TNSVR
Joined Sep 2015
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.
Reviews19
TNSVR's rating
Mature and intelligent audiences seek well-written plots, fine drama, skilled acting, and solid directing.
The low votes are unwarranted for Alto Knights, my guess for two main reasons:
* People can't handle serious drama; they're weaned on action films with comic characters and no dialogue * Don't care for Robert De Niro's personal politics * Don't understand De Niro's dual-casting * Don't like real-life mob stories.
The first is a complaint seen with ever increasing frequency these days, as well-articulated by Martin Scorsese and doesn't need elaboration. No comment is required on De Niro's politics as it relates to his work: if people don't like his views, leave that out of a review.
The choice of De Niro's dual role is the most puzzling. He's one of the greatest actors we've ever seen, therefore we don't need to see him stretching his acting chops in this way. At times it confuses the plot, as the brain has to decipher who he is in the particular scene. Glasses and prosthetic noses aren't enough. De Niro's strength is in portraying Frank as someone close to De Niro's own personality contrasted with his portrayal of Vito with almost a Joe Pesci imitation, much faster and quicker in his movements and speech (even higher tone of voice) than when playing Costello.
My biggest complaint, however, is the too-fast pace of the film, and that's wholly down to directing (and possibly editing). Whether the writer Nicholas Pileggi intended his screenplay to be more measured - it deserved 3 hours not a condensed 2 - is unclear because of the directing/editing final product.
The audience is thus thrown right into a story it is assumes we all know in granular detail. Except most people don't, because over the decades these stories have been represented on film and in print individually. And that reinforces the point: there's so much going on in this film that each main boss is worthy of his own film script. The film without doubt deserved an introduction, background, slower scene transition, and clearer narrative. Levinson instead instantly flashes one onto another rapid-fire scene followed by another and another then another, all with the assumption we can follow (knowing the real story) and decipher the quiet cryptic-at-times narration by De Niro's Costello character - not De Niro's fault (his voice is calming) but the responsibility of the screenwriter.
Example (not a spoiler): Vito meets a woman marries the woman, and for no discernible reason is divorcing the woman, in a rapid-fire flash of connected scenes that are over and done with in seemingly 10 minutes. Where's the context and background? The who, what, where, and why?
This film would have *significantly* benefitted from a text introduction, e.g., "In 19__ in New York, two young friends grew up together to control Mafia industry over X. One ran gambling side; the other, drugs. This is the true story of how they went from best friends, to nemeses, which led to government involvement in eradicating mob influence in the entire US, and a the major break-up of their control. This is their true story of the greater whole." Or similar.
Instead we're left to guess who is who, who's connected to whom, why person A turned on person B, how someone went to prison and came out within one 2 minute scene merely narrated, etc.
The sets are superb, and beautifully accurate to the time. Deborah Messing is terrific as Frank's wife and nails the elegant 1950s traditional wealthy wife to perfection. Kathrine Narducci (playing Vito's wife) doesn't get enough screen time and ought to have had more. The rest of the cast are authentically good, well cast, and live up to the genre (Goodfellas/Casino/Once Upon A Time In America/Sopranos).
In sum, if you enjoy mob history movies, you'll enjoy Alto Knights - but you will want it to be better paced. You may strain to hear the narration and De Niro's visual portrayal of which man for half the film. But don't believe the low votes: judge for yourself. It deserves a good 6.8-7.
The low votes are unwarranted for Alto Knights, my guess for two main reasons:
* People can't handle serious drama; they're weaned on action films with comic characters and no dialogue * Don't care for Robert De Niro's personal politics * Don't understand De Niro's dual-casting * Don't like real-life mob stories.
The first is a complaint seen with ever increasing frequency these days, as well-articulated by Martin Scorsese and doesn't need elaboration. No comment is required on De Niro's politics as it relates to his work: if people don't like his views, leave that out of a review.
The choice of De Niro's dual role is the most puzzling. He's one of the greatest actors we've ever seen, therefore we don't need to see him stretching his acting chops in this way. At times it confuses the plot, as the brain has to decipher who he is in the particular scene. Glasses and prosthetic noses aren't enough. De Niro's strength is in portraying Frank as someone close to De Niro's own personality contrasted with his portrayal of Vito with almost a Joe Pesci imitation, much faster and quicker in his movements and speech (even higher tone of voice) than when playing Costello.
My biggest complaint, however, is the too-fast pace of the film, and that's wholly down to directing (and possibly editing). Whether the writer Nicholas Pileggi intended his screenplay to be more measured - it deserved 3 hours not a condensed 2 - is unclear because of the directing/editing final product.
The audience is thus thrown right into a story it is assumes we all know in granular detail. Except most people don't, because over the decades these stories have been represented on film and in print individually. And that reinforces the point: there's so much going on in this film that each main boss is worthy of his own film script. The film without doubt deserved an introduction, background, slower scene transition, and clearer narrative. Levinson instead instantly flashes one onto another rapid-fire scene followed by another and another then another, all with the assumption we can follow (knowing the real story) and decipher the quiet cryptic-at-times narration by De Niro's Costello character - not De Niro's fault (his voice is calming) but the responsibility of the screenwriter.
Example (not a spoiler): Vito meets a woman marries the woman, and for no discernible reason is divorcing the woman, in a rapid-fire flash of connected scenes that are over and done with in seemingly 10 minutes. Where's the context and background? The who, what, where, and why?
This film would have *significantly* benefitted from a text introduction, e.g., "In 19__ in New York, two young friends grew up together to control Mafia industry over X. One ran gambling side; the other, drugs. This is the true story of how they went from best friends, to nemeses, which led to government involvement in eradicating mob influence in the entire US, and a the major break-up of their control. This is their true story of the greater whole." Or similar.
Instead we're left to guess who is who, who's connected to whom, why person A turned on person B, how someone went to prison and came out within one 2 minute scene merely narrated, etc.
The sets are superb, and beautifully accurate to the time. Deborah Messing is terrific as Frank's wife and nails the elegant 1950s traditional wealthy wife to perfection. Kathrine Narducci (playing Vito's wife) doesn't get enough screen time and ought to have had more. The rest of the cast are authentically good, well cast, and live up to the genre (Goodfellas/Casino/Once Upon A Time In America/Sopranos).
In sum, if you enjoy mob history movies, you'll enjoy Alto Knights - but you will want it to be better paced. You may strain to hear the narration and De Niro's visual portrayal of which man for half the film. But don't believe the low votes: judge for yourself. It deserves a good 6.8-7.
Michael Keaton produced, directed, and stars in this *superb* thriller
Why has this film been completely overlooked? We didn't hear of it, saw no advertising, and no entertainment outlets seemed to have promoted it. The plot is unlike any other film, which is a true rarity these days, and Keaton produced, directed, and stars in a powerful, clever, twist on a murder. It is almost Greek in its tragedy and pathos, and Keaton draws you in with his powerful, calm, highly realistic portrayal of a professional contract killer who faces a rapid decline due to a devastating neurological diagnoses.
Michael Keaton is such an underestimated actor, and this film - Knox Goes Away - is a phenomenal platform for his skill portraying John Knox. Because it went under the radar, we don't even realise Al Pacino has an important supporting role as a sympathetic and kind father figure who happens to be a murder-for-hire ringleader of sort, Marcia Gay Harden has a supporting role as Keaton's ex-wife, and James Marsden does a great job playing the estranged and suddenly reunited-by-fate adult son Miles Knox. The perfectly scored jazz music throughout makes it all the more bittersweet.
This is such a terrific film which will leave you wondering where it will go at every step. Keaton's knocked it out of the park, he needs to do more directing, and for crying out loud the Academy should have recognised his acting and directing skills.
It's absolutely worth watching, and it's badly in need of intelligent audiences spreading the word.
Bravo Michael; excellent.
Why has this film been completely overlooked? We didn't hear of it, saw no advertising, and no entertainment outlets seemed to have promoted it. The plot is unlike any other film, which is a true rarity these days, and Keaton produced, directed, and stars in a powerful, clever, twist on a murder. It is almost Greek in its tragedy and pathos, and Keaton draws you in with his powerful, calm, highly realistic portrayal of a professional contract killer who faces a rapid decline due to a devastating neurological diagnoses.
Michael Keaton is such an underestimated actor, and this film - Knox Goes Away - is a phenomenal platform for his skill portraying John Knox. Because it went under the radar, we don't even realise Al Pacino has an important supporting role as a sympathetic and kind father figure who happens to be a murder-for-hire ringleader of sort, Marcia Gay Harden has a supporting role as Keaton's ex-wife, and James Marsden does a great job playing the estranged and suddenly reunited-by-fate adult son Miles Knox. The perfectly scored jazz music throughout makes it all the more bittersweet.
This is such a terrific film which will leave you wondering where it will go at every step. Keaton's knocked it out of the park, he needs to do more directing, and for crying out loud the Academy should have recognised his acting and directing skills.
It's absolutely worth watching, and it's badly in need of intelligent audiences spreading the word.
Bravo Michael; excellent.
This story could have been a good film given the historical facts at its foundation. The story deserves telling.
However, it is atrociously acted, terribly scripted, and the accents are outrageously appalling. Frankly it looks like a Hallmark TV film with people pulled off the street to play a part. The exception is Linus Roache but he is completely squandered due to the dreadful scriptwriting.
And whilst it's tempting to (yawn) boringly portray every single young German or Vichy-French man or woman as perpetually angry and ready to kill every person they meet on the spot, that's a demonstration of how awful the research - and actual understanding of human beings in all history - was. (For contract, see Sean Connery's character in 'Hunt for Red October': human, relatable, and with emotions and empathy, because Tom Clancy could write.)
However, it is atrociously acted, terribly scripted, and the accents are outrageously appalling. Frankly it looks like a Hallmark TV film with people pulled off the street to play a part. The exception is Linus Roache but he is completely squandered due to the dreadful scriptwriting.
And whilst it's tempting to (yawn) boringly portray every single young German or Vichy-French man or woman as perpetually angry and ready to kill every person they meet on the spot, that's a demonstration of how awful the research - and actual understanding of human beings in all history - was. (For contract, see Sean Connery's character in 'Hunt for Red October': human, relatable, and with emotions and empathy, because Tom Clancy could write.)