. This caped crusader seems to really care about the people he defends.
i quote myself. 