Young American dancer
Susie Bannion arrives in 1970s Berlin to audition for the world-renowned Helena Markos
Dance Co. When she vaults to the role of lead dancer, the woman she replaces
breaks down and accuses the company's female directors of witchcraft.
Meanwhile, an inquisitive psychotherapist and a member of the troupe uncover
dark and sinister secrets as they probe the depths of the studio's hidden underground
chambers.
Director: Luca Guadagnino
Cast: Dakota Johnson,
Tilda Swinton, Mia Goth, Chloë Grace Moretz, Angela Winkler, Renée Soutendijk,
Ingrid Caven, Sylvie Testud
Rated R for horror
violence, disturbing images, language, drug use and brief graphic nudity
Genres: Fantasy, Horror,
Mystery
Runtime: 2h 32min
Review:
Remaking Suspiria was an
interesting choice and one that could have gone terribly wrong.The fact that a high end director like Luca
Guadagnino decided to undertake the task made the idea of a remake interesting
to say the least.Luca Guadagnino
decision to reimagine as oppose to simply remake it was a wise one.Fans of the original techincolor fever dream
may not enjoy this version for a variety of reasons.Guadagnino ditches the highly stylized
visuals and delivers a dense Polanski type horror film.It’s engaging and always interesting but it
feels overly complex and obsessed with itself at the same time.There are plenty of sequences that will leave
a lasting impression such as an early dance sequence which is beautiful, brutal
and vicious.Guadagnino talent as a
director is on full display but at times it does seem to lack forward
momentum.To say it’s a slow moving film
is a bit of an understatement, the film moves at a glacial pace and it feels
every bit of a it’s 2 and half hour run time.It can be a detriment but there is so much to appreciate in terms of
craftsmanship that you can enjoy it multiple levels especially once the final
reveal uncorks an insane sequence.
Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for The Nutcracker and the Four Realms and Bohemian Rhapsody.
Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.
First on the docket: Christmas comes early with The Nutcracker and the Four Realms.
On Christmas Eve, a grieving young lady is transported to a mysterious world where her help is needed.
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms wants to know two things: How soon is too soon to go full Christmas? and: How is it possible to go so wrong with this story, this cast, and the full weight of Disney in your corner?
We'll start with the positives, because there are a few. The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is a spectacular production with gorgeous sets and costumes, and the CGI is astonishing throughout, avoiding those missteps that have become common in even the priciest productions. The cast is top notch and mostly seems to be having fun despite the poor material. James Newton Howard's lush score perfectly compliments familiar excerpts from Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite. All of those things ordinarily would keep the Four Realms spreading its cinematic cheer all the way through the new year, but...
...the Nutcracker and the Four Realms is a lousy movie. All the bells and whistles in the world can't offset a paper-thin story, an easy-to-spot twist, and a mysterious world that looks beautiful but feels more mundane than magical. An underused Helen Mirren is the only principal who seems to recognize just how badly it's all going to turn out, and she appears uncomfortable every second of her too-little screen time. The movie runs well shy of two hours, but feels very long indeed. Setting itself up as a new family holiday tradition, the Nutcracker and the Four Realms is likely to disappear from cinemas and from the memories of those who see it long before ol' Santa slides on down the chimney.
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms clocks in at 99 minutes and is rated PG for "some mild peril."
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is a criminal waste of some wonderful resources.
Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms gets three.
Fangirl points: Matthew Macfadyen! Jack Whitehall! Gustavo Dudamel! The divine Misty Copeland!
Next up, the much-anticipated Queen biopic Bohemian Rhapsody.
The story of one of the world's most revered rock n' roll bands, from inception through their performance at 1985's Live Aid.
Well, dear reader(s), as I've mentioned a time or twelve, I make every effort not to read reviews prior to writing my own, to ensure nothing outside of the film itself informs my opinion. Having said that, I spend a LOT of time online, and there's no avoiding headlines and friends' posts all the time. From what I've seen, it appears fans absolutely love Bohemian Rhapsody, and critics are somewhat less enthusiastic. I understand both sides, and I'll talk a little about each, but mostly I want you to know why I come down firmly on the side of the former.
Bohemian Rhapsody is less a grittily-realistic biography than it is a loving tribute to Freddie Mercury. While his less-flattering diva moments aren't entirely missing, they're easily outweighed by the affection with which the film presents him. The surviving members of Queen come off very well, as people who live to tell their own stories tend to do.
Though the trailers promised to tell "his story," Bohemian Rhapsody doesn't delve too deeply into Mercury's difficulties with a disapproving father, nor the painful reality of being a gay man in the 70s and 80s. It's all there, but none of it is really the focal point it might have been in a Very Serious Film releasing into awards season. It feels like filmmakers backed off a bit for fear of alienating the broader audience for which they clearly are aiming, which results in some unfortunate missed opportunities, but a happier film overall. Bohemian Rhapsody navigated a tumultuous road to the big screen, so of course there are those who feel it would have been better served by other talent that had been attached along the way. Personally, I think it does beautifully with the talent it has. Though they aren't necessarily A-List (yet), I am more than a little familiar with Rami Malik, Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, and Joe Mazzello, yet I never saw anyone other than Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon up on the screen, so effectively do they embody their characters. The supporting cast is equally extraordinary. If the film is guilty of glossing over some of the lower moments in the band's and Mercury's histories, it more than makes up for it with iconic performances, perfectly mimicked by four fantastic actors. Choosing to end on a high note--with the rousing Live Aid performance--might be considered contrived, but it's a fitting tribute to a legend and that's good enough for me.
Bohemian Rhapsody runs 134 minutes (could have gone another 134 with no complaints here) and is rated PG13 for "thematic elements, suggestive material, drug content, and language."
Bohemian Rhapsody may be a less-than-factual biopic, but it's a joyful tribute to one of the greatest bands of all time, and I enjoyed every minute. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Bohemian Rhapsody gets nine.
Fangirl points: Gwilym Lee!! Rami Malek! Tom Hollander! Aidan Gillen! (This might be my favorite cast ever!)
Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for the only (*sob*) Gary Oldman movie I'll see in 2018: Hunter Killer.
Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.
When a coup attempt within the Russian government threatens to start World War III, it's up to Gerard Butler to save the world...as it so often is.
Well, dear reader(s), I flippin' LOVED this movie. I'm going to make fun of it a little, or maybe a lot, because it deserves it and because that's what I do with things I love (just ask the Wheeling Nailers), but let nothing give you any impression other than that it has instantly earned a spot in my year-end top ten from which it cannot be unseated.
Hunter Killer has so much testosterone it'll put hair on your chest. An almost exclusively male cast spends a great deal of time posturing and exchanging steely glances to mark territory and convey Man Understanding. Coupled with a whole lotta submarines, torpedoes, and missiles...well...Hunter Killer is basically a Sharpie penis that somebody drew on the forehead of passed-out-drunk Hollywood. By no means should any of that be construed as an insult--on the contrary, it is the very reason I still drag out to the cinema instead of waiting for Netflix--but...well...forewarned is forearmed.
If you require further justification for shelling out your big-screen bucks for Hunter Killer, the film features exquisite photography...air, sea, and land. The movie looks just glorious, and the locations and scenery are spectacular. Battles and effects and everything else about the picture are huge, so definitely see it on the biggest screen you can find. Though it's silly and often predictable, Hunter Killer maintains a genuine tension throughout which helps hold interest even through way too many kumbaya moments. As an added bonus, Gerard Butler utters classic lines such as, "When somebody's shooting at you, you know their intentions!" and Gary Oldman chews the scenery with relish. A couple weird little notes: Though everything on the American side is state of the art, the Russian technology appears to have been dragged kicking and screaming from decades long past, and Russian sailors look like they've only just escaped from a 60s Broadway musical. In only their own company, Russians generally speak Russian (no subtitles) but every now and again they're conversing in English with no reason for it other than clearly the filmmakers decided that these were the bits that we, the viewers, really needed to understand. Would have worked better to go all or nothing with accented English or subtitles. Oh, and can we get a dialect coach to teach Linda Cardellini how to pronounce "nuclear" correctly, please?
Hunter Killer clocks in at a quick 122 minutes and is rated R for "violence and some language."
Hunter Killer won't tax your brain overmuch, but you'll be hard pressed to have more fun at the cinema.
Of a possible nine Weasleys, Hunter Killer gets eight.
On the heels of their six-time Academy Award®-winning smash, La La Land,
Oscar®-winning director Damien Chazelle and star Ryan Gosling reteam for
Universal Pictures’ First Man, the riveting story of NASA’s mission to land a
man on the moon, focusing on Neil Armstrong and the years 1961-1969. A
visceral, first-person account, based on the book by James R. Hansen, the movie
will explore the sacrifices and the cost—on Armstrong and on the nation—of one
of the most dangerous missions in history.
Director: Damien Chazelle
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Corey
Stoll, Ciarán Hinds, Christopher Abbott, Patrick Fugit, Lukas Haas
Release Date: October 12, 2018
Genres: Biography , Drama , History
Rated PG-13 for some thematic content involving peril, and brief strong
language
Runtime: 2h 21 min
Review:
First Man is an incredible achievement on multiple levels.Damien Chazelle’s film is a technical
achievement as it puts you in the ships and modules on a visceral and
claustrophobic level.All of the flight
sequences are just trilling but that shouldn’t come as a surprise considering
Chazelle’s talent.The quieter moments,
there are plenty, are just as engaging thanks to a pair of wonderful
performances from Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy.Gosling’s turn is understated but you can sense the simmering emotions
behind his eyes.Neil Armstrong is
always guarded but driven by past pain as portrayed by Gosling.Claire Foy is just as strong throughout; so
much so that you wished the film spent a bit more time with her but the film is
focused on Neil.It’s an introspective
yet epic tale about the man who achieved such a landmark moment in human
history.The flag controversy is
thoroughly overblown as the film couldn’t display American achievement anymore
than it already does.First Man is an
engaging character study that tries to get us into this pioneer’s headspace and
does it with class.
