Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Captain Phillips (2013) (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Captain Phillips (2013)
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 10-11-2013 11:51 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We got to see this at a screening during the Rocky Mountain Theatre Convention in Boise at the Edwards 9.

What a fine example of moviemaking. This show rivets you to your seat from start to finish. It's one of Tom Hanks' finest performances, and the "bad guy" is one of the baddest bad guys ever on the screen.

The best thing about the movie is, you know how it's going to end but you don't know how they're going to get there. And, when the big moment comes, it's not overblown and overdramatized like most Hollywood movies are....if this had been a Michael Bay film, the Captain would have been rescued following a gigantic explosion and/or a chase scene using small boats, or something.

I haven't been this satisfied by a movie in a long time. Highly recommended. 4.75 stars from me. (I would rate it a perfect 5 stars, but that would mean there have never been, nor will there ever be any better movies.)

We heard after the movie had ended that the "real" Captain Phillips was staying at the same hotel we were -- he was in Boise to speak at a Chamber of Commerce banquet there. Too bad the convention committee didn't know he was going to be in town, that would have been the perfect capper for the evening to have him show up.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 10-12-2013 02:18 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Did your head feel like it was in a paint shaker the entire movie?

 |  IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001


 - posted 10-12-2013 08:26 AM      Profile for Ken Lackner   Email Ken Lackner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not a huge fan of the shaky-cam, either, but the film was excellent enough that I was able to let that one go. I agree with everything Mike said. Except I didn't know how it was going to end.

 |  IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003


 - posted 10-12-2013 05:07 PM      Profile for Rick Raskin   Email Rick Raskin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Except I didn't know how it was going to end"

That's a joke, right?

 |  IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001


 - posted 10-12-2013 05:27 PM      Profile for Ken Lackner   Email Ken Lackner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Nope. I was not familiar with the story upon which the film was based. I mean, I assumed he was going to be rescued. But that's not necessarily a given. Skinny could have shot him.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 10-12-2013 05:54 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have no clue how it ends either and have never heard of anyone named Captain Phillips until I saw an ad for this movie (without sound because I mute commercials). And even then I thought that was perhaps the silliest title I'd seen for a movie in a while.

Shaky cam dates movies. People from the future will look back on our primitive asses and wonder how we even survived doing idiotic things like shakey cam. It's a fad just like those jeans that unzip at the knees from long ago. I dare anyone to defend this fad. Come at me, bro! Other fads for which we will be judged: hashtags, minimalism in graphic design and of course the fauxhawk hairstyle.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 10-12-2013 08:49 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Brad Miller
Did your head feel like it was in a paint shaker the entire movie?
There was some shaky-cam but it was toned down. Nothing like the puke-fest that was United 93, at least. It didn't bother me. We saw the movie on a mid-sized (40' or so) screen.

quote: Joe Redifer
I have no clue how it ends either and have never heard of anyone named Captain Phillips until I saw an ad for this movie (without sound because I mute commercials). And even then I thought that was perhaps the silliest title I'd seen for a movie in a while
I'm kind of surprised that there are people who didn't know about this event, since it was such big news (at least in this country) in 2009.

On the other hand, I guess I shouldn't be surprised because when we showed "Titanic," we had patrons who thought the whole movie, including the sinking of the ship, was fiction.

I agree the title could have been more grabby.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 10-12-2013 09:03 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I probably have heard of whatever story this is based on, but I don't recall any names.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 10-13-2013 12:52 AM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That would be me as well. I had no idea who "Captain Phillips" was until I saw the movie trailer.

I must disagree with you about the "silliest movie title" however. That distinction must go to Final Destination 2. (Also Final Destination 3, 4 and 5)

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 10-13-2013 03:35 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
So yes there was lots of unnecessary camera shaking. Particularly in the beginning, there was absolutely no reason for it. Once they were at sea, it worked pretty well because they weren't particularly over-shaking the camera when the camera would've been shaking anyway.

Overall this movie was much better than I was expecting. Once it got going, perhaps 15 minutes in, it held my attention the entire time without dead spots. The no-name pirates did a very good job with their roles (at least I'm assuming this was their first movie to act in). The sound mix was also well done.

3.5 out of 5 (1/2 star deducted for unnecessary camera shaking in parts)

 |  IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001


 - posted 10-13-2013 12:16 PM      Profile for Ken Lackner   Email Ken Lackner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Agreed with Brad. No need for shakey cam on steady land. At sea, it works. Sound was fantastic. I want the soundtrack, if there is one.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'm kind of surprised that there are people who didn't know about this event, since it was such big news (at least in this country) in 2009.
That would require one to actually pay attention to the news. Some of us intentionally do as little of that as possible.

I remember there was a slew of pirate incidents a few years back. I did not know any specifics, and I certainly didn't know the names of those involved. I knew this was based on one of those incidents, but like I said, without knowing specifics I did not know how it was going to end.

 |  IP: Logged

Stu Jamieson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 524
From: Buccan, Qld, Australia
Registered: Jan 2008


 - posted 10-26-2013 08:32 AM      Profile for Stu Jamieson   Email Stu Jamieson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Paul Greengrass is the king of gritty realism. With his shaky cam style he is an expert at portraying the moment of chaos and making us feel like we're actually there. It's a risky film making method, it can go horribly wrong in unskilled hands, but with his Jason Bourne films and, most prominently, United 93, Greengrass demonstrated his mastery of the technique. His skill is likewise demonstrated in Captain Phillips.

Captain Phillips has much in common with United 93: they both depict true, well known stories; they are both about terrorism (of a sort); and they are both shot in Greengrass' gritty realist style. But the most interesting thing about the pair are their differences: Captain Phillips has a happy ending (for most); and, unlike United 93, it stars a big name actor in Tom Hanks. Greengrass uses these differences to his advantage.

Using a big name actor such as Hanks works in this film as Capt. Richard Phillips was a headline name at the time and so the inevitable spotlight drawn to Hanks is appropriate. Compare this to the events of United 93 where everybody was anonymous, employing no-name actors (and indeed some non-actors) played to the strengths of that film.

Because Captain Phillips has a known happy ending, we are spared the ever present dread which persisted in United 93. This affords the audience some elation at the end rather than the sombre, crushing reality of the latter. But Hanks' excellent measured performance keeps the end celebrations in check. His performance is an exercise in desperation and humility; emerging in the end a traumatised individual rather than a triumphant American hero. In so doing Greengrass foregoes the American flag waving which could so easily have destroyed this film.

Giving us glimpses into the backgrounds of the Somalian pirates, Greengrass sidesteps the cardboard villain caricatures of lesser films. Aside from one moment of unnecessary preachiness where he underlines the toil of Somalian poverty (that message was already coming through loud and clear), Greengrass delivers a film which admirably keeps it's moral tone in balance.

9 out of 10

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 10-26-2013 01:56 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Paul Greengrass is the king of gritty realism. With his shaky cam style he is an expert at portraying the moment of chaos and making us feel like we're actually there. It's a risky film making method, it can go horribly wrong in unskilled hands, but with his Jason Bourne films and, most prominently, United 93, Greengrass demonstrated his mastery of the technique.
Disagree! Shaky cam does NOT make me feel like I'm there nor does it feel like "gritty realism". Well it might if I had an extremely severe case of Parkinsons going on 100% of the time. It's extremely distracting. It's also a fad. The Bourne movies were horrible. A friend and I were making fun of it throughout the entire movie when we watched part 2 or 3. If you need shaky cam to "immerse" the audience in the situation, you are an incompetent director/DP.

Didn't know Greengrass directed this. I definitely won't see it now. I avoid the diarrhea he squirts out and releases as movies for that very reason. What a horrible human being he must be. I bet his family hates him and his dog pisses in his shoes at least once a week.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 10-26-2013 03:31 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I will say that the shaky cam is FAR less shaky in this movie than it was in the Bourne movies. At least 75% less, I would guess. At least, it didn't make me go "wow, this picture is shaky" all the time like I did with the Bourne movies. (I never saw United 93.)

That might have been partly because I got into this story better than I did with the Bourne movies. Either way...I'm no fan of shaky-cam and it didn't bug me on this movie.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 10-26-2013 04:06 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm going to have to agree with Joe on this one, but within this is also a disagreement. Read along.

Bourne Supremacy

United 93

Now read my post here regarding Cloverfield. So basically Phillips marks the second time I've ever actually seen the shaky cam thing work. Its worth a viewing Joe, but I do wish people keeping up with who directs what would follow my request on this comment. [Razz]

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.