Search
Search results
Holly Johnson recommended I Am a Bird Now by Antony And The Johnsons in Music (curated)
Merissa (11805 KP) rated Get Away Closer in Books
Jun 25, 2020
Get Away Closer tells the story of an opposite pair (early bird and night-owl) living next door to each other, both with elderly grandmas in the local vicinity. I loved how they first met and Lanie's grumpiness when she was woken up. Their relationship is a slow-burning one although, when it moves, it moves. I loved the descriptions Ms. Pratt gives us in the book - of the storms, the blanket, the wood, and sky blue, pink, and purple.
Ms. Pratt also manages to show the reader how grandparents can be different with their peers than they are with their grandchildren! Out of the two, I will admit to feeling sorry for Esther more than Irene, but both these ladies know how to hold a grudge.
This is a lighter read than some of Ms. Pratt's works but she details magnificently how a "big, strong man" can be abused and how it makes him feel. I thought this covered the subject beautifully and even read parts out to my young daughters as I feel it is important for them to understand that 'bullying' is not just by one sex.
This was a wonderful story that kept my attention and the pages turning. I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending this story or, indeed, any other of Ms. Pratt's works. Brilliant.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Ms. Pratt also manages to show the reader how grandparents can be different with their peers than they are with their grandchildren! Out of the two, I will admit to feeling sorry for Esther more than Irene, but both these ladies know how to hold a grudge.
This is a lighter read than some of Ms. Pratt's works but she details magnificently how a "big, strong man" can be abused and how it makes him feel. I thought this covered the subject beautifully and even read parts out to my young daughters as I feel it is important for them to understand that 'bullying' is not just by one sex.
This was a wonderful story that kept my attention and the pages turning. I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending this story or, indeed, any other of Ms. Pratt's works. Brilliant.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Contains spoilers, click to show
3.5
This was definitely new level of apocalypse! I've read a few Dystopians (The Hunger Games and Divergent, for example) but none were quite like this. The idea is intriguing - something is causing people to turn into violent maniacs who usually murder those surrounding them before bringing themselves to death. I'm many, many ways, the fact these characters cannot see - are not allowed to look - at what's causing so much chaos is the suspense, leaving you with questions such as: what are they, why do they exist and how do they exist, what is their purpose, what do they want? I never would have thought of it without Tom's insight, but I suppose he had a point - are these creatures consciously evil of the destruction they are causing? Either way, it makes for an interesting, albeit frustrating, concept. I chose to read this before watching the movie and I can understand how this could play out better on the big screen, but I feel like Josh did an excellent job at using the absence of sight with his words. I read Bird Box in one sitting, was curious about the nature of these creatures, interested in the possibility of a relationship between Tom and Malorie. The ending felt like it could have been final: Malorie and the kids and up at their destination and live happily ever after; but I'm fully aware there is at least one more novel, which I look forward to reading so I can hopefully get more answers about these deadly creatures.
This was definitely new level of apocalypse! I've read a few Dystopians (The Hunger Games and Divergent, for example) but none were quite like this. The idea is intriguing - something is causing people to turn into violent maniacs who usually murder those surrounding them before bringing themselves to death. I'm many, many ways, the fact these characters cannot see - are not allowed to look - at what's causing so much chaos is the suspense, leaving you with questions such as: what are they, why do they exist and how do they exist, what is their purpose, what do they want? I never would have thought of it without Tom's insight, but I suppose he had a point - are these creatures consciously evil of the destruction they are causing? Either way, it makes for an interesting, albeit frustrating, concept. I chose to read this before watching the movie and I can understand how this could play out better on the big screen, but I feel like Josh did an excellent job at using the absence of sight with his words. I read Bird Box in one sitting, was curious about the nature of these creatures, interested in the possibility of a relationship between Tom and Malorie. The ending felt like it could have been final: Malorie and the kids and up at their destination and live happily ever after; but I'm fully aware there is at least one more novel, which I look forward to reading so I can hopefully get more answers about these deadly creatures.
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Life of the Party (2018) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019
Mother/daughter relationship (1 more)
No fat-bashing
Contains spoilers, click to show
I went into this movie with few expectations and was pleasantly surprised that Melissa McCartney's character wasn't completely ridiculous and over-the-top. It was easy to feel empathy for this sympathetic character who returns to school to finish her archaeology degree as an adult-student following a big change in her life. Her daughter also attends the university and instead of the typical teenage response of angst and embarrassment, she obviously loves her mom and they have a great relationship. This movie is sweet and has heart. There are some silly situations, but most are benign. For the most part, I enjoyed this movie.
I would have given this a higher rating but took away a star for promoting dangerous practice.
I have a bit of a problem when it comes to the frat initiation scene because people are ignorant, i.e. the Bird Box challenges, and will attempt stupid feats they see in movies. The scene in question involves someone being spanked with a wooden paddle. Some may think it is a harmless prank, however, if attempted in real life by amateurs, it can cause real physical damage to a person, from kidney injuries, broken skin, and broken bones, and it should not be attempted at home. Especially not drunken revelers. Just the idea of pledging to a frat, sorority or team tends to make young people think of humiliating or painful acts to inflict upon others so anything that may encourage undeveloped minds to engage in hazing practices gets a thumbs down from me.
Otherwise, a fun movie.
I would have given this a higher rating but took away a star for promoting dangerous practice.
I have a bit of a problem when it comes to the frat initiation scene because people are ignorant, i.e. the Bird Box challenges, and will attempt stupid feats they see in movies. The scene in question involves someone being spanked with a wooden paddle. Some may think it is a harmless prank, however, if attempted in real life by amateurs, it can cause real physical damage to a person, from kidney injuries, broken skin, and broken bones, and it should not be attempted at home. Especially not drunken revelers. Just the idea of pledging to a frat, sorority or team tends to make young people think of humiliating or painful acts to inflict upon others so anything that may encourage undeveloped minds to engage in hazing practices gets a thumbs down from me.
Otherwise, a fun movie.
Awix (3310 KP) rated King Kong Lives (1986) in Movies
Jun 15, 2018
Ape Sh*t
Inexplicably boring and frankly quite weird attempt to cash in on the Kong name: having survived being machine gunned off the top of the Twin Towers and falling five hundred metres onto concrete (and thus proving that some gorillas just can't take a hint), Kong is in a coma being looked after by Linda Hamilton, who should have read the script before signing on. A no-mark leading man is able to hunt up a female giant gorilla to help out with a blood transfusion, but when the two apes get it on and escape, there's panic all round.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.
RosarioDawson recommended Man On Wire (2008) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The little mermaid (2023) in Movies
Sep 20, 2023
You Will Want To Go Under The Sea
Back in 2013, the Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl with a QB, Joe Flacco, who was a “game manager”. His reputation was that he was NOT spectacular and wouldn’t win a game for you, but he also wouldn’t take chances and LOSE a game for you.
Such the same can be said of newcomer Halle Bailey as Ariel in Disney’s Live Action remake of THE LITTLE MERMAID. She produces a competent, steady (but unspectacular) performance that doesn’t really add all that much to the film, but (more importantly) it doesn’t detract either.
And that is a GOOD (enough) thing as Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) populates this remake with some wonderful performers/performances to go along with better-than-average CGI and some new songs that actually work well (and don’t just seem like “add-ons”). All of this adds up to a very enjoyable family time at the movies.
Following the plot of the Disney Animated film from 1989, this Little Mermaid does not sway too far from the basic plot, though it does cut down (a bit) on the musical numbers. But when it swings big, it swings BIG and these swings connect.
Daveed Diggs (Broadway’s Hamilton) almost steals the film as the voice of Sebastian the Crab and his UNDER THE SEA number is a visual and audible delight while Awkwafina (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) fills in very well in the Buddy Hackett role as the bird Scuttle. Surprisingly, young Jacob Trembley (ROOM) more than holds his own in this crazy trio of sidekicks as the young fish Flounder. These three work together quite a bit more in this film than in the previous, animated one and they work well together.
But, make no mistake, this film is Melissa McCarthy’s and as the evil Sea Witch Ursula, she demands you pay attention - and keep paying attention - to her. Her big number, POOR UNFORTUNATE SOULS is deep, rich and powerful while her performance throughout the film is just enough over-the-top to work. Credit needs to go to both McCarthy and Marshall to understand when enough was enough or when they went too far and reigned it in.
Javier Bardem (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN) also populates this film as Ariel’s father, King Triton, and while it looks like Bardem is trying very, very hard to audition for a serious Shakespeare role, it works well here.
Finally, the biggest surprise to me in this film is Jonah Hauer-King (he played Laurie in the Saoirse Ronan/Emma Watson/Florence Pugh LITTLE WOMEN) as Prince Eric. In the animated version of this film, poor Prince Eric has very little to do, except to be Ariel’s “Prince Charming”. In this version, writer David Magee (LIFE OF PI) turns Eric into a real character with some depth - and a song! The 2nd half of this film was as much about Prince Eric as it was about Ariel.
And, that is okay, for the ending of this film needed some energy in addition to Bailey’s to make it rise above the rest of film and with the help of all those other wonderful performers, it rises well above (and not under) the sea.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such the same can be said of newcomer Halle Bailey as Ariel in Disney’s Live Action remake of THE LITTLE MERMAID. She produces a competent, steady (but unspectacular) performance that doesn’t really add all that much to the film, but (more importantly) it doesn’t detract either.
And that is a GOOD (enough) thing as Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) populates this remake with some wonderful performers/performances to go along with better-than-average CGI and some new songs that actually work well (and don’t just seem like “add-ons”). All of this adds up to a very enjoyable family time at the movies.
Following the plot of the Disney Animated film from 1989, this Little Mermaid does not sway too far from the basic plot, though it does cut down (a bit) on the musical numbers. But when it swings big, it swings BIG and these swings connect.
Daveed Diggs (Broadway’s Hamilton) almost steals the film as the voice of Sebastian the Crab and his UNDER THE SEA number is a visual and audible delight while Awkwafina (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) fills in very well in the Buddy Hackett role as the bird Scuttle. Surprisingly, young Jacob Trembley (ROOM) more than holds his own in this crazy trio of sidekicks as the young fish Flounder. These three work together quite a bit more in this film than in the previous, animated one and they work well together.
But, make no mistake, this film is Melissa McCarthy’s and as the evil Sea Witch Ursula, she demands you pay attention - and keep paying attention - to her. Her big number, POOR UNFORTUNATE SOULS is deep, rich and powerful while her performance throughout the film is just enough over-the-top to work. Credit needs to go to both McCarthy and Marshall to understand when enough was enough or when they went too far and reigned it in.
Javier Bardem (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN) also populates this film as Ariel’s father, King Triton, and while it looks like Bardem is trying very, very hard to audition for a serious Shakespeare role, it works well here.
Finally, the biggest surprise to me in this film is Jonah Hauer-King (he played Laurie in the Saoirse Ronan/Emma Watson/Florence Pugh LITTLE WOMEN) as Prince Eric. In the animated version of this film, poor Prince Eric has very little to do, except to be Ariel’s “Prince Charming”. In this version, writer David Magee (LIFE OF PI) turns Eric into a real character with some depth - and a song! The 2nd half of this film was as much about Prince Eric as it was about Ariel.
And, that is okay, for the ending of this film needed some energy in addition to Bailey’s to make it rise above the rest of film and with the help of all those other wonderful performers, it rises well above (and not under) the sea.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Pirates! An Adventure With Scientists (2012) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Ardman Animation returned to the big screen in 2012 with this adaptation of the Children novel series, The Pirates!.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated A House at the Bottom of a Lake in Books
Jan 31, 2019
I’m a big Josh Malerman fan, with the exception of Unbury Carol which, if you read my DNF on it, was absolutely horrid. That said, when I came across A House at the Bottom of a Lake on Amazon’s Kindle Unlimited, I was a bit leery. Despite being a Malerman fan, I hadn’t heard of this title and… well, it was on KU. That alone struck me as a red flag. Nonetheless, I grabbed it and spent the night reading it. It wasn’t awful, but it’s definitely not Bird Box level great.
A House at the Bottom of a Lake is a coming of age story, one of those ones where the reader experiences the final moments of the main characters’ innocence. The house itself symbolizes the imaginative youthfulness and innocence of the more childlike mind, while the canoe represents the path to adulthood and the obstacles that must be overcome. Just like life experiences change us, the events leading up to the conclusion of the story change the canoe in ways that cannot be undone: paint chipping, dents, scratches, etc. I’d provide another example to support this theory, but that would, unfortunately, mean giving away a major spoiler to the story–so I won’t.
As far as the characters go, I found Amelia and James to be your stereotypical awkward teenagers. There is a bit of a disconnect between their age and their assumed behavior, leaning to the idea that these two kids are well-behaved and normally aren’t risk takers. Because of this, there are several moments where the story is dull.
There’s no doubt that this is a piece of work by Josh Malerman; it has his style all over it. That is, it’s meant to be suspenseful. However, the manner in which Malerman writes A House on the Bottom of a Lake struck me as a bit more jarring than edge-of-your-seat, ohmigawd what is happening!? This is probably because Malerman is a little too friendly with the parentheses in this book.
A House on the Bottom of a Lake is a great one-time read. It’s enjoyable and it has its moments, and the bond shared between Amelia and James feels realistic. It’s definitely something I’d recommend to a Malerman fan, though it isn’t worthy of a pedestal of its own.
A House at the Bottom of a Lake is a coming of age story, one of those ones where the reader experiences the final moments of the main characters’ innocence. The house itself symbolizes the imaginative youthfulness and innocence of the more childlike mind, while the canoe represents the path to adulthood and the obstacles that must be overcome. Just like life experiences change us, the events leading up to the conclusion of the story change the canoe in ways that cannot be undone: paint chipping, dents, scratches, etc. I’d provide another example to support this theory, but that would, unfortunately, mean giving away a major spoiler to the story–so I won’t.
As far as the characters go, I found Amelia and James to be your stereotypical awkward teenagers. There is a bit of a disconnect between their age and their assumed behavior, leaning to the idea that these two kids are well-behaved and normally aren’t risk takers. Because of this, there are several moments where the story is dull.
There’s no doubt that this is a piece of work by Josh Malerman; it has his style all over it. That is, it’s meant to be suspenseful. However, the manner in which Malerman writes A House on the Bottom of a Lake struck me as a bit more jarring than edge-of-your-seat, ohmigawd what is happening!? This is probably because Malerman is a little too friendly with the parentheses in this book.
A House on the Bottom of a Lake is a great one-time read. It’s enjoyable and it has its moments, and the bond shared between Amelia and James feels realistic. It’s definitely something I’d recommend to a Malerman fan, though it isn’t worthy of a pedestal of its own.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.