Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated True Blood - Season 1 in TV
Aug 18, 2020
Awful Southern/Louisiana accents (1 more)
Not enough Alexander Skarsgård
So, since I have all the time in the world now, I decided to re-watch True Blood, but, I had to go old school because I am not subscribing to another services. Luckily, I own the first four seasons.
The first season sets up the world of True Blood, the vamps had come out of the closet and some drink the artificial True Blood. Apparently, this Bon Temps town is a hot bed for magical creatures, as the series progresses.
Sookie is the main character, and has a silly name. She can reads minds, and discovers that it doesn't apply to vamps when Bill comes strolling in.
Then someone's going around, killing chicks that associate with vamps in various ways. This is essentially a mystery, and from what I can recall, it does an ok job of following the book. The killer begins to become more obvious as the season goes on, and it's resolved in a super dramatic way.
As mentioned, the Southern/Louisiana accents are pretty bad and annoying to someone from the South, NOT ALL SOUTHERN STATES HAVE THE SAME ACCENTS. Out of all of the actors, Ryan Kwanten is the best.
Of course, there's gratuitous sex, this is an HBO show, but I just fast forward through all of that crap. It really makes the episodes much shorter.
The first season sets up the world of True Blood, the vamps had come out of the closet and some drink the artificial True Blood. Apparently, this Bon Temps town is a hot bed for magical creatures, as the series progresses.
Sookie is the main character, and has a silly name. She can reads minds, and discovers that it doesn't apply to vamps when Bill comes strolling in.
Then someone's going around, killing chicks that associate with vamps in various ways. This is essentially a mystery, and from what I can recall, it does an ok job of following the book. The killer begins to become more obvious as the season goes on, and it's resolved in a super dramatic way.
As mentioned, the Southern/Louisiana accents are pretty bad and annoying to someone from the South, NOT ALL SOUTHERN STATES HAVE THE SAME ACCENTS. Out of all of the actors, Ryan Kwanten is the best.
Of course, there's gratuitous sex, this is an HBO show, but I just fast forward through all of that crap. It really makes the episodes much shorter.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Hummingbird Project (2018) in Movies
Jun 24, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The trailer for this offered a glimpse at something that looked intriguing but the final result wasn't quite as impactful as you might have imagined.
Vincent has the drive and cunning to launch a project that could make them millions, Anton is the brains to make it a success. In investment you have to be a step ahead of the competition, so the competition is where you'll get the best deal on the next big thing. When they both quit with immediate effect their boss is suspicious does everything to find out what they're up to. She eventually gets a break and is soon hot on their heels to come up with something bigger and better. The stakes are high and the game is dirty, but someone has to win.
The Hummingbird Project certainly didn't lack acting talent. While I've not seen much from Jesse Eisenberg apart from Lex Luthor in the DCEU I was impressed with what he gives in this, there are a lot of powerful moments as we get towards the end of the film and he treats them well. Alexander Skarsgård plays Anton, the awkward genius cousin who spends most of his time with his eyes glued to a computer screen. His role is heavy on physical acting rather than dialogue and it's very effective against the pushy characters around him.
The duo are pitted against their ex-boss, Eva Torres, beautifully brought to life as a ruthless villain by Salma Hayek. Hayek has the bitchy boss thing down and had she been talking at me with heavily threatening undertones I think I'd have just started crying.
I found the story easy to get along with, the script wasn't overly complicated which was nice considering it could have been with all the technical things going on. As the story overall is about them fulfilling their project it means that at several points we get reminders about what's going on, and that probably helps it because every so often they get out some plans and go "this is what we're doing and this is the problem" so you don't have to really remember much as we progress.
At points it seems like it's a little rushed, which is intriguing because it feels like it's longer than billed. I assumed that some scenes are included because they're a nod to the real-life story... but it isn't a real-life story... and that in itself should be the most confusing thing about this film. I genuinely went in thinking it was "history", but it's not history, so why did they bother making it? It's just not thrilling enough to hold up as a new story. If I'm honest, finding out it's fictional after thinking it was real has knocked off some star rating.
What you should do
There are much more thrilling tales out there for this sort of story, despite the good acting I would suggest seeing something else. Seeing something else would also preserve the beautiful image of Alexander Skarsgård from being tarnished.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A multi-million dollar idea would be quite nice.
Vincent has the drive and cunning to launch a project that could make them millions, Anton is the brains to make it a success. In investment you have to be a step ahead of the competition, so the competition is where you'll get the best deal on the next big thing. When they both quit with immediate effect their boss is suspicious does everything to find out what they're up to. She eventually gets a break and is soon hot on their heels to come up with something bigger and better. The stakes are high and the game is dirty, but someone has to win.
The Hummingbird Project certainly didn't lack acting talent. While I've not seen much from Jesse Eisenberg apart from Lex Luthor in the DCEU I was impressed with what he gives in this, there are a lot of powerful moments as we get towards the end of the film and he treats them well. Alexander Skarsgård plays Anton, the awkward genius cousin who spends most of his time with his eyes glued to a computer screen. His role is heavy on physical acting rather than dialogue and it's very effective against the pushy characters around him.
The duo are pitted against their ex-boss, Eva Torres, beautifully brought to life as a ruthless villain by Salma Hayek. Hayek has the bitchy boss thing down and had she been talking at me with heavily threatening undertones I think I'd have just started crying.
I found the story easy to get along with, the script wasn't overly complicated which was nice considering it could have been with all the technical things going on. As the story overall is about them fulfilling their project it means that at several points we get reminders about what's going on, and that probably helps it because every so often they get out some plans and go "this is what we're doing and this is the problem" so you don't have to really remember much as we progress.
At points it seems like it's a little rushed, which is intriguing because it feels like it's longer than billed. I assumed that some scenes are included because they're a nod to the real-life story... but it isn't a real-life story... and that in itself should be the most confusing thing about this film. I genuinely went in thinking it was "history", but it's not history, so why did they bother making it? It's just not thrilling enough to hold up as a new story. If I'm honest, finding out it's fictional after thinking it was real has knocked off some star rating.
What you should do
There are much more thrilling tales out there for this sort of story, despite the good acting I would suggest seeing something else. Seeing something else would also preserve the beautiful image of Alexander Skarsgård from being tarnished.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A multi-million dollar idea would be quite nice.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Straw Dogs (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Successful actress Amy Sumner (Kate Bosworth) is returning from her big city life to her southern hometown of Blackwater. Along with Amy is her well-educated and wealthy husband, David Sumner (James Marsdon). David quickly finds this vacation is filled with tension, particularly when it comes to Amy’s ex-boyfriend, Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård), who is not ready to be out of her life. So it is up to the weakling Harvard hero to protect his relationship, home, and way of life in a town he doesn’t quite understand.
A remake of the 1971 thriller classic of the same name, “Straw Dogs” has lost a lot of its appeal and logic with time. It still has gory moments and the plot is very similar to the original but many of the base thrills have been lost in the move to a present day setting.
This film asks the viewers to suspend disbelief, ignore a number of unfinished back-stories, and stand behind characters who are not engaging or believable. Details, both big and small miss the mark. James Marsdon is incorrectly suited as the shy bumbling academic. The house is a seeming fortress for no apparent reason. The side stories, interesting detractions from the overly built tension between the two leading males, are left unresolved.
Additionally, the themes are awkward and incomplete. There are literary throwbacks and some blatant social commentary but all of the film’s depth is lost on an audience who has no reason to care. Viewers will be preoccupied wondering what the point of the film is.
Sure, the story is engrossing and it does force self-analysis, but the modern adaptation would have benefitted from serious editorial cuts. Had the film been completed in a quarter of the time it might have actually managed to be thrilling!
Unbalanced, vapid, and pointless as a thriller “Straw Dogs” falls prey to the unnecessary remake trap. For a real psychological thrill it would be better to opt for the original.
A remake of the 1971 thriller classic of the same name, “Straw Dogs” has lost a lot of its appeal and logic with time. It still has gory moments and the plot is very similar to the original but many of the base thrills have been lost in the move to a present day setting.
This film asks the viewers to suspend disbelief, ignore a number of unfinished back-stories, and stand behind characters who are not engaging or believable. Details, both big and small miss the mark. James Marsdon is incorrectly suited as the shy bumbling academic. The house is a seeming fortress for no apparent reason. The side stories, interesting detractions from the overly built tension between the two leading males, are left unresolved.
Additionally, the themes are awkward and incomplete. There are literary throwbacks and some blatant social commentary but all of the film’s depth is lost on an audience who has no reason to care. Viewers will be preoccupied wondering what the point of the film is.
Sure, the story is engrossing and it does force self-analysis, but the modern adaptation would have benefitted from serious editorial cuts. Had the film been completed in a quarter of the time it might have actually managed to be thrilling!
Unbalanced, vapid, and pointless as a thriller “Straw Dogs” falls prey to the unnecessary remake trap. For a real psychological thrill it would be better to opt for the original.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Fred Flarksy is a controversial journalist who likes to uncover the evil and corrupt in the world, when his paper is brought by a company that they themselves have uncovered as the "bad guy" he quits on the spot. Lance, his best friend, knows exactly what he needs to feel better, drink, steak, and a fundraiser with Boyz II Men.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Northman (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The bloody action. (2 more)
The rhythmic, pounding score.
Amleth's visions and strange encounters.
May be too weird or slow for some. (2 more)
Won't change your opinion of Robert Eggers if you already dislike him as a filmmaker.
...Did you say fart sniffing?
A Gory Viking Epic Forged in Boisterous Greatness
The Northman is director Robert Eggers third feature length film after The Witch and The Lighthouse. The film is written by Eggers and Sjón (Lamb, frequent collaborator with Björk). The Northman is described as an epic historical action drama, but is essentially a Viking revenge film. Taking place in AD 895, King Aurvandill War-Raven (Ethan Hawke) is killed by his brother, Fjölnir (Claes Bang). Aurvandill’s son, Amleth (Oscar Novak portrays young Amleth) flees and swears revenge on his uncle while vowing to save his mother Queen Gudrún (Nicole Kidman).
In AD 914, a now adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) has been raised as a Viking and was enlisted as a berserker. Seemingly losing his focus in furious battle, Amleth is reminded of his vengeful mission a few years later by a Seeress (Björk) that predicts that Amleth will soon get his sought after revenge on his uncle.
The film is based on the story of Amleth, which was written sometime before the year 1200 and inspired Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Northman feels like it’s forged by the same cinematic swordsmith that created the likes of Conan the Barbarian, Beowulf, and Gladiator, but with a bloodier, and slightly trippier ambiance Robert Eggers tends to be known for.
Amleth’s opening voiceover as the film opens with a monstrously intimidating volcano on the verge of erupting is haunting. Alexander Skarsgård has this gruff and nearly grunt-like growl to his speech that you can feel reverberate in your chest as he speaks. The score to the film is also just as memorable and incredible. On paper, it’s just a series of loud drumming or pounding, a fancy string arrangement, and some harmless chanting. But all of those elements together suddenly become this impressive musical declaration of war. The score constantly crescendos and always finds a way to ignite a fire within you.
It’s humorous to think that most will have seen Willem Dafoe last in Spider-Man: No Way Home. Dafoe’s role as Heimir the Fool is also a leap in a different direction even when compared to his role as Thomas Wake in The Lighthouse. Heimir’s key role in the story is to oversee the spiritual journey Almeth takes with Aurvandill right before his death. It’s a bizarre sequence as both grown men and young boy are dressed in nothing but loin cloths as they act like dogs, get on their hands and knees, drink water from a bowl, belch, and take turns sniffing each other’s farts. It’s an intriguing role for Dafoe as he’s this crowd pleasing jester one minute and a spiritual guide the next.
The barbaric action is fairly straightforward in The Northman, but what complicates things are Amleth’s visions. Beginning with his encounter with the Seeress, Amleth also battles an undead spirit for the Night Blade, has a vision of a Valkyrie taking him to Valhalla, and sees his unborn children in rare glimpses of the future. These surreal sequences have a palpable dream-like quality to them. It makes you wonder if they’re actually occurring or are only in Amleth’s head.
Nicole Kidman is exceptional as Queen Gudrún. The character is written in a way that makes her seem like a damsel in distress, but she’s much more evil and manipulative. At first, she seems like the typical Queen character that is pushed aside in order to give the spotlight to the king. But once Gudrún comes face to face with an adult Amleth, she strikes like a snake with venomous words that pierce Amleth deeper than any weapon actually could. Kidman shines in the role as well as you seem to love the fact that a mother could be so cruel to one of her children.
Spoiling a film is no fun, but since The Northman is kind of bombing at the box office right now ($23.5 million opening weekend on a $70-$90 million budget) this is worth mentioning. The finale of the film takes place at the volcano Hekla, which resides at the Gates of Hel. Lava is spilling out everywhere as smoke fills the air and two grown men sword duel to the death. That’s right, the ending of The Northman has two naked men sword fighting at the base of an erupting volcano. It’s freaking nuts.
The Northman is a bloody and ferocious battle cry of a revenge film. The action is brutal and the performances are extraordinary. This is Robert Eggers at his most savage and masterful.
In AD 914, a now adult Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) has been raised as a Viking and was enlisted as a berserker. Seemingly losing his focus in furious battle, Amleth is reminded of his vengeful mission a few years later by a Seeress (Björk) that predicts that Amleth will soon get his sought after revenge on his uncle.
The film is based on the story of Amleth, which was written sometime before the year 1200 and inspired Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Northman feels like it’s forged by the same cinematic swordsmith that created the likes of Conan the Barbarian, Beowulf, and Gladiator, but with a bloodier, and slightly trippier ambiance Robert Eggers tends to be known for.
Amleth’s opening voiceover as the film opens with a monstrously intimidating volcano on the verge of erupting is haunting. Alexander Skarsgård has this gruff and nearly grunt-like growl to his speech that you can feel reverberate in your chest as he speaks. The score to the film is also just as memorable and incredible. On paper, it’s just a series of loud drumming or pounding, a fancy string arrangement, and some harmless chanting. But all of those elements together suddenly become this impressive musical declaration of war. The score constantly crescendos and always finds a way to ignite a fire within you.
It’s humorous to think that most will have seen Willem Dafoe last in Spider-Man: No Way Home. Dafoe’s role as Heimir the Fool is also a leap in a different direction even when compared to his role as Thomas Wake in The Lighthouse. Heimir’s key role in the story is to oversee the spiritual journey Almeth takes with Aurvandill right before his death. It’s a bizarre sequence as both grown men and young boy are dressed in nothing but loin cloths as they act like dogs, get on their hands and knees, drink water from a bowl, belch, and take turns sniffing each other’s farts. It’s an intriguing role for Dafoe as he’s this crowd pleasing jester one minute and a spiritual guide the next.
The barbaric action is fairly straightforward in The Northman, but what complicates things are Amleth’s visions. Beginning with his encounter with the Seeress, Amleth also battles an undead spirit for the Night Blade, has a vision of a Valkyrie taking him to Valhalla, and sees his unborn children in rare glimpses of the future. These surreal sequences have a palpable dream-like quality to them. It makes you wonder if they’re actually occurring or are only in Amleth’s head.
Nicole Kidman is exceptional as Queen Gudrún. The character is written in a way that makes her seem like a damsel in distress, but she’s much more evil and manipulative. At first, she seems like the typical Queen character that is pushed aside in order to give the spotlight to the king. But once Gudrún comes face to face with an adult Amleth, she strikes like a snake with venomous words that pierce Amleth deeper than any weapon actually could. Kidman shines in the role as well as you seem to love the fact that a mother could be so cruel to one of her children.
Spoiling a film is no fun, but since The Northman is kind of bombing at the box office right now ($23.5 million opening weekend on a $70-$90 million budget) this is worth mentioning. The finale of the film takes place at the volcano Hekla, which resides at the Gates of Hel. Lava is spilling out everywhere as smoke fills the air and two grown men sword duel to the death. That’s right, the ending of The Northman has two naked men sword fighting at the base of an erupting volcano. It’s freaking nuts.
The Northman is a bloody and ferocious battle cry of a revenge film. The action is brutal and the performances are extraordinary. This is Robert Eggers at his most savage and masterful.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Battleship (2012) in Movies
Feb 7, 2018
Pure cheesy, gooey fun
Battleship is a guilty pleasure of mine. It’s pure cheesy fun. It’s got a great cast of actors who over-act their butts off in it. Pretty much everything in the movie is delightfully overdone. It might not be the most intellectually stimulating film, but if you need an excuse for popcorn and beer it’s perfect. It has a bit of a Starship Troopers feel to it, what with the bad dialogue and the aliens that look like bugs. Hell, it’s even got the token slightly odd-looking red-headed guy being a mouth-off.
It’s pretty much the perfect B-movie, except we got lucky this time and had decent actors and enough money for good special effects. I loved watching the alien ships moving around and getting ready to fire at things. I’m always able to get completely into the film and nothing about the CGI throws me off at all. The dialogue might be horrible, but the action is perfectly paced. It takes me about 40 minutes longer than the movie actually is to finish watching it. Simply because I go back and re-wind and re-watch my favorite parts constantly. And yes, it does have some proper battleship game scenes that will make you grin with nostalgia if you used to love the game.
Liam Neeson’s role isn’t much, but he gives the appropriate note of seriousness to the film. He really just has a bit role though. Alexander Skarsgård does a good job as Stone Hopper (and what kind of name is that?!). He’s the serious older brother, and the true hero that does everything he can. Rhianna didn’t exactly do a bang up job, but she sold her emotions rather well at a few key parts. Taylor Kitsch certainly does a great job as coming across as an immature punk who needs some sense knocked into him.
It’s interesting to note, whatever your reasoning for it might be, that the aliens don’t really seem to be overly destructive in Battleship. Everything they do seems very tactical and deliberate. They have the firepower to lay waste to everything, but they seem to be more able disabling and containment. At one point, when one of the destroyers put away its weapons, the alien ship lowers its weapons too. People die, but not nearly as many as you would expect. Given other events in the movie, I feel like they were trying to take over with as little damage as possible. Maybe they needed humans for slave labor?
Cool Tidbits: The wounded warriors you see in the rehabilitation center scene in Battleship? Actual wounded warriors. The old vets referenced in regards to the USS Missouri are vets that served on that ship. And Mick – who is completely awesome – is also played by a vet. Props to the producers of this movie for making sure to include so many veterans in it. I totally cheered near the end of the movie when all the veterans do the slow hero walk and it’s clear they’re ready to help.
Overall, Battleship is just a fun popcorn movie that doesn’t deserve the razzing it gets. As long as you don’t go into it expecting something highly intellectual or some ground-breaking work, you’ll enjoy yourself.
It’s pretty much the perfect B-movie, except we got lucky this time and had decent actors and enough money for good special effects. I loved watching the alien ships moving around and getting ready to fire at things. I’m always able to get completely into the film and nothing about the CGI throws me off at all. The dialogue might be horrible, but the action is perfectly paced. It takes me about 40 minutes longer than the movie actually is to finish watching it. Simply because I go back and re-wind and re-watch my favorite parts constantly. And yes, it does have some proper battleship game scenes that will make you grin with nostalgia if you used to love the game.
Liam Neeson’s role isn’t much, but he gives the appropriate note of seriousness to the film. He really just has a bit role though. Alexander Skarsgård does a good job as Stone Hopper (and what kind of name is that?!). He’s the serious older brother, and the true hero that does everything he can. Rhianna didn’t exactly do a bang up job, but she sold her emotions rather well at a few key parts. Taylor Kitsch certainly does a great job as coming across as an immature punk who needs some sense knocked into him.
It’s interesting to note, whatever your reasoning for it might be, that the aliens don’t really seem to be overly destructive in Battleship. Everything they do seems very tactical and deliberate. They have the firepower to lay waste to everything, but they seem to be more able disabling and containment. At one point, when one of the destroyers put away its weapons, the alien ship lowers its weapons too. People die, but not nearly as many as you would expect. Given other events in the movie, I feel like they were trying to take over with as little damage as possible. Maybe they needed humans for slave labor?
Cool Tidbits: The wounded warriors you see in the rehabilitation center scene in Battleship? Actual wounded warriors. The old vets referenced in regards to the USS Missouri are vets that served on that ship. And Mick – who is completely awesome – is also played by a vet. Props to the producers of this movie for making sure to include so many veterans in it. I totally cheered near the end of the movie when all the veterans do the slow hero walk and it’s clear they’re ready to help.
Overall, Battleship is just a fun popcorn movie that doesn’t deserve the razzing it gets. As long as you don’t go into it expecting something highly intellectual or some ground-breaking work, you’ll enjoy yourself.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Monsters! Yay! Small screen... booooooo!
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html