zkot-839-452731
Joined Sep 2010
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews15
zkot-839-452731's rating
Beginning with my criteria for movies:
Do I believe the characters? Kay Graham, yes; the others, somewhat Do I care about the characters? Kay Graham, yes; the others, somewhat Do I believe the story? Somewhat Do I care about the story? Yes
Meryl Streep shows herself to be in an entirely different league than the rest of the production of "The Post". Her performance as Katherine Graham was nothing short of excellent, in contrast to an otherwise "OK" film. In particular, I appreciated the subtlety with which she showed Kay Graham's struggles in such a pivotal moment in her life, artfully displaying that character's attributes, strengths, and weaknesses as a person.
As for the rest of the production, what annoyed me most was the flagrant contemporary feel of the film, with little or no attempt to capture the spirit of the 70s. The other closely related films, "All the President's Men"; "Frost/Nixon"; and "Mark Felt" all had a 70s feel, by contrast.
In contrast with Streep's excellent, subtle performance, the Spielberg production was superficial, obvious, pretentious, and probably just a bit too much, with all the clever trivia that produces a visceral reaction, as opposed to a deeper reflection evoked by Streep.
Still, I did go back and watch All the President's Men again -- Tom Hanks's portrayal of Ben Bradlee is not bad, but I just couldn't stop thinking I was watching Tom Hanks play Ben Bradlee. Jason Robards, on the other hand, made me feel like I was actually watching Bradlee himself.
Young people in "The Post" had the strong look and feel of millennials, not boomers. In particular, the protest scenes looked and felt like mise en scène, with neo-hippies playacting, anxious for breaks in filming so they could run to their smart phones. By contrast, I did not have such feelings while watching another 2017 film, "Mark Felt".
In summary, Meryl Streep is clearly in another league than her contemporaries in The Post. I do like Spielberg & Hanks, but the former is so visceral, obvious, and pop -- perhaps I like him a bit less than I did before watching The Post.
And while Tom Hanks is likable, for years I've felt he was just a notch below such greats as Meryl Streep, Daniel Day-Lewis, Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Scarlett Johannson, and Denzel Washington. I consider Tom Hanks to be a very good actor, capable of some great performances, with the right story, script, direction, and supporting cast. With that in mind, I hope Hanks and Spielberg never work together again, as I feel their best collaboration is behind them.
Do I believe the characters? Kay Graham, yes; the others, somewhat Do I care about the characters? Kay Graham, yes; the others, somewhat Do I believe the story? Somewhat Do I care about the story? Yes
Meryl Streep shows herself to be in an entirely different league than the rest of the production of "The Post". Her performance as Katherine Graham was nothing short of excellent, in contrast to an otherwise "OK" film. In particular, I appreciated the subtlety with which she showed Kay Graham's struggles in such a pivotal moment in her life, artfully displaying that character's attributes, strengths, and weaknesses as a person.
As for the rest of the production, what annoyed me most was the flagrant contemporary feel of the film, with little or no attempt to capture the spirit of the 70s. The other closely related films, "All the President's Men"; "Frost/Nixon"; and "Mark Felt" all had a 70s feel, by contrast.
In contrast with Streep's excellent, subtle performance, the Spielberg production was superficial, obvious, pretentious, and probably just a bit too much, with all the clever trivia that produces a visceral reaction, as opposed to a deeper reflection evoked by Streep.
Still, I did go back and watch All the President's Men again -- Tom Hanks's portrayal of Ben Bradlee is not bad, but I just couldn't stop thinking I was watching Tom Hanks play Ben Bradlee. Jason Robards, on the other hand, made me feel like I was actually watching Bradlee himself.
Young people in "The Post" had the strong look and feel of millennials, not boomers. In particular, the protest scenes looked and felt like mise en scène, with neo-hippies playacting, anxious for breaks in filming so they could run to their smart phones. By contrast, I did not have such feelings while watching another 2017 film, "Mark Felt".
In summary, Meryl Streep is clearly in another league than her contemporaries in The Post. I do like Spielberg & Hanks, but the former is so visceral, obvious, and pop -- perhaps I like him a bit less than I did before watching The Post.
And while Tom Hanks is likable, for years I've felt he was just a notch below such greats as Meryl Streep, Daniel Day-Lewis, Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Scarlett Johannson, and Denzel Washington. I consider Tom Hanks to be a very good actor, capable of some great performances, with the right story, script, direction, and supporting cast. With that in mind, I hope Hanks and Spielberg never work together again, as I feel their best collaboration is behind them.
My criteria for movies:
Do I believe the characters? Yes. Do I care about the characters? Yes Do I believe the story? Yes Do I care about the story? Absolutely
I struggled a little through the first half of the movie, finding it tedious, slow, and a little difficult to become engaged in. As I watched, however, I realized that this is Morrissey we're talking about -- someone whom one of the indie/alternative radio stations in America constantly referred to as "Miserable Morrissey". Very slowly, but surely, everything began to make sense in Morrissey's environment and how his experience shaped him into one of the great lyricists of pop music: No way out of the drab working class existence, with a local music scene that says nothing to anybody about their lives, and simply a unique person trying to fit in to a type-cast world. From that backdrop, Morrissey finds some semblance of salvation in poetry and music, friends and family.
I suspect the low IMDB score -- currently 6.1 out of 10 -- may in part be due to the slow pace and the fact that Morrissey almost never smiles. But that's what's so good about the movie -- in the final analysis, it makes me a believer.
The Smiths-less soundtrack is excellent as is the cinematography, the latter adding to the gloomy, grey, drab feel of life in Manchester and its working class. The poetic element, where Morrissey and his friend frequently practice their poetic chops together complements the soundtrack perfectly well.
"England is mine" has its flaws here and there, but nothing so significant as to tarnish a very good, captivating movie. 8 of 10.
Do I believe the characters? Yes. Do I care about the characters? Yes Do I believe the story? Yes Do I care about the story? Absolutely
I struggled a little through the first half of the movie, finding it tedious, slow, and a little difficult to become engaged in. As I watched, however, I realized that this is Morrissey we're talking about -- someone whom one of the indie/alternative radio stations in America constantly referred to as "Miserable Morrissey". Very slowly, but surely, everything began to make sense in Morrissey's environment and how his experience shaped him into one of the great lyricists of pop music: No way out of the drab working class existence, with a local music scene that says nothing to anybody about their lives, and simply a unique person trying to fit in to a type-cast world. From that backdrop, Morrissey finds some semblance of salvation in poetry and music, friends and family.
I suspect the low IMDB score -- currently 6.1 out of 10 -- may in part be due to the slow pace and the fact that Morrissey almost never smiles. But that's what's so good about the movie -- in the final analysis, it makes me a believer.
The Smiths-less soundtrack is excellent as is the cinematography, the latter adding to the gloomy, grey, drab feel of life in Manchester and its working class. The poetic element, where Morrissey and his friend frequently practice their poetic chops together complements the soundtrack perfectly well.
"England is mine" has its flaws here and there, but nothing so significant as to tarnish a very good, captivating movie. 8 of 10.
Getting right into my movie/art criteria:
Do I believe the characters? Yes! Right down to the supporting cast and minor characters -- I can't think of one I thought was acting a part in a movie.
Do I care about the characters? 100% -- absolutely.
Do I believe the story? Without a doubt. So believable, I felt I was watching a documentary, that I was secretly following Ben Hall's bushrangers around, from the comfort & safety of my modern home.
Do I care about the story? Yes! I was sad that the movie ended.
I wanted to keep following the gang around -- I wanted to see even more, but the story ended; there was no more to be seen.
The Lengend of Ben Hall has joined my group of favorite outlaw movies, along with Unforgiven, American Gangster, and Josey Wales.
The difference between Ben Hall and those others, beyond the obvious change of scene is, it evokes a different feeling. The classic outlaw pics have a decidedly familiar feel and context. As such they are not too much of a stretch for the emotions. With Ben Hall, the people, the landscapes, the music -- it's all unusual, a bit strange, a bit of a challenge to relate to. Something new and unusual can be a bit unsettling, even daunting. I find it refreshing.
Ben Hall is a slow paced film. Scenes and situations have ample time to evolve. I find the slow pace appropriate to the intent of the film.
Finally, loved Jack Martin's rendition of an introverted Aussie Bandit -- I look forward to seeing his evolution as an actor.
Do I believe the characters? Yes! Right down to the supporting cast and minor characters -- I can't think of one I thought was acting a part in a movie.
Do I care about the characters? 100% -- absolutely.
Do I believe the story? Without a doubt. So believable, I felt I was watching a documentary, that I was secretly following Ben Hall's bushrangers around, from the comfort & safety of my modern home.
Do I care about the story? Yes! I was sad that the movie ended.
I wanted to keep following the gang around -- I wanted to see even more, but the story ended; there was no more to be seen.
The Lengend of Ben Hall has joined my group of favorite outlaw movies, along with Unforgiven, American Gangster, and Josey Wales.
The difference between Ben Hall and those others, beyond the obvious change of scene is, it evokes a different feeling. The classic outlaw pics have a decidedly familiar feel and context. As such they are not too much of a stretch for the emotions. With Ben Hall, the people, the landscapes, the music -- it's all unusual, a bit strange, a bit of a challenge to relate to. Something new and unusual can be a bit unsettling, even daunting. I find it refreshing.
Ben Hall is a slow paced film. Scenes and situations have ample time to evolve. I find the slow pace appropriate to the intent of the film.
Finally, loved Jack Martin's rendition of an introverted Aussie Bandit -- I look forward to seeing his evolution as an actor.
