Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
bting English - Trading English
Catalogs and Business
App
Trading English is the language to adapt to working life requirements for the purpose of covering...
Mariafrancesca (30 KP) rated The Demon’s surrendee (Demon’s Lexicon #3) in Books
Apr 7, 2019
This is a review for the whole series
I read these books because a friend of mine suggested them and she enjoyed them very much. I really like Sarah Rees Brennan style, it is funny and engaging and I really couldn't put these books down. However the end of this trilogy makes me angry, there are so many problems with it that I don't know where to start. I apologise in advance for the mistakes in this review, I am not a native speaker so please be patient.
The Disney happy ending: I don't want to comment the fact that everyone gets paired off here, but what about the magicians? In this book the magicians are evil, they kill people, they are addicted to power, the lousy solution they found through Jamie it's not solid. What happens when Jamie dies? When Nick dies? It can last for 50-60 years, what then? This magicians are not vampires that can drink animal blood, they are addicts that need to kill people in order to have power, this solution is just temporary and I cannot see another way to make it happens afterwards, unless they start to sacrifice babies that is even worse. Moreover they unleash 2 demons on Earth (the most irresponsible and incoherent thing they can do after 3 books of saying how they are pure evil) and the only explanation we get is "winning a war comes with a price"
Diversity: the way diversity is treated in this book is ridiculous. She throws in some black or gay character, family problems, a past of abuses and then she uses them to makes the white rich kids shine. I will talk about Sin in a minute, but what about Seb? He could have been such a precious character instead you see him as bully, then as the magicians' pet, then he gets to date the boy he always loved in secret, after he bullied him for years, just because he's the only gay character still available
All that is wrong with Sin:
The Character: Sin is a strong teenage girl who had a tough life but she has always worked hard to achieve her goal: become the leader of a place that she loves deeply, understands deeply and where she spent her entire life. And when a tourist threats to get the position instead, she is the first to recognise that this girl who has been at the Goblin Market 4 times is better than her in everything. Sin doesn't simply fail, she surrenders to the fact that Mae's is better than her and she just let her have the Market. Sin, that should be the main character of the third book, stays a secondary character with no development other than getting rid of a stupid superstition about limping guys and getting a boyfriend.
Point of view: although I enjoyed Sin's POV far more than Mae's, I can't see the reason of this choice. The previous POV where of main characters who were actually living the situation and acting in the situation. In here Sin, instead of becoming a main character, spends more than half of the book overhearing conversations (with her supernatural hearing) and following Mae's plans. Again, it seems they wanted to show off about the diversity inside this book and instead it results in a joke. Alan's POV, or Jamie's, would have been so much better.
All that is wrong with Mae:
I am not a fan of Mae, I couldn't stand her form the beginning. I don't want to get started on this because I could talk about it for hours but to summarise my opinion, I think that author wanted to go for a character very much like Hermione but much more popular and cool. The problem is that Hermione, even though she is smart and talented, succeeds in everything she does because she works very hard to get there she sacrifice herself for a greater cause, and she has flow and doubts as every teenager. Mae succeeds in everything without any particular reason, she is just lucky and most of the time she doesn't deserve what she gets.
Last but not lest: COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW ON EARTH A DEMON AND A HUMAN GIRL GET TOGETHER?????
The Disney happy ending: I don't want to comment the fact that everyone gets paired off here, but what about the magicians? In this book the magicians are evil, they kill people, they are addicted to power, the lousy solution they found through Jamie it's not solid. What happens when Jamie dies? When Nick dies? It can last for 50-60 years, what then? This magicians are not vampires that can drink animal blood, they are addicts that need to kill people in order to have power, this solution is just temporary and I cannot see another way to make it happens afterwards, unless they start to sacrifice babies that is even worse. Moreover they unleash 2 demons on Earth (the most irresponsible and incoherent thing they can do after 3 books of saying how they are pure evil) and the only explanation we get is "winning a war comes with a price"
Diversity: the way diversity is treated in this book is ridiculous. She throws in some black or gay character, family problems, a past of abuses and then she uses them to makes the white rich kids shine. I will talk about Sin in a minute, but what about Seb? He could have been such a precious character instead you see him as bully, then as the magicians' pet, then he gets to date the boy he always loved in secret, after he bullied him for years, just because he's the only gay character still available
All that is wrong with Sin:
The Character: Sin is a strong teenage girl who had a tough life but she has always worked hard to achieve her goal: become the leader of a place that she loves deeply, understands deeply and where she spent her entire life. And when a tourist threats to get the position instead, she is the first to recognise that this girl who has been at the Goblin Market 4 times is better than her in everything. Sin doesn't simply fail, she surrenders to the fact that Mae's is better than her and she just let her have the Market. Sin, that should be the main character of the third book, stays a secondary character with no development other than getting rid of a stupid superstition about limping guys and getting a boyfriend.
Point of view: although I enjoyed Sin's POV far more than Mae's, I can't see the reason of this choice. The previous POV where of main characters who were actually living the situation and acting in the situation. In here Sin, instead of becoming a main character, spends more than half of the book overhearing conversations (with her supernatural hearing) and following Mae's plans. Again, it seems they wanted to show off about the diversity inside this book and instead it results in a joke. Alan's POV, or Jamie's, would have been so much better.
All that is wrong with Mae:
I am not a fan of Mae, I couldn't stand her form the beginning. I don't want to get started on this because I could talk about it for hours but to summarise my opinion, I think that author wanted to go for a character very much like Hermione but much more popular and cool. The problem is that Hermione, even though she is smart and talented, succeeds in everything she does because she works very hard to get there she sacrifice herself for a greater cause, and she has flow and doubts as every teenager. Mae succeeds in everything without any particular reason, she is just lucky and most of the time she doesn't deserve what she gets.
Last but not lest: COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW ON EARTH A DEMON AND A HUMAN GIRL GET TOGETHER?????
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Don't Drink the Pink in Books
Jun 27, 2019
I love children's picture books. They're so much fun and usually so lighthearted. When I had the opportunity to review Don't Drink the Pink by B.C.R. Fegan, I jumped at the chance. This book sounded like it would be a fun one! I ended up liking it a lot.
At the beginning of Don't Drink the Pink, we're introduced to Madeline on her first birthday where her Grandpa Gilderberry gives her a box of potions telling her not to drink the pink. On every birthday up to her fourteenth, she is allowed to have one potion as long as it isn't pink. These potions give Madeline special abilities. On her fifteenth birthday, Madeline is allowed to finally drink the pink potion. You'll just have to see what happens when Madeline finally is allowed to drink the pink potion. Just be sure to have your tissues ready because it is touching.
The plot for Don't Drink the Pink is definitely entertaining and sure to have children guessing at which ability Madeline will have next. It'll also keep children wondering if and when Madeline can drink the pink potion as well as what will happen when she does. This book uses rhyming language with the last word on every other sentence. I believe this makes the book more fun and will hold a child's attention more. One thing to note, a family member does die in the book which can be quite heavy for a small child. Don't Drink the Pink doesn't go into detail about the death. The wording just mentions that this certain character passed away. I do understand why the author included the death, but it does take away from the lightheartedness of the story. However, Don't Drink the Pink is a lovely story, and that shouldn't be a deal breaker.
Madeline and her grandfather are such sweet lovable characters. It was so endearing to see how close they were. I could feel the love between them coming off the pages. I just wanted to hug them both!
As for the illustrations, I read Don't Drink the Pink on my Kindle Paperwhite, so they were all in black and white which was a shame. The illustrations were drawn very well and were very adorable. The pictures were drawn in a way that a child would love. I just wish I could have had color to the illustrations because I bet with the colors, the illustrations look even more amazing! Another unfortunate circumstance of not being able to have colored illustrations on my Kindle was that my 4 year old wasn't as entertained. However, had we have had colored illustrations, I'm sure he would have loved this story! Kudos to Lenny Wen for his talent when it came to illustrating Don't Drink the Pink. He is definitely talented!
Overall, despite the mention of a character's passing, Don't Drink the Pink is a sweet story. The rhyming is fantastic, and it has a story line that will hold a child's and adult's attention. I would definitely recommend Don't Drink the Pink by B.C.R. Fegan to adults and children between the ages of 3 through 7 although older children may like this book as well.
--
(A special thank you to TaleBlade Press for providing me with an eBook of Don't Drink the Pink by B.C.R. Fegan in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
At the beginning of Don't Drink the Pink, we're introduced to Madeline on her first birthday where her Grandpa Gilderberry gives her a box of potions telling her not to drink the pink. On every birthday up to her fourteenth, she is allowed to have one potion as long as it isn't pink. These potions give Madeline special abilities. On her fifteenth birthday, Madeline is allowed to finally drink the pink potion. You'll just have to see what happens when Madeline finally is allowed to drink the pink potion. Just be sure to have your tissues ready because it is touching.
The plot for Don't Drink the Pink is definitely entertaining and sure to have children guessing at which ability Madeline will have next. It'll also keep children wondering if and when Madeline can drink the pink potion as well as what will happen when she does. This book uses rhyming language with the last word on every other sentence. I believe this makes the book more fun and will hold a child's attention more. One thing to note, a family member does die in the book which can be quite heavy for a small child. Don't Drink the Pink doesn't go into detail about the death. The wording just mentions that this certain character passed away. I do understand why the author included the death, but it does take away from the lightheartedness of the story. However, Don't Drink the Pink is a lovely story, and that shouldn't be a deal breaker.
Madeline and her grandfather are such sweet lovable characters. It was so endearing to see how close they were. I could feel the love between them coming off the pages. I just wanted to hug them both!
As for the illustrations, I read Don't Drink the Pink on my Kindle Paperwhite, so they were all in black and white which was a shame. The illustrations were drawn very well and were very adorable. The pictures were drawn in a way that a child would love. I just wish I could have had color to the illustrations because I bet with the colors, the illustrations look even more amazing! Another unfortunate circumstance of not being able to have colored illustrations on my Kindle was that my 4 year old wasn't as entertained. However, had we have had colored illustrations, I'm sure he would have loved this story! Kudos to Lenny Wen for his talent when it came to illustrating Don't Drink the Pink. He is definitely talented!
Overall, despite the mention of a character's passing, Don't Drink the Pink is a sweet story. The rhyming is fantastic, and it has a story line that will hold a child's and adult's attention. I would definitely recommend Don't Drink the Pink by B.C.R. Fegan to adults and children between the ages of 3 through 7 although older children may like this book as well.
--
(A special thank you to TaleBlade Press for providing me with an eBook of Don't Drink the Pink by B.C.R. Fegan in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The first half of The Serpent and the Moon mainly deals with Francois I's reign as king and has little to do with the love triangle. Frankly, the whole book itself hasn't much to do with the love triangle or "one of the great love stories of all time," but more to do with the political intrigue of Henri I and his father's reigns. Oh, and lest I forget, Henri, Diane, and both of their symbols, monograms, etc. I honestly don't know what the whole fascination of that was all about, but it showed up everywhere.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
Masters of Horror: A Horror Anthology
9.0
Rate It
Book
Masters of Horror A selection of some of the finest horror writers of today were invited by Matt...
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Blackbeard in TV
May 28, 2017
Good cast (1 more)
Decent for a TV miniseries/movie
Not entirely accurate (2 more)
The characters and boats are far too clean
TV effects (or lack of) might spoil some scenes
Somewhat entertaining
So I was on the search for some more Pirate movies at my local DVD stores, in hopes of finding something with the effects of Pirates of the Caribbean, but a more serious plot like that of the Black Sails series. Something that feels more like how the golden age of piracy would seem, not quite as quirky and humorous as the Disney films, although I cannot fault them for they are some of my favourite movies. It was on my search, that I came across this, and my initial thoughts were that whilst it looked cheap, it could be an entertaining film. As it turns out, I discovered this was a TV miniseries, merged into roughly a 162 minute film.
It has some charm, I can say that much for it. The cast are decent with very few famous names, and the acting itself isn't dreadful. However, there seems to be some lacking in the actual filming and editing of the episodes/feature. It has a decent plot which involves a hunt for treasure, a hunt for justice and slight revenge, which makes the viewing, feel like a pirate experience should be, but there still seems to lack the proper visuals to complete the experience.
If you take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean, one aspect that makes those films so darn good is the visuals. The pirates are dirty, rotting teeth, golden teeth, dirty fingernails, and their ships are battle worn with scars in the woodwork and again, the dirt from barnicles, and land. The ships in this feature on the other hand, are the cleanest ships you'll see in a pirate themed show or movie, and they look as if they were freshly made straight from the ship builder themselves. There doesn't appear to be any barnicles clung onto them, nor are there any battle scars, even after you witness a battle in the beginning of the film. The pirates themselves are also clean, all with white teeth as though they visited a dentist and brushed their teeth with colgate or the next best brand. There's not a single sign of scurvy which was popular among pirates during the golden age, and I didn't really spot any scars from battles apart from the obvious ones where you witness a member of Blackbeards crew have part of his leg removed due to injury (you don't see the gruesome imagery, as it's 12 rated series). Other than that though, there no facial scars, no sign to tell us that Blackbeard has fought enough battles and lived through them to become reknowned as a devil instead of a man. We only see what appears to be a couple of weeks of him as a Captain, and yet he claims to already be known as the scurge of the seas, which is highly unlikely given that we only see him battle one ship and spend the rest of his time hunting treasure, never running across another opposing ship until the finale, which sees Blackbeard battle against a crew of Royal Navy soldiers led by Lieutenant Robert Maynard.
Whilst the plot had me intrigued for the most part, I can't say that this is a film I would 'Highly' recommend, but if you fancy watching a pirate movie, this could be somewhat sufficient until you find something else, despite some of the deaths in battle seeming very staged, as sometimes I would notice a sword being shoved theatrically into someones armpit, only for the victim of the blade to fall lifeless to the floor, some holding onto the blade as though left in their body, others being retrieved from the 'corpse' with no visible blood on the blade.
With very historical accuracy's, mostly about the legend of Captain Kidd, hiding treasure, and the title's that Blackbeard earned, before his life was taken by that of Robert Maynard, the location of his death, and some other less important factors, were dramatized for the series alone and should not be taken as historically accurate.
It's a decent film, but it's just not quite what I was hoping for, and certainly not as great as it could have been.
It has some charm, I can say that much for it. The cast are decent with very few famous names, and the acting itself isn't dreadful. However, there seems to be some lacking in the actual filming and editing of the episodes/feature. It has a decent plot which involves a hunt for treasure, a hunt for justice and slight revenge, which makes the viewing, feel like a pirate experience should be, but there still seems to lack the proper visuals to complete the experience.
If you take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean, one aspect that makes those films so darn good is the visuals. The pirates are dirty, rotting teeth, golden teeth, dirty fingernails, and their ships are battle worn with scars in the woodwork and again, the dirt from barnicles, and land. The ships in this feature on the other hand, are the cleanest ships you'll see in a pirate themed show or movie, and they look as if they were freshly made straight from the ship builder themselves. There doesn't appear to be any barnicles clung onto them, nor are there any battle scars, even after you witness a battle in the beginning of the film. The pirates themselves are also clean, all with white teeth as though they visited a dentist and brushed their teeth with colgate or the next best brand. There's not a single sign of scurvy which was popular among pirates during the golden age, and I didn't really spot any scars from battles apart from the obvious ones where you witness a member of Blackbeards crew have part of his leg removed due to injury (you don't see the gruesome imagery, as it's 12 rated series). Other than that though, there no facial scars, no sign to tell us that Blackbeard has fought enough battles and lived through them to become reknowned as a devil instead of a man. We only see what appears to be a couple of weeks of him as a Captain, and yet he claims to already be known as the scurge of the seas, which is highly unlikely given that we only see him battle one ship and spend the rest of his time hunting treasure, never running across another opposing ship until the finale, which sees Blackbeard battle against a crew of Royal Navy soldiers led by Lieutenant Robert Maynard.
Whilst the plot had me intrigued for the most part, I can't say that this is a film I would 'Highly' recommend, but if you fancy watching a pirate movie, this could be somewhat sufficient until you find something else, despite some of the deaths in battle seeming very staged, as sometimes I would notice a sword being shoved theatrically into someones armpit, only for the victim of the blade to fall lifeless to the floor, some holding onto the blade as though left in their body, others being retrieved from the 'corpse' with no visible blood on the blade.
With very historical accuracy's, mostly about the legend of Captain Kidd, hiding treasure, and the title's that Blackbeard earned, before his life was taken by that of Robert Maynard, the location of his death, and some other less important factors, were dramatized for the series alone and should not be taken as historically accurate.
It's a decent film, but it's just not quite what I was hoping for, and certainly not as great as it could have been.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Fright Night (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
You Can't Murder a Vampire
Fright Night- is a excellent vampire movie. Directed by Tom Holland. It has comedy, horror, lots of gory and Peter Vincent.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.