Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
Start-to-Finish Entertainment!
Princess Snow White finds herself on the run from her evil stepmother the Queen when the Queen finds out that Snow White is the prettiest girl in the land. First released in 1937, I’ve gotta say this movie still holds up today! Snow holds it down as the first Disney princess to grace the big screen.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
There’s some serious conflict going down in the castle and we come to learn that within the first ten minutes. The Queen is a real threat and we immediately come to worry about innocent Snow White who just wants to sing and be merry all day. I was immediately whisked away to this other place and time and I was excited for the journey.
Characters: 10
Still some of the best characters in film history. Having seven dwarfs with different personalities was genius! Sleepy was my dude! And there’s just something about Snow that really captivates me. She has a pure soul that inspires everyone around her, even the animals.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Between the dwarfs, the fun musical numbers, and that cackling Queen, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs kept me entertained from start to finish. Disney is a victim of its own success, however, as there are other animated movies I felt entertained me a wee bit more. That being said, this is a movie that could still capture and hold a kid’s attention today.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Gets off to a pretty quick start and holds your attention from there. Even the songs aren’t wasted as they segment into the next important plot piece. The movie is a perfect example of rising conflict, then bringing the audience down for just long enough before hitting them again.
Plot: 8
My gripe with the movie’s plot is pretty small, but just enough to annoy me. I felt like the Queen went through A LOT of trouble just to turn into that witch only to give Snow an apple. At that point, if you want to kill her so bad, just make it happen right then! Classic case of a movie overthinking things and trying to be creative for the sake of being creative. Again, it’s small but too noticeable not to bring up.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 93
It always impresses me when classic films hold up today. I can imagine some of the older crowd might be offended by that just as if I might be offended if some young punk in 2035 is watching Jurassic Park and says, “Wow, this film is still solid to this day!” I get it, but I can’t help but admire a movie that is (as of this writing) eighty-three years old! Bananas. Disney came out of the gates swinging and hasn’t looked back since.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
There’s some serious conflict going down in the castle and we come to learn that within the first ten minutes. The Queen is a real threat and we immediately come to worry about innocent Snow White who just wants to sing and be merry all day. I was immediately whisked away to this other place and time and I was excited for the journey.
Characters: 10
Still some of the best characters in film history. Having seven dwarfs with different personalities was genius! Sleepy was my dude! And there’s just something about Snow that really captivates me. She has a pure soul that inspires everyone around her, even the animals.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Between the dwarfs, the fun musical numbers, and that cackling Queen, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs kept me entertained from start to finish. Disney is a victim of its own success, however, as there are other animated movies I felt entertained me a wee bit more. That being said, this is a movie that could still capture and hold a kid’s attention today.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Gets off to a pretty quick start and holds your attention from there. Even the songs aren’t wasted as they segment into the next important plot piece. The movie is a perfect example of rising conflict, then bringing the audience down for just long enough before hitting them again.
Plot: 8
My gripe with the movie’s plot is pretty small, but just enough to annoy me. I felt like the Queen went through A LOT of trouble just to turn into that witch only to give Snow an apple. At that point, if you want to kill her so bad, just make it happen right then! Classic case of a movie overthinking things and trying to be creative for the sake of being creative. Again, it’s small but too noticeable not to bring up.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 93
It always impresses me when classic films hold up today. I can imagine some of the older crowd might be offended by that just as if I might be offended if some young punk in 2035 is watching Jurassic Park and says, “Wow, this film is still solid to this day!” I get it, but I can’t help but admire a movie that is (as of this writing) eighty-three years old! Bananas. Disney came out of the gates swinging and hasn’t looked back since.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Jul 6, 2020
Damn Good Horror Film - 9/10
Us is a 2019 horror movie written, directed, and co-produced by Jordan Peele. It was also produced by Jason Blum, Ian Cooper, and Sean McKittrick; through Monkeypaw Productions and distributed by Universal. It stars Lupita Nyong'o, Winston Duke, Shahadi Wright Joseph, and Evan Alex.
In 1986, on vacation with her parents in Santa Cruz, one night Adelaide Thomas (Madison Curry) wanders off while at the boardwalk on the beach. Only a young girl at the time she enters a scary looking funhouse where she gets lost in the hall of mirrors. Panicking, afraid and looking for the exit, she encounters a doppelganger of herself, leaving her traumatized and unable to speak when she is reunited with her parents. Now an adult, Adelaide (Lupita Nyong'o) reluctantly heads with her family: husband Gabe Wilson (Winston Duke), daughter Zora Wilson (Shahadi Wright Joseph), and son Jason Wilson (Evan Alex) to their beach house in Santa Cruz. Adelaide is very apprehensive about the trip, remembering the traumatic incident from her youth, and becomes very discontent. Even during the day while meeting up with friends at the beach, she becomes very erratic for a moment when she cannot find her son who walked a way to use the restroom. She becomes increasingly concerned something bad is going to happen. Later that evening, back at the beach house, she confides in her husband the details of her childhood trauma, which he laughs off until four masked people storm the house forcing them to fight for their survival.
I cannot say how much I enjoyed this movie. It was an awesome horror movie. Jordan Peele knocked it out of the park with this film. It was masterfully done. I like how you can see a lot of the influences from other films yet it was still very original. This movie had me at the edge of my seat gripping the armrests of my chair with a lot of its scarier scenes. Yet it was still funny in a lot of parts. I thought the acting was great especially for so many actors playing duo roles, even the children. The cinematography was very good too with a lot of visuals that will stay with you and hidden meanings to things you will probably only notice or realize on your 2nd or 3rd viewing. I personally can't wait to watch it again. Another critic summed it up better than I ever could "originality in concept, physiological torment+twists, old-world suspense building, and one of the best scorings in modern Horror history"-(Cinema Lovers Club Gmail). I really loved the soundtrack and music in this movie. I give it a 9/10.
In 1986, on vacation with her parents in Santa Cruz, one night Adelaide Thomas (Madison Curry) wanders off while at the boardwalk on the beach. Only a young girl at the time she enters a scary looking funhouse where she gets lost in the hall of mirrors. Panicking, afraid and looking for the exit, she encounters a doppelganger of herself, leaving her traumatized and unable to speak when she is reunited with her parents. Now an adult, Adelaide (Lupita Nyong'o) reluctantly heads with her family: husband Gabe Wilson (Winston Duke), daughter Zora Wilson (Shahadi Wright Joseph), and son Jason Wilson (Evan Alex) to their beach house in Santa Cruz. Adelaide is very apprehensive about the trip, remembering the traumatic incident from her youth, and becomes very discontent. Even during the day while meeting up with friends at the beach, she becomes very erratic for a moment when she cannot find her son who walked a way to use the restroom. She becomes increasingly concerned something bad is going to happen. Later that evening, back at the beach house, she confides in her husband the details of her childhood trauma, which he laughs off until four masked people storm the house forcing them to fight for their survival.
I cannot say how much I enjoyed this movie. It was an awesome horror movie. Jordan Peele knocked it out of the park with this film. It was masterfully done. I like how you can see a lot of the influences from other films yet it was still very original. This movie had me at the edge of my seat gripping the armrests of my chair with a lot of its scarier scenes. Yet it was still funny in a lot of parts. I thought the acting was great especially for so many actors playing duo roles, even the children. The cinematography was very good too with a lot of visuals that will stay with you and hidden meanings to things you will probably only notice or realize on your 2nd or 3rd viewing. I personally can't wait to watch it again. Another critic summed it up better than I ever could "originality in concept, physiological torment+twists, old-world suspense building, and one of the best scorings in modern Horror history"-(Cinema Lovers Club Gmail). I really loved the soundtrack and music in this movie. I give it a 9/10.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) in Movies
Aug 16, 2017
The double act bickering of Reynolds and Jackson (1 more)
Salma Hayek!
Surprisingly Good
I wasn't sure what to make of The Hitman's Bodyguard when I first saw the poster. Movies which try to squeeze some comedy out of two people being thrown together who don't really like each other generally tend to suck. But then I saw the trailer, which made it look entertaining and worth a watch. However, if it hadn't been for the fact that I was away on holiday last week I may well have read some of the early negative reviews and thought about giving it a miss. Luckily though, I was on holiday, I didn't read any reviews and I ended up watching one of the funniest action packed movies I've seen in a while.
Ryan Reynolds is Michael Bryce, a 'Triple-A' bodyguard with a hot girlfriend, nice house, nice car and a smart suit. He likes to make sure that the protection of his clients runs like clockwork (boring is best, as he likes to remind his team!). So when things go badly wrong on a job, Bryce suddenly finds himself way back down the ladder when it comes to landing quality bodyguard roles. Consequently, his expensive lifestyle takes a big hit and we join him 2 years down the line, unshaven and peeing into a bottle while sitting in his beat up car before heading into a job.
Meanwhile, Samuel L Jackson is Darius Kincaid, a hitman being escorted by Interpol from Manchester to testify in Holland at The Hague. The man he is testifying against is warlord Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman, suitably evil). A nasty piece of work determined to take out anyone with the potential to put him behind bars. So when the escort accompanying Kincaid takes a hit, it becomes clear that someone in Interpol has been leaking their route, and Bryce ends up landing the role of escorting Kincaid for the rest of his trip to The Netherlands. Turns out though that Bryce and Kincaid have history, with Kincaid nearly killing Bryce on 28 previous occasions, so their initial meeting doesn't go too well. Eventually the pair reach enough of an understanding so that they can head out on the road together, down through the English countryside. It's their constant bickering on this road trip that then provides a lot of the humour for the movie. Bryce is pretty particular when it comes to how smoothly these things should be handled, whereas Kincaid just likes to get things done and screw the consequences. The word 'motherfucker' gets used to great effect A LOT by Jackson (as Bryce puts it, “This guy single-handedly ruined the word ‘motherfucker’”) and Bryce continues to be frustrated and amazed at just how 'un-killable' Kincaid appears to be.
It's not very long before the bad guys are on their tail though, leading to a succession of more and more complex action sequences. These hit a real high when everyone reaches The Netherlands, with an exciting chase through the streets and canals of Amsterdam kicking things off nicely. The only complaint with this, and the rest of the action in the movie, is that there does appears to be a never ending supply of bad guys lining up to take them out. Just when you think we're down to the final few, another wave of vehicles appears, all full of weapon waving maniacs! I loved all of the action in the movie, but because of this it does constantly run the risk of seeming a little too dragged out. It's a very fine line.
Before I forget, a special mention to Salma Hayek who stars as the wife of Kincaid. Despite being locked in a cell for the entire movie, she gets more than her fair share of funny lines and action, mainly in flashbacks where we get to see just how much of a foul mouthed bad ass she really is. Taking no crap from anyone, she's brilliant.
Although there's nothing really here that hasn't been done before, it was the brilliant double act of Reynolds and Jackson that really made this worth seeing for me. That, along with the hugely entertaining action sequences. Judging by other reviews though, I think it's just my taste in these movies that's different from most others. I actually hated last years 'The Nice Guys', while everyone else seemed to love it so I guess I'm just going to be in the minority when it comes to this movie too!
Ryan Reynolds is Michael Bryce, a 'Triple-A' bodyguard with a hot girlfriend, nice house, nice car and a smart suit. He likes to make sure that the protection of his clients runs like clockwork (boring is best, as he likes to remind his team!). So when things go badly wrong on a job, Bryce suddenly finds himself way back down the ladder when it comes to landing quality bodyguard roles. Consequently, his expensive lifestyle takes a big hit and we join him 2 years down the line, unshaven and peeing into a bottle while sitting in his beat up car before heading into a job.
Meanwhile, Samuel L Jackson is Darius Kincaid, a hitman being escorted by Interpol from Manchester to testify in Holland at The Hague. The man he is testifying against is warlord Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman, suitably evil). A nasty piece of work determined to take out anyone with the potential to put him behind bars. So when the escort accompanying Kincaid takes a hit, it becomes clear that someone in Interpol has been leaking their route, and Bryce ends up landing the role of escorting Kincaid for the rest of his trip to The Netherlands. Turns out though that Bryce and Kincaid have history, with Kincaid nearly killing Bryce on 28 previous occasions, so their initial meeting doesn't go too well. Eventually the pair reach enough of an understanding so that they can head out on the road together, down through the English countryside. It's their constant bickering on this road trip that then provides a lot of the humour for the movie. Bryce is pretty particular when it comes to how smoothly these things should be handled, whereas Kincaid just likes to get things done and screw the consequences. The word 'motherfucker' gets used to great effect A LOT by Jackson (as Bryce puts it, “This guy single-handedly ruined the word ‘motherfucker’”) and Bryce continues to be frustrated and amazed at just how 'un-killable' Kincaid appears to be.
It's not very long before the bad guys are on their tail though, leading to a succession of more and more complex action sequences. These hit a real high when everyone reaches The Netherlands, with an exciting chase through the streets and canals of Amsterdam kicking things off nicely. The only complaint with this, and the rest of the action in the movie, is that there does appears to be a never ending supply of bad guys lining up to take them out. Just when you think we're down to the final few, another wave of vehicles appears, all full of weapon waving maniacs! I loved all of the action in the movie, but because of this it does constantly run the risk of seeming a little too dragged out. It's a very fine line.
Before I forget, a special mention to Salma Hayek who stars as the wife of Kincaid. Despite being locked in a cell for the entire movie, she gets more than her fair share of funny lines and action, mainly in flashbacks where we get to see just how much of a foul mouthed bad ass she really is. Taking no crap from anyone, she's brilliant.
Although there's nothing really here that hasn't been done before, it was the brilliant double act of Reynolds and Jackson that really made this worth seeing for me. That, along with the hugely entertaining action sequences. Judging by other reviews though, I think it's just my taste in these movies that's different from most others. I actually hated last years 'The Nice Guys', while everyone else seemed to love it so I guess I'm just going to be in the minority when it comes to this movie too!
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lightning Thief in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I decided to read this partly because I had just seen the movie and partly because I heard that it was a good series for fans of the Harry Potter series. Well, in regards to the movie, it's appalling how much the producers changed the book's plot to make the movie. If they make a second movie, I likely will not be interested, as I much more prefer the book's plot. In regards to the book's similarities to Harry Potter, they are vast, but really, who wouldn't aim to write something as popular and complex as the Harry Potter series? J.K. Rowling owns a castle! So, on to the actual book.
Years ago I thought that writing a fantasy series that uses Greek mythology would be a great idea, so I was excited when I heard of the Percy Jackson series. I love the modernized spin on the various good and bad characters, bringing them to life in both creative and believeable ways, such as Ares on a Harley and "Mr." Charon wearing Italian suits. The "Gods" of mythology at times seemed more like immature teenagers or work-aholic parents, with as much flaws as any normal human, and I really appreciated that they were differentiated from The GOD early on, and their place in the known universe was explained in the context of Percy's world. I especially like the scene of Hephaestus' trap that Percy and Annabeth get caught in. How the "normal" humans explained away the activities of the mythological characters was probably the most creative of the whole text, and at times rather humorous. It actually makes me wonder how much of what I see everyday is only a cover for what is really happening in the spiritual realm.
The only element that really bugged me about the text was how Percy changed from this moody, victimized pre-teen to a rather mature young man with almost no transition - emotional or otherwise. It almost felt like Percy possessed two different personalities that shared the same body. While Percy often says that he did not want to be the son of Poseidon, I found evidence of inner termoil strangely absent throughout the text. I also felt that there were smaller issues that could have been more detailed and developed, such as the characters of Grover and Annabeth. I will be continuing the series with The Sea of Monsters (Percy Jackson and the Olympians, Book 2) in the near future.
Years ago I thought that writing a fantasy series that uses Greek mythology would be a great idea, so I was excited when I heard of the Percy Jackson series. I love the modernized spin on the various good and bad characters, bringing them to life in both creative and believeable ways, such as Ares on a Harley and "Mr." Charon wearing Italian suits. The "Gods" of mythology at times seemed more like immature teenagers or work-aholic parents, with as much flaws as any normal human, and I really appreciated that they were differentiated from The GOD early on, and their place in the known universe was explained in the context of Percy's world. I especially like the scene of Hephaestus' trap that Percy and Annabeth get caught in. How the "normal" humans explained away the activities of the mythological characters was probably the most creative of the whole text, and at times rather humorous. It actually makes me wonder how much of what I see everyday is only a cover for what is really happening in the spiritual realm.
The only element that really bugged me about the text was how Percy changed from this moody, victimized pre-teen to a rather mature young man with almost no transition - emotional or otherwise. It almost felt like Percy possessed two different personalities that shared the same body. While Percy often says that he did not want to be the son of Poseidon, I found evidence of inner termoil strangely absent throughout the text. I also felt that there were smaller issues that could have been more detailed and developed, such as the characters of Grover and Annabeth. I will be continuing the series with The Sea of Monsters (Percy Jackson and the Olympians, Book 2) in the near future.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Dirt (2019) in Movies
Apr 4, 2019 (Updated Apr 4, 2019)
Brainless Fun
The Dirt is a Motley Crue biopic that debuted on Netflix last month. It is Jeff Tremaine's, (the director of the Jackass movies,) first narrative feature film. This should maybe give you some idea of what to expect within the movie. If Bohemian Rhapsody, Wayne's World and Jackass had a baby, this would most likely be the result.
Your enjoyment of this movie will probably depend on what you are wanting out of it going in. I am a casual Motely Crue fan, I only know a few of their songs and have a very surface level knowledge of their history. I was watching this movie for a bit of dumb fun after I had seen the trailer and it delivered exactly what I expected it to. If however, you are a die hard Motley Crue fan looking for an in-depth biopic with a sense of grit and realism, you will most likely be sorely disappointed.
The plot to this thing plays out like a Wikipedia article, in the sense that it hits all of the major beats of the band's history, but glosses over so much more and leaves any sense of nuance at the door. It is also incredibly cartoonish and cheesy, at no point in the film do you ever feel that you are watching the actual members of Motley Crue and it is always painfully clear that you are watching a group of actors in bad wigs playing faux, characterture versions of real people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the cast have anything to do with how shallow or glossy this thing is. I think that Daniel Webber did a decent job as Vince Neil and Douglas Booth is okay as Nikki Sixx. For some reason, Machine Gun Kelly plays Tommy Lee as a goofy, lovable rogue, as apposed to the aggressive violent abuser he is in real life. Iwan Rheon is by far the stand out as Mick Mars, the older, more jaded member of the group who totally dismisses the immature 'sex drugs and rock and roll,' bullshit mentality of his band-mates and comes away with some of the driest, funniest lines in the movie.
Overall, I gave this a 7 based on the brainless fun I had watching it, but it by no means feels accurate or realistic, nor does it feel like it's trying to be. Hardcore Motely Crue fans will probably feel like they were let down by this biopic, but I got exactly what I wanted out of it and enjoyed it for what it was.
Your enjoyment of this movie will probably depend on what you are wanting out of it going in. I am a casual Motely Crue fan, I only know a few of their songs and have a very surface level knowledge of their history. I was watching this movie for a bit of dumb fun after I had seen the trailer and it delivered exactly what I expected it to. If however, you are a die hard Motley Crue fan looking for an in-depth biopic with a sense of grit and realism, you will most likely be sorely disappointed.
The plot to this thing plays out like a Wikipedia article, in the sense that it hits all of the major beats of the band's history, but glosses over so much more and leaves any sense of nuance at the door. It is also incredibly cartoonish and cheesy, at no point in the film do you ever feel that you are watching the actual members of Motley Crue and it is always painfully clear that you are watching a group of actors in bad wigs playing faux, characterture versions of real people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the cast have anything to do with how shallow or glossy this thing is. I think that Daniel Webber did a decent job as Vince Neil and Douglas Booth is okay as Nikki Sixx. For some reason, Machine Gun Kelly plays Tommy Lee as a goofy, lovable rogue, as apposed to the aggressive violent abuser he is in real life. Iwan Rheon is by far the stand out as Mick Mars, the older, more jaded member of the group who totally dismisses the immature 'sex drugs and rock and roll,' bullshit mentality of his band-mates and comes away with some of the driest, funniest lines in the movie.
Overall, I gave this a 7 based on the brainless fun I had watching it, but it by no means feels accurate or realistic, nor does it feel like it's trying to be. Hardcore Motely Crue fans will probably feel like they were let down by this biopic, but I got exactly what I wanted out of it and enjoyed it for what it was.
Darren (1599 KP) rated At The Devil's Door (2014) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – This was a hard film to figure out who the main character was until the end, so I will talk about the three biggest characters in no particular order. Hannah is the first one we meet, she is a runaway that finds herself in the middle of a demon worshiping cult, walking the halls of a house up for sale, she has a secret waiting to reveal. Leigh is the real-estate agent that is trying toe sale the house only to learn that there is a force in the house trying to control certain movements. Vera is the younger sister of Leigh, an artists that becomes the target of the presence that is haunting the land.
Performances – While I don’t think the actors do a bad job in anyway in this film, the scorecard is being harsh on them, most of this complaint that the characters don’t become the main until late in the film which doesn’t give us enough time to get behind the actors. The three actresses do well with what they have without having that one moment that makes them stand out.
Story – The story follows a potential demon being born into the world, I think, it would be fair to say this movie does put forward all the generic ideas that something is off with each scene, but as I was saying with the characters, we follow ones events only for the to mean nothing and these scenes go on for a healthy 20 odd minutes before we move onto the next character’s story, which only leaves us confused and feeling withdrawn from where the story is going.
Horror – The horror is the normal, people walking around the empty houses following or running from noises, the only scene that stands out is involving the hospital.
Settings – The film keeps us in a few houses that always seem to be empty, nothing is overly interesting with the locations being used.
Special Effects – The effects are the strongest part of the film, it does have a couple of stand out moments which will make you look away but also make you want to watch.
Scene of the Movie – Hospital time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not knowing the main character early on.
Final Thoughts – This is a messy confusing movie that does try to break the mould because of the source material of demon trying to be born, we skip over the been there scene that parts but it takes too long to get there.
Overall: Not good enough horror movie.
Performances – While I don’t think the actors do a bad job in anyway in this film, the scorecard is being harsh on them, most of this complaint that the characters don’t become the main until late in the film which doesn’t give us enough time to get behind the actors. The three actresses do well with what they have without having that one moment that makes them stand out.
Story – The story follows a potential demon being born into the world, I think, it would be fair to say this movie does put forward all the generic ideas that something is off with each scene, but as I was saying with the characters, we follow ones events only for the to mean nothing and these scenes go on for a healthy 20 odd minutes before we move onto the next character’s story, which only leaves us confused and feeling withdrawn from where the story is going.
Horror – The horror is the normal, people walking around the empty houses following or running from noises, the only scene that stands out is involving the hospital.
Settings – The film keeps us in a few houses that always seem to be empty, nothing is overly interesting with the locations being used.
Special Effects – The effects are the strongest part of the film, it does have a couple of stand out moments which will make you look away but also make you want to watch.
Scene of the Movie – Hospital time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not knowing the main character early on.
Final Thoughts – This is a messy confusing movie that does try to break the mould because of the source material of demon trying to be born, we skip over the been there scene that parts but it takes too long to get there.
Overall: Not good enough horror movie.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Swing Time (1936) in Movies
Aug 14, 2020
Entertaining Despite Some Flaws
Fucking blackface, am I right? I’ll warn you now if you plan to watch Swing Time: There is a blackface scene. In spite of this touch of ignorance, as a black man, I have to say that I rather enjoyed the movie. The plot: When John Garnet (Fred Astaire) gets cold feet on his wedding day, his fiance opts to give him another chance if he can find a way to earn $25,000. John is all for it until he falls in love with a dance instructor and tries to find every way in the world to avoid making the money.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 6
In the beginning John’s dance troupe tries to distract him by keeping him from getting married. They feel like if he doesn’t go through with it, he can keep working with them. Despite their efforts, it was much more annoying than it was funny. Not a great way to kick off the story.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
For the most part, the movie is cinematically gorgeous. I loved the dance numbers, well most of them anyway. It all reverts back to that damn blackface scene. It was an unnecessary piece of the film that did absolutely nothing for the story. Other than that, the movie is shot in a gorgeous fashion.
Conflict: 10
Most of the conflict stems from John’s rising feelings for Penelope the dance instructor (Ginger Rogers). You get the sense that they are meant to be together but John is working towards trying to be with another woman. You hope before the story’s end that he ends up in the right place. It’s a journey getting there.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 2
The premise and the way it unfolds is a miss for me. Fortunately the characters and setpieces were enough to carry the movie. it was a really hard buy-in for me.
Resolution: 10
While not perfect, the ending is a satisfying completion to the story. You can definitely see it coming the closer you get, but it’s still good. Great closure for the main characters.
Overall: 84
Not my favorite of the classics, Swing Time still deserves its place in history. As far as the blackface is concerned, I think we owe it to ourselves not to shy away from things that happened in history. Even the bad things. In spite being on the wrong side of history, I enjoyed it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 6
In the beginning John’s dance troupe tries to distract him by keeping him from getting married. They feel like if he doesn’t go through with it, he can keep working with them. Despite their efforts, it was much more annoying than it was funny. Not a great way to kick off the story.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
For the most part, the movie is cinematically gorgeous. I loved the dance numbers, well most of them anyway. It all reverts back to that damn blackface scene. It was an unnecessary piece of the film that did absolutely nothing for the story. Other than that, the movie is shot in a gorgeous fashion.
Conflict: 10
Most of the conflict stems from John’s rising feelings for Penelope the dance instructor (Ginger Rogers). You get the sense that they are meant to be together but John is working towards trying to be with another woman. You hope before the story’s end that he ends up in the right place. It’s a journey getting there.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 2
The premise and the way it unfolds is a miss for me. Fortunately the characters and setpieces were enough to carry the movie. it was a really hard buy-in for me.
Resolution: 10
While not perfect, the ending is a satisfying completion to the story. You can definitely see it coming the closer you get, but it’s still good. Great closure for the main characters.
Overall: 84
Not my favorite of the classics, Swing Time still deserves its place in history. As far as the blackface is concerned, I think we owe it to ourselves not to shy away from things that happened in history. Even the bad things. In spite being on the wrong side of history, I enjoyed it.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 19, 2019 (Updated Jul 19, 2019)
If this is where the monarchy is headed Count me out!
Lion king 2019 is by far the worst of the Disney live action remakes & while newcomers/children will certainly love it many of the people that hold the original close to their hearts will leave wishing they had just stayed home with the far superior predecessor instead. Aladdin & The Lion King are two of the greatest animated feature films of all time & as I experienced them both in cinema on release they are very special to me. Now i loved the Aladdin remake & im not one for comparing these to the animated features but while I was watching this all i could think about was how much better the original is. While it looks absolutely gorgeous (until anything starts to move) the animation at times is so unnatural especially when animals are walking slowly that its constantly distracting & kills the illusion of these creatures being real. Voice work is bland/mediocre & delivered with almost no enthusiasm at all like the cast were more concerned with sounding different to the original than giving the characters charm & personality. Voices also dont feel connected to the characters like your watching a nature documentary thats been dubbed over. While Aladdin did its own thing & changed up the movie Lion King is practically & infuriatingly a scene for scene remake which would be ok if it had the charm, colour, grand scale, imagination, excitement, thrill, humour & emotional impact of the original but it doesnt. Songs are butchered/dull with seemingly no energy or spectacle to them at all feeling significantly toned down/grounded rather than fun & toe tapping (they have also ruined 'Be Prepared'). So whats new? theres new humour & yup you guessed it its really bad with awkward timing & dragged out jokes that just fall flat. I wanted so bad to love this movie but not even a scense of nostalgia kicked in either because the film is just soulless, unenthusiastic, boring, bland, lacking in excitement & magic. Kids will no doubt love it but for me its this years biggest let down. If it were a silent film with an epic score over the top it might of at least been unique/watchable & helped be bearable but as it is I just cant recomend seeing it. A big fat cash grab.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Mulan (2020) in Movies
Dec 6, 2020
I'll start by saying that the original 1998 Mulan is quite possibly my favourite Disney animation, and I personally think it represents the pinnacle of the company's renaissance. With that in mind, I was initially looking forward to seeing the live action adaption when it was first announced, but after last year's re-do of The Lion King, any anticipation I had quickly started to dwindle.
Predictably, the finished result is underwhelming. It's not an inherently bad movie, it's entertaining in parts, and has some decent action scenes, but it's nothing more than a padded out re-tread, and it's hard not to think "what's the point?"
The new material implemented literally adds nothing to the plot, and just draws out the experience, verging on boring more than once, and the familiar stuff just lacks the charm of the original. The decision to ground it more in realism is understandable to a degree - the music would have felt out of place in what is essentially a war film - but the lack of the more outlandish characters such as Mushu impacts the films potential, and the side characters we do get aren't memorable. Honestly? There's just not a lot of fun to be found here.
I did think that Yifei Liu was good in the lead role, and I actually also enjoyed Li Hing, who plays a new character who is probably the most interesting part of the whole thing, and is the only addition that has any worth. It was also a nice touch to see Ming-Na Wen appear for a brief cameo.
As I said, it's not necessarily a bad film, it's just feels pointless and kind of dull. It carries a positive message about being true to yourself and not hiding away. I can always appreciate a movie that gives young girls a hero to look up to, and kids will no doubt have a blast, but the overall experience is a wash out otherwise.
Final thought - obviously, no songs in this one, but I'll Make a Man out of You is a banger and should be present, and replacing it with Donnie Yen doing some cool-as-fuck sword tricks isn't going to distract me from that fact. I see through your mind games Disney...
Predictably, the finished result is underwhelming. It's not an inherently bad movie, it's entertaining in parts, and has some decent action scenes, but it's nothing more than a padded out re-tread, and it's hard not to think "what's the point?"
The new material implemented literally adds nothing to the plot, and just draws out the experience, verging on boring more than once, and the familiar stuff just lacks the charm of the original. The decision to ground it more in realism is understandable to a degree - the music would have felt out of place in what is essentially a war film - but the lack of the more outlandish characters such as Mushu impacts the films potential, and the side characters we do get aren't memorable. Honestly? There's just not a lot of fun to be found here.
I did think that Yifei Liu was good in the lead role, and I actually also enjoyed Li Hing, who plays a new character who is probably the most interesting part of the whole thing, and is the only addition that has any worth. It was also a nice touch to see Ming-Na Wen appear for a brief cameo.
As I said, it's not necessarily a bad film, it's just feels pointless and kind of dull. It carries a positive message about being true to yourself and not hiding away. I can always appreciate a movie that gives young girls a hero to look up to, and kids will no doubt have a blast, but the overall experience is a wash out otherwise.
Final thought - obviously, no songs in this one, but I'll Make a Man out of You is a banger and should be present, and replacing it with Donnie Yen doing some cool-as-fuck sword tricks isn't going to distract me from that fact. I see through your mind games Disney...