Search
Search results
The Captain Class: The Hidden Force That Creates the World's Greatest Teams
Book
From the founding editor of The Wall Street Journal's sports section comes a bold new theory of...
business sports
Promodeclic - promos, bons plans et catalogues des magasins autour de vous
Catalogs and Lifestyle
App
Chaque mois, retrouvez sur Promodeclic plus de 100 000 promos dans vos enseignes favorites : Auchan,...
Chestionare Auto DRPCIV
Education and Productivity
App
Chestionare auto DRPCIV - Scoala auto Profita de solutia completa si compacta oferita de aplicatia...
Sarah (7799 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020
Ritchie back on form
It's about time Guy Ritchie went back to what he does best. After the terrible Aladdin and King Arthur over the past couple of years, and the ok but not great Man from UNCLE and Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie really needs something good. And whilst for me this didn't quite meet the high expectations set by Snatch and Lock, Stock, it's by far the best thing he's done since 2000's Snatch.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Riddick (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Vin Diesel hits the silver screen in the third installment of the Chronicles of Riddick series. As you would expect, Diesel delivers on a role crafted solely for him.
Pitch Black opened in 2000, heralding a unique story with a compelling main character. Riddick was unique for his planning skills and killer instincts, and he possessed eyes with a “shine job,” which allowed him to see effectively in the dark. He was a convict — a killer — but he possessed enough of a conscience to be endearing and for the audience to identify with him.
In the second film (Chronicles of Riddick), an entirely different storyline unfolded. It showed Riddick as a hero, taking control of the Necromonger horde.
The third and newest film opens to show Riddick broken and stranded on a desolate planet. We watch as he ponders how he got into his current situation. After a brief flashback to the events of the second movie, the film segues into the new story — which feels very reminiscent of the first. This time around, Riddick is up against bounty hunters.
The beginning third of the film pits Riddick against nature itself. Later, the bounty hunters arrive, and the game of cat and mouse goes into overdrive.
I found the transition from the second film to the third adequate, but unsatisfying.
The script, acting, action, and cinematography are all top notch. I was happy with the production value. It didn’t feel cheap or cheesy at all; the effects seemed believable.
I enjoyed the humor. I also appreciated the complexity of the Riddick character, something fans of the series have all come to love.
There were a few plot holes, and a couple of inconsistencies, but overall it’s a great film.
One of the greatest parts of the film is Katee Sackhoff (“Starbuck” of Battlestar Galactica fame), and her bare breast. (I’m a hetero dude — sue me!) The other gratuitous nudity (including one shot of a woman’s shaved groin area) was appropriate and served as great icing on the filmography cake.
My main criticism is that this movie had almost nothing to do with the previous films. There were two great tie-ins, but it never felt like a true continuation of the story line, not in any meaningful way. It was very unsatisfying in that respect However, as a stand-alone action film featuring Riddick, it delivers.
This movie is well worth seeing, but it will dissapoint those looking for strong continuity with the other parts of the franchise.
Pitch Black opened in 2000, heralding a unique story with a compelling main character. Riddick was unique for his planning skills and killer instincts, and he possessed eyes with a “shine job,” which allowed him to see effectively in the dark. He was a convict — a killer — but he possessed enough of a conscience to be endearing and for the audience to identify with him.
In the second film (Chronicles of Riddick), an entirely different storyline unfolded. It showed Riddick as a hero, taking control of the Necromonger horde.
The third and newest film opens to show Riddick broken and stranded on a desolate planet. We watch as he ponders how he got into his current situation. After a brief flashback to the events of the second movie, the film segues into the new story — which feels very reminiscent of the first. This time around, Riddick is up against bounty hunters.
The beginning third of the film pits Riddick against nature itself. Later, the bounty hunters arrive, and the game of cat and mouse goes into overdrive.
I found the transition from the second film to the third adequate, but unsatisfying.
The script, acting, action, and cinematography are all top notch. I was happy with the production value. It didn’t feel cheap or cheesy at all; the effects seemed believable.
I enjoyed the humor. I also appreciated the complexity of the Riddick character, something fans of the series have all come to love.
There were a few plot holes, and a couple of inconsistencies, but overall it’s a great film.
One of the greatest parts of the film is Katee Sackhoff (“Starbuck” of Battlestar Galactica fame), and her bare breast. (I’m a hetero dude — sue me!) The other gratuitous nudity (including one shot of a woman’s shaved groin area) was appropriate and served as great icing on the filmography cake.
My main criticism is that this movie had almost nothing to do with the previous films. There were two great tie-ins, but it never felt like a true continuation of the story line, not in any meaningful way. It was very unsatisfying in that respect However, as a stand-alone action film featuring Riddick, it delivers.
This movie is well worth seeing, but it will dissapoint those looking for strong continuity with the other parts of the franchise.
MetaTalkDE
Education and Health & Fitness
App
MetaTalkDE is the German language version of MetaTalk - the vocabulary and voices are in German...
Ovia Pregnancy Tracker App
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Expecting? Watch your baby grow every day with Ovia Pregnancy! Our personalized approach to tracking...
Pinball Arcade Plus
Games
App
Winner of the Best Mobile Game of 2012 on G4TV! Pinball Arcade by FarSight Studios features exact...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
And so to the latest incarnation in Spider-man Homecoming. After seeing Tom Holland in Civil War, well, let's just say that I was not convinced. Then the adverts where he's making the home movie of everything... yeah that began to grate a bit.
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
Volcanoes: Map, Alerts & Ash
Weather and Education
App
CONGRATULATIONS! You have found the best volcano app in the world! 300,000 users cannot be wrong! ...