Search
Search results
Mothergamer (1558 KP) rated the PC version of The Witcher III: Wild Hunt in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I was excited to play Witcher 3 Complete Edition as I had never played it before, yet I had read all the books about the Witcher Geralt and liked them a lot. I have not played the first two games, but they are both on my to play list. Geralt's world is interesting filled with complex characters, fantastic monsters, and great storytelling. All I can say is that I have a ton of games to play and some things get backlogged. I still have a stack of PS3 games to play and of course, I'll be playing the remastered Skyrim for PS4 when it comes out and that's another game I haven't played yet, but for this moment let's discuss how much I loved Witcher 3.
Yes, I loved Witcher 3. I stayed up way too late many a night playing this game because I was having so much fun running around killing monsters and helping people in need. My vision of Geralt was someone who did his best to do the right thing and that sometimes that meant siding with the occasional monster because there were times when humans were the real monsters. The story drew me in right away and these were characters and lore I was familiar with so I was thrilled to explore the entire world in the game. Truly, I unlocked entire maps because I just had to know what everything was. The areas that were too high a level for me at the time I made a note of where they were and came back later. I think it's great when a game makes exploration fun and it definitely helped having Geralt's horse, Roach to help that exploration go a bit faster.
The environments in Witcher 3 are amazing. I would find myself stopping and just looking around at the scenery whether it was roaming through a forest or wandering the streets of a city. The attention to minute details was quite impressive. The gameplay is great. The gaming controls are fine tuned to make battles fun without feeling frustrating and the camera angles are spot on which made a terrific gaming experience for me. The music for Witcher 3 is beautiful. My favorite music was for the area of Skellige. Skellige was also my favorite place to explore because it was so pretty there with all the wild flowers and forests. I genuinely liked the people there too because many of them did not treat Geralt with complete suspicion or call him a freak the way they did in cities like Novigrad. They respected him and what he did; the fact that he was a Witcher and had cat eyes didn't really come up much. I felt that showed a lot of variety in the thinking of the people in the different areas.
There are mini games to play as well. I enjoyed the horse races because those were fun and worth the time and effort. They gave some great rewards such as saddle bags that increased my inventory space and saddles that increased my horse's stamina and speed. Then there's a card game called Gwent which you can play with various people ranging from innkeepers to some of Geralt's friends. I really tried with Gwent. It was a bit confusing for me and I found myself looking up videos on YouTube just to try and get the gist of it, and it helped a bit. However, a huge shout out to my friend Danny for giving a simple explanation of how it worked and the best strategy to winning because that helped more. I mainly just wanted to finish the Gwent side quests I had and I managed to do that. After that, I no longer bothered playing Gwent. It just wasn't my thing, but I will say graphics wise it was a well designed mini game and while it was a tad frustrating for me, I understood why many of my friends enjoyed it. There's also fist fights tournaments (think Fight Club) that Geralt can participate in. I aced the heck out of those and won all those prize coin purses. My favorite fight was the Rock Troll because it was interesting and I got to learn his name at the end; a reward for winning the fight.
Level grinding was not a chore for me in the game because there were so many quests and Witcher contracts which involves hunting specific monsters or investigating things that might involve monsters. These offer good experience and a lot of money for Geralt. There are times when the leveling feels a bit uneven because sometimes the main story quests give more experience than a few of the contracts and side quests. It's not a big deal, but it is noticeable. The skills menu for unlocking Geralt's Witcher abilities and upgrading them is easy to navigate and quite user friendly. My favorite skill was an upgrade of the Axii skill known as Puppet which could make enemies fight each other. The cutscenes and voice acting are superb; while the loading times are practically seamless which made me very happy.
First of all, I don't like anyone telling me what to do. Ask my parents. There was a time when I was told to eat my vegetables when I was a kid and instead of doing that, I stealthily put them under my chair and claimed my plate was clean because I wanted to go play with my friends. Hey, I was four. What the heck did I know about being a mastermind? My parents bought it for two minutes until they discovered it and yes, it was wrong of me to think that I didn't have to listen and tried to fool my parents but this gives you an idea about how long I've been like this. Don't get me wrong, if you just have a conversation with me and we have a healthy discussion I will listen to what you have to say. What I don't respond well to is comments like, "You should NOT be playing that game because of this, that, or the other thing." Ultimately I like to decide and think for myself and I think everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to play a game, read a book, or see a movie.
While playing Witcher 3 two things came up about this which were I should not play the game because there are no people of color in it and that it was sexist to women. I honestly did not know there was a huge hullabaloo about these things when the game was first released because honestly I get busy with things going on in my life and I tend to just choose games that pique my interest. I thought the game looked interesting, so I bought it. That's really all there was to it.
As for the second aspect regarding the game being sexist towards women, I just find myself wondering where this comes from. There are several, I repeat, several strong female characters in the lore of Witcher and in the game. How is any of it sexist towards women? Look, I understand not liking all the boobies in the brothels and the sexual scenes in the game. It's not for everyone and some folks are just not down for it. It never bothered me and some of those sex scenes have some amusing humor in them. The argument that Geralt feels no emotions so it's sexist towards women is utter crap. If a person takes the time to actually read any of the books, read the lore, or actually tried to play the game they would know that Geralt can not express emotions on his face because of all the mutations that Witchers go through. Geralt actually feels very deeply especially when it comes to people like Yennefer who is his true love, Ciri who is like a daughter to him, and of course Vesemir who is a mentor/father figure to him. The fact that he can't physically express those emotions due to him essentially being a mutant shouldn't count against him.
The issues with things like Ciri being called a bitch by men or Yennefer being called a whore; those are things that happen in the real world and they sure as hell happened way too often throughout history. Part of the storytelling of many artistic things is that it finds a creative way to discuss real world issues and inform you hey, this kind of thing happens open your eyes. The part I loved is that these women did not need saving. They handled it themselves. The man who called Ciri a bitch? She broke his nose and she stuck up for herself. Yennefer handled the man who called her a whore and she held her own very well. These are not wilting flowers. These are strong, intelligent, and brave women in the story and I was thrilled that a fantasy game had them. Honestly, as soon as I heard the sentence, "Feminist Frequency said..." I felt my eyes rolling because this is such a stretch. I'm not saying that they're not entitled to their opinion because they are, but I did not see any evidence of that in the game at all and I disagree.
Games are meant to be fun and for me Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt was so much fun and one of the best games I've ever played. The story, the open exploration, and the diverse characters were amazing and I enjoyed it immensely. Now, I'm going to play through again on new game plus because the completionist in me wants to get all the different endings and the game is worth playing multiple times if one wishes.
Yes, I loved Witcher 3. I stayed up way too late many a night playing this game because I was having so much fun running around killing monsters and helping people in need. My vision of Geralt was someone who did his best to do the right thing and that sometimes that meant siding with the occasional monster because there were times when humans were the real monsters. The story drew me in right away and these were characters and lore I was familiar with so I was thrilled to explore the entire world in the game. Truly, I unlocked entire maps because I just had to know what everything was. The areas that were too high a level for me at the time I made a note of where they were and came back later. I think it's great when a game makes exploration fun and it definitely helped having Geralt's horse, Roach to help that exploration go a bit faster.
The environments in Witcher 3 are amazing. I would find myself stopping and just looking around at the scenery whether it was roaming through a forest or wandering the streets of a city. The attention to minute details was quite impressive. The gameplay is great. The gaming controls are fine tuned to make battles fun without feeling frustrating and the camera angles are spot on which made a terrific gaming experience for me. The music for Witcher 3 is beautiful. My favorite music was for the area of Skellige. Skellige was also my favorite place to explore because it was so pretty there with all the wild flowers and forests. I genuinely liked the people there too because many of them did not treat Geralt with complete suspicion or call him a freak the way they did in cities like Novigrad. They respected him and what he did; the fact that he was a Witcher and had cat eyes didn't really come up much. I felt that showed a lot of variety in the thinking of the people in the different areas.
There are mini games to play as well. I enjoyed the horse races because those were fun and worth the time and effort. They gave some great rewards such as saddle bags that increased my inventory space and saddles that increased my horse's stamina and speed. Then there's a card game called Gwent which you can play with various people ranging from innkeepers to some of Geralt's friends. I really tried with Gwent. It was a bit confusing for me and I found myself looking up videos on YouTube just to try and get the gist of it, and it helped a bit. However, a huge shout out to my friend Danny for giving a simple explanation of how it worked and the best strategy to winning because that helped more. I mainly just wanted to finish the Gwent side quests I had and I managed to do that. After that, I no longer bothered playing Gwent. It just wasn't my thing, but I will say graphics wise it was a well designed mini game and while it was a tad frustrating for me, I understood why many of my friends enjoyed it. There's also fist fights tournaments (think Fight Club) that Geralt can participate in. I aced the heck out of those and won all those prize coin purses. My favorite fight was the Rock Troll because it was interesting and I got to learn his name at the end; a reward for winning the fight.
Level grinding was not a chore for me in the game because there were so many quests and Witcher contracts which involves hunting specific monsters or investigating things that might involve monsters. These offer good experience and a lot of money for Geralt. There are times when the leveling feels a bit uneven because sometimes the main story quests give more experience than a few of the contracts and side quests. It's not a big deal, but it is noticeable. The skills menu for unlocking Geralt's Witcher abilities and upgrading them is easy to navigate and quite user friendly. My favorite skill was an upgrade of the Axii skill known as Puppet which could make enemies fight each other. The cutscenes and voice acting are superb; while the loading times are practically seamless which made me very happy.
First of all, I don't like anyone telling me what to do. Ask my parents. There was a time when I was told to eat my vegetables when I was a kid and instead of doing that, I stealthily put them under my chair and claimed my plate was clean because I wanted to go play with my friends. Hey, I was four. What the heck did I know about being a mastermind? My parents bought it for two minutes until they discovered it and yes, it was wrong of me to think that I didn't have to listen and tried to fool my parents but this gives you an idea about how long I've been like this. Don't get me wrong, if you just have a conversation with me and we have a healthy discussion I will listen to what you have to say. What I don't respond well to is comments like, "You should NOT be playing that game because of this, that, or the other thing." Ultimately I like to decide and think for myself and I think everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to play a game, read a book, or see a movie.
While playing Witcher 3 two things came up about this which were I should not play the game because there are no people of color in it and that it was sexist to women. I honestly did not know there was a huge hullabaloo about these things when the game was first released because honestly I get busy with things going on in my life and I tend to just choose games that pique my interest. I thought the game looked interesting, so I bought it. That's really all there was to it.
As for the second aspect regarding the game being sexist towards women, I just find myself wondering where this comes from. There are several, I repeat, several strong female characters in the lore of Witcher and in the game. How is any of it sexist towards women? Look, I understand not liking all the boobies in the brothels and the sexual scenes in the game. It's not for everyone and some folks are just not down for it. It never bothered me and some of those sex scenes have some amusing humor in them. The argument that Geralt feels no emotions so it's sexist towards women is utter crap. If a person takes the time to actually read any of the books, read the lore, or actually tried to play the game they would know that Geralt can not express emotions on his face because of all the mutations that Witchers go through. Geralt actually feels very deeply especially when it comes to people like Yennefer who is his true love, Ciri who is like a daughter to him, and of course Vesemir who is a mentor/father figure to him. The fact that he can't physically express those emotions due to him essentially being a mutant shouldn't count against him.
The issues with things like Ciri being called a bitch by men or Yennefer being called a whore; those are things that happen in the real world and they sure as hell happened way too often throughout history. Part of the storytelling of many artistic things is that it finds a creative way to discuss real world issues and inform you hey, this kind of thing happens open your eyes. The part I loved is that these women did not need saving. They handled it themselves. The man who called Ciri a bitch? She broke his nose and she stuck up for herself. Yennefer handled the man who called her a whore and she held her own very well. These are not wilting flowers. These are strong, intelligent, and brave women in the story and I was thrilled that a fantasy game had them. Honestly, as soon as I heard the sentence, "Feminist Frequency said..." I felt my eyes rolling because this is such a stretch. I'm not saying that they're not entitled to their opinion because they are, but I did not see any evidence of that in the game at all and I disagree.
Games are meant to be fun and for me Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt was so much fun and one of the best games I've ever played. The story, the open exploration, and the diverse characters were amazing and I enjoyed it immensely. Now, I'm going to play through again on new game plus because the completionist in me wants to get all the different endings and the game is worth playing multiple times if one wishes.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mister Roberts (1955) in Movies
Apr 10, 2020
Well Acted
A staple of Old Hollywood under the Studio System was to adapt to the film Broadway shows that were a big hit. One such hit was the 1948 WWII play MISTER ROBERTS starring Henry Fonda (who would win a Tony Award for his performance).
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Left to Chance in Books
Jan 10, 2018
Great characters (3 more)
Strong portrayal of a small town
Some great funny moments
Lovely and powerful moments
Sweet, touching tale
After six years, Teddi Learner returns to her small hometown of Chance, Ohio to photograph the wedding of her best friend's husband, Miles. Miles is getting remarried after the death of his first wife, Celia. Celia and Miles and had one daughter together, Shayna, who is now twelve. Teddi and Shay had a somewhat superficial relationship after Celia's death--a yearly visit in Chicago, Skype calls, etc. But Shay's now nearly a teenager and she's personally asked Teddi to come to town--a place she's never set foot in since her beloved best friend passed away. When she arrives, she finds Chance has grown, and so has Shay, who is struggling with her father's remarriage and fitting in within her teen friend circle. Further, Teddi's memories of Celia are as strong as ever, and so are her feelings for Celia's brother, Beck, whom she was seeing when she fled town after (okay, pretty much during) Celia's funeral. Teddi has a new life now, photographing weddings all over the country for Hester Hotels. She left Chance behind and never looked back. But now that she's here, she can't help but notice all (and who) she left.
I enjoy picking up novels like this sometime because they let me indulge in my Lifetime / Hallmark movie side (I'm a sucker for those, especially at Christmas time). This book was an excellent diversion and while I certainly could predict some areas, it surprised me in others.
Nathan gives us some great characters, particularly Teddi and Shay. Teddi is complicated and a little annoying, at times, but she comes across as realistically human and flawed. Her love for Celia is incredibly strong and you can feel her loss and heartache come across the pages. The novel is a real testament to female friendship. At times you want to push or prod her a bit, but she's also stronger than she thinks. As for Shay, my heart often broke for the poor girl, struggling at the age of being between a girl and a teenager, with the added difficulty of having lost her mom.
Nathan also does a good job of portraying the eclectic cast of characters in small town Chance, with some good foils popping up for Teddi. Some of my particular favorite appearances included Teddi's cousin, Maggie, and childhood friend, Josie. Because it's a small place, Miles' wedding is the talk of the town, and we see how it brings up some bitterness and long held issues among some, including the immediate family.
Overall, I enjoyed this one. The hardest part was some melodrama in the plot and theme, which got to be a little too much at times. Some things seemed to be blown a bit out of proportion and there can be a lot of different plot threads going on at times. However, there are some really lovely and powerful moments and some incredibly funny ones--much of which stem from the strength of the characters. There's a bit of a picture perfect ending, but not the one I expected. This was a sweet, touching tale in many ways and exactly the read I needed at this point in time. 3.5+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
I enjoy picking up novels like this sometime because they let me indulge in my Lifetime / Hallmark movie side (I'm a sucker for those, especially at Christmas time). This book was an excellent diversion and while I certainly could predict some areas, it surprised me in others.
Nathan gives us some great characters, particularly Teddi and Shay. Teddi is complicated and a little annoying, at times, but she comes across as realistically human and flawed. Her love for Celia is incredibly strong and you can feel her loss and heartache come across the pages. The novel is a real testament to female friendship. At times you want to push or prod her a bit, but she's also stronger than she thinks. As for Shay, my heart often broke for the poor girl, struggling at the age of being between a girl and a teenager, with the added difficulty of having lost her mom.
Nathan also does a good job of portraying the eclectic cast of characters in small town Chance, with some good foils popping up for Teddi. Some of my particular favorite appearances included Teddi's cousin, Maggie, and childhood friend, Josie. Because it's a small place, Miles' wedding is the talk of the town, and we see how it brings up some bitterness and long held issues among some, including the immediate family.
Overall, I enjoyed this one. The hardest part was some melodrama in the plot and theme, which got to be a little too much at times. Some things seemed to be blown a bit out of proportion and there can be a lot of different plot threads going on at times. However, there are some really lovely and powerful moments and some incredibly funny ones--much of which stem from the strength of the characters. There's a bit of a picture perfect ending, but not the one I expected. This was a sweet, touching tale in many ways and exactly the read I needed at this point in time. 3.5+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Jul 30, 2021
A Ton of Fun - Reminiscent of the first PIRATES film
Are you looking for a family friendly action/adventure/comedy that will be good entertainment for the entire family? Then look no further than the Disney Live Action film JUNGLE BOOK.
Yes…Disney has made another movie based on one of it’s them park rides and this one is more like the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film than most of the other attempts.
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (several Liam Neeson action flicks like NON-STOP), JUNGLE CRUISE is part PIRATES, part INDIANA JONES and part AFRICAN QUEEN (look it up, kids) as we follow an adventurous young lady in the 1910’s. She heads to the Amazon and hires a ne’er do well Jungle Cruise skipper to take her up river.
Pretty standard set-up, right? We’ve seen this “mis-matched” frenemies premise before but in the hands of Emily Blunt and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, it is a very entertaining (albeit familiar) ride with 2 tremendously charismatic performers working off each other very well and they look like they are having as good a time in this film as we are.
They are joined by a bevy of assorted characters that help fill out this journey. Edgar Ramirez and Veronica Falcon are enjoyable enough as a couple of characters along the way, while Jack Whitehall surprised the heck out of me as the wimpy brother to Blunt’s character who becomes more and more three dimensional as the film progressed - something I didn’t think this film would even think about doing.
A pair of wiley veterans - Jesse Plemons and good ol’ Paul Giamatti - are also on board and each add some (but not a lot) to this film. Plemons is the main villain and he just wasn’t villainous enough for my tastes while I wanted much, much more of Giamatti’s character than was in this film (and it is a rare film, indeed, that you are left wanting more with a Giamatti character).
But make no mistake, this is a Rock and Blunt flick and these two professionals hold the center of this film together very, very well.
Director Collet-Serra keeps the action (and comedy) moving along at about the right pace, never dwelling too long on any of the plot points (for if you were to think too much about any of it, it would fall apart) and (for the most part) keeps the action sequences fun and coherent and avoiding over-directing, over-CGI-ing and over-loading these sequences.
Speaking of CGI, the main issue with this film is the special effects work - it is not the best (probably a budget issue) and, at times, you really need to suspend disbelief in watching the CGI and convincing yourself that it is a Live Action film you are watching and not a cartoon.
But, since the intended audience for this film are families, the less-than-perfect CGI (at times) is forgivable as JUNGLE CRUISE provides plenty of PG-Rated action and fun that the entire family will enjoy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes…Disney has made another movie based on one of it’s them park rides and this one is more like the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film than most of the other attempts.
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (several Liam Neeson action flicks like NON-STOP), JUNGLE CRUISE is part PIRATES, part INDIANA JONES and part AFRICAN QUEEN (look it up, kids) as we follow an adventurous young lady in the 1910’s. She heads to the Amazon and hires a ne’er do well Jungle Cruise skipper to take her up river.
Pretty standard set-up, right? We’ve seen this “mis-matched” frenemies premise before but in the hands of Emily Blunt and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, it is a very entertaining (albeit familiar) ride with 2 tremendously charismatic performers working off each other very well and they look like they are having as good a time in this film as we are.
They are joined by a bevy of assorted characters that help fill out this journey. Edgar Ramirez and Veronica Falcon are enjoyable enough as a couple of characters along the way, while Jack Whitehall surprised the heck out of me as the wimpy brother to Blunt’s character who becomes more and more three dimensional as the film progressed - something I didn’t think this film would even think about doing.
A pair of wiley veterans - Jesse Plemons and good ol’ Paul Giamatti - are also on board and each add some (but not a lot) to this film. Plemons is the main villain and he just wasn’t villainous enough for my tastes while I wanted much, much more of Giamatti’s character than was in this film (and it is a rare film, indeed, that you are left wanting more with a Giamatti character).
But make no mistake, this is a Rock and Blunt flick and these two professionals hold the center of this film together very, very well.
Director Collet-Serra keeps the action (and comedy) moving along at about the right pace, never dwelling too long on any of the plot points (for if you were to think too much about any of it, it would fall apart) and (for the most part) keeps the action sequences fun and coherent and avoiding over-directing, over-CGI-ing and over-loading these sequences.
Speaking of CGI, the main issue with this film is the special effects work - it is not the best (probably a budget issue) and, at times, you really need to suspend disbelief in watching the CGI and convincing yourself that it is a Live Action film you are watching and not a cartoon.
But, since the intended audience for this film are families, the less-than-perfect CGI (at times) is forgivable as JUNGLE CRUISE provides plenty of PG-Rated action and fun that the entire family will enjoy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) in Movies
Oct 15, 2020
Lon Chaney Jr. (1 more)
Bela Lugosi
Huge Disappointment
Contains spoilers, click to show
Frankenstien Meets The Wolf Man- was a huge disappointment but ill get to that later. First lets talk about the film.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
JK
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis: A Life Beyond Her Wildest Dreams
Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince
Book
God had a talent for creating exceptional women--Helen of Troy and Cleopatra come to mind. So does...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 4, 2021
The Suicide Squad is a (possible) reboot that may or may not follow on from Suicide Squad and (or only) Birds of Prey. Honestly I'm not sure that even DC knows what's going on with their movie time line. Anyway, Margot Robbie and Joel Kinnamen return as Harley Quinn and Rick Flagg to lead another team of criminal misfits on an impossible mission (or, if it's a reboot like James Gunn says then it's the first time they are together and we ignore that Flagg askes Harley why she's back in prison or that Waller's team are checking who has worked with who). This time task force X are sent to the island of Corto Maltese to find and destroy 'Project Starfish'.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Banyan Tales - Adventure Series & Morals for Kids
Education and Book
App
Get BanyanTales, the best socio-emotional learning app for children up to 8 years old, and watch...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated War Horse (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Steven Spielberg is undoubtedly one of the world’s most loved directors and is without question, the king of blockbuster cinema. He thrilled us with dinosaurs in 1993’s blockbuster Jurassic Park, had us in tears with E.T. and had our hearts pumping out of our chests with the Indiana Jones series.
However, here, the ‘king’ relaxes a little and delves into proper old fashioned story telling with the emotional rollercoaster that is War Horse. Teaming up with John Williams once again, the duo delivers a beautiful score to accompany a beautifully shot film.
Jeremy Irvine stars alongside a full roster of celebrities including Harry Potter’s David Thewlis and Thor’s Tom Hiddlestone in what can only be described as one of Spielberg’s greatest films.
The film opens with some awe inspiring shots of the Devon countryside, with Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) staring, masterfully at two horses in a field. Fast forward a few years and his alcoholic father Ted, played wonderfully by Peter Mullen purchases one of them in an auction, hoping to turn it into a plough horse. This horse becomes the focus of the entire film and is nicknamed Joey by Irvine’s character.
After the usual, Spielberg sentimentality, Joey is summoned to help the English army in the First World War. Obviously, this doesn’t go down too well with Albert and he promises that one day, they will find each other. It’s hard to describe just how heart-breaking these scenes are, as Joey is led away by his new trainer (Tom Hiddlestone) and all Albert can do is watch.
After being defeated by the Germans in a deadly ambush, Albert is informed that Hiddlestone’s character, Captain Nicholls has been killed in battle. Assuming the worst, Albert starts to prepare to either reunite with his beloved steed, or discover whether or not he has perished.
Spielberg has created a shockingly beautiful film as Joey loses Captain Nicholls and roams the countryside unmanned trying to escape the clutches of the German army. Unfortunately, on occasion, he runs right into them and becomes an artillery horse, pulling canons and other weapons.
The shots of no-man’s land as the horse time and time again escapes are breath-taking and show the scale of the destruction like nothing I’ve ever seen. Spielberg has a knack for scale and in War Horse, this is exceptionally poignant; shots of a horse graveyard and the grey barren landscape are examples of fine film-making. To say you’ll be in tears is somewhat of an understatement as Joey, terrified from the ordeal he is being taken through loses comrades, crashes through barbed wire and nearly gives up on life.
This coupled with John Williams best score since Jurassic Park ensures that this is a subtle blockbuster to be enjoyed by all.
However, the film isn’t perfect. On occasion, it delves into unnecessary sentimentality and Spielberg must’ve had a book of movie clichés with him at some points during the shoot, like the cheesy sunset ending and the token pulling through in the face of adversity. These are, however, small points in a film which is a spectacle to behold.
The animals no doubt steal the show, but their human counterparts do well in their roles. Jeremy Irvine is fabulous and was an unusual but totally justified choice for the part. David Thewlis shows how versatile he really is as an actor, playing the heartless landlord, ready to ship the Narracott family out of their farm.
War Horse is a film which hits with a huge dose of emotion. John Williams and Steven Spielberg are an unstoppable combination and what the film does best is show off its directors prowess as an artist, not a film-maker. The special effects are sparse because the story doesn’t require them, but when they are there, such as in the battle scenes, they help the story along, instead of hindering it.
It may not quite match the dizzy heights of Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park as Spielberg’s best, but it fits in between excellent Spielberg and spectacular Spielberg. Take some tissues and prepare yourself and you’ll be all set.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/22/review-war-horse-2012/
However, here, the ‘king’ relaxes a little and delves into proper old fashioned story telling with the emotional rollercoaster that is War Horse. Teaming up with John Williams once again, the duo delivers a beautiful score to accompany a beautifully shot film.
Jeremy Irvine stars alongside a full roster of celebrities including Harry Potter’s David Thewlis and Thor’s Tom Hiddlestone in what can only be described as one of Spielberg’s greatest films.
The film opens with some awe inspiring shots of the Devon countryside, with Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) staring, masterfully at two horses in a field. Fast forward a few years and his alcoholic father Ted, played wonderfully by Peter Mullen purchases one of them in an auction, hoping to turn it into a plough horse. This horse becomes the focus of the entire film and is nicknamed Joey by Irvine’s character.
After the usual, Spielberg sentimentality, Joey is summoned to help the English army in the First World War. Obviously, this doesn’t go down too well with Albert and he promises that one day, they will find each other. It’s hard to describe just how heart-breaking these scenes are, as Joey is led away by his new trainer (Tom Hiddlestone) and all Albert can do is watch.
After being defeated by the Germans in a deadly ambush, Albert is informed that Hiddlestone’s character, Captain Nicholls has been killed in battle. Assuming the worst, Albert starts to prepare to either reunite with his beloved steed, or discover whether or not he has perished.
Spielberg has created a shockingly beautiful film as Joey loses Captain Nicholls and roams the countryside unmanned trying to escape the clutches of the German army. Unfortunately, on occasion, he runs right into them and becomes an artillery horse, pulling canons and other weapons.
The shots of no-man’s land as the horse time and time again escapes are breath-taking and show the scale of the destruction like nothing I’ve ever seen. Spielberg has a knack for scale and in War Horse, this is exceptionally poignant; shots of a horse graveyard and the grey barren landscape are examples of fine film-making. To say you’ll be in tears is somewhat of an understatement as Joey, terrified from the ordeal he is being taken through loses comrades, crashes through barbed wire and nearly gives up on life.
This coupled with John Williams best score since Jurassic Park ensures that this is a subtle blockbuster to be enjoyed by all.
However, the film isn’t perfect. On occasion, it delves into unnecessary sentimentality and Spielberg must’ve had a book of movie clichés with him at some points during the shoot, like the cheesy sunset ending and the token pulling through in the face of adversity. These are, however, small points in a film which is a spectacle to behold.
The animals no doubt steal the show, but their human counterparts do well in their roles. Jeremy Irvine is fabulous and was an unusual but totally justified choice for the part. David Thewlis shows how versatile he really is as an actor, playing the heartless landlord, ready to ship the Narracott family out of their farm.
War Horse is a film which hits with a huge dose of emotion. John Williams and Steven Spielberg are an unstoppable combination and what the film does best is show off its directors prowess as an artist, not a film-maker. The special effects are sparse because the story doesn’t require them, but when they are there, such as in the battle scenes, they help the story along, instead of hindering it.
It may not quite match the dizzy heights of Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park as Spielberg’s best, but it fits in between excellent Spielberg and spectacular Spielberg. Take some tissues and prepare yourself and you’ll be all set.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/22/review-war-horse-2012/