Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated In Darkness (2018) in Movies
Dec 24, 2018
An average thriller
I’m pretty sure this went straight to tv over here, so I wasn’t expecting much however it is slightly better than I expected, even if it still a bog standard thriller.
The soundtrack is great, and the first part of them film is very well executed and comes across as quite arty, with some great music. The problem is that the rest of the film seems to get bogged down with a convoluted plot that’s made more complicated than it needs to be. Natalie Dormer is very good, it’s nice to see Joely Richardson in something recent, and it’s always nice to see Neil Maskell (even if he does play a similar character in everything he’s in - he seems to be the go to bloke for British cops). It’s just a shame that the cast can’t rise above the average plot. And the twist ending I saw coming a mile off.
One of those films that’s watchable but instantly forgettable as being distinctly average.
The soundtrack is great, and the first part of them film is very well executed and comes across as quite arty, with some great music. The problem is that the rest of the film seems to get bogged down with a convoluted plot that’s made more complicated than it needs to be. Natalie Dormer is very good, it’s nice to see Joely Richardson in something recent, and it’s always nice to see Neil Maskell (even if he does play a similar character in everything he’s in - he seems to be the go to bloke for British cops). It’s just a shame that the cast can’t rise above the average plot. And the twist ending I saw coming a mile off.
One of those films that’s watchable but instantly forgettable as being distinctly average.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Great St. Trinian's Train Robbery (1966) in Movies
Sep 6, 2020
Fourth St Trinian's film is a knockabout farce which has not aged at all well. Crooks hide the loot from a train robbery (such things were topical at the time) in a disused building, which is then taken over by St Trinian's school as their new premises. Can the villains retrieve the swag without anyone noticing?
Notably pragmatic (to the point of ruthlessness) in pursuit of its gags: there is shotgun satire of politicians, civil servants, the private school system, and various topical issues (there are some very dodgy jokes about immigration and racial minorities). Even more cartoony than a Carry On film, and increasingly frantic as it goes on, it does have a remarkable cast of well-known faces from British films of its period, but the jokes are thinner on the ground than one might hope for given the talent involved. Has a certain historical interest these days but it's awkward to watch as much as entertaining.
Notably pragmatic (to the point of ruthlessness) in pursuit of its gags: there is shotgun satire of politicians, civil servants, the private school system, and various topical issues (there are some very dodgy jokes about immigration and racial minorities). Even more cartoony than a Carry On film, and increasingly frantic as it goes on, it does have a remarkable cast of well-known faces from British films of its period, but the jokes are thinner on the ground than one might hope for given the talent involved. Has a certain historical interest these days but it's awkward to watch as much as entertaining.
Sweet Smell of Success
Book
The highest artistic achievement of Hecht-Hill-Lancaster, an innovative production company that...
ED
Earthbound: David Bowie and the Man Who Fell to Earth
Book
'Before there was Star Wars before there was Close Encounters there was The Man Who Fell To Earth....
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Island of Dr. Moreau (1977) in Movies
Jun 16, 2020 (Updated Jun 16, 2020)
Interesting if not entirely successful adaptation of H.G. Wells' classic piece of Gothic SF. Michael York get washed up on Burt Lancaster's private island and discovers he's been doing genetic experiments on animals, trying to instil human characteristics into them. Well-mounted, and with decent performances from most of the cast, even if it's never quite as thought-provoking or disturbing as you'd probably like it to be, while most of Barbara Carrera's scenes feel like they've been grafted on from a different film, not entirely comfortably (an attempt at a twist ending involving her character was abandoned when Michael York refused to film it on taste and decency grounds).
The film-makers seem to have noticed the theoretical issues with the plot of the book - the main character has no real agency and is merely an onlooker - and fixed this by introducing a subplot in which Moreau experiments on him, thus setting up a reasonably elegant action-adventury sort of climax complete with happy ending. This does put the film rather at odds with Wells, though, and gets in the way of exploring the book's actual themes - its somewhat problematic subtexts about social control and the different sort of uplift attempted by the British Empire are still there if you look for them, seemingly by accident. Enough of the book's imagery and ideas survive to make this worthwhile viewing and probably the most rewarding adaptation, but really - read the novel as well.
The film-makers seem to have noticed the theoretical issues with the plot of the book - the main character has no real agency and is merely an onlooker - and fixed this by introducing a subplot in which Moreau experiments on him, thus setting up a reasonably elegant action-adventury sort of climax complete with happy ending. This does put the film rather at odds with Wells, though, and gets in the way of exploring the book's actual themes - its somewhat problematic subtexts about social control and the different sort of uplift attempted by the British Empire are still there if you look for them, seemingly by accident. Enough of the book's imagery and ideas survive to make this worthwhile viewing and probably the most rewarding adaptation, but really - read the novel as well.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is based upon the best selling novel written by Stephen Chbosky and published in 1999. The film is directed by the author himself who makes the entire film follow the epistolary style novel very well. The film brings to light the struggles of an awkward adolescent boy named Charlie (Logan Lerman, Percy Jackson & the Olympians) and his struggles with trying to cope with the recent death of his best friend who has committed suicide and the not so recent death of his beloved aunt. While coping with both deaths Charlie also has to try his hardest to get through his first day of high school.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Laggies (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Laggies is a film that I walked into open minded and a little bit excited where they might take the storyline. As a millennial, I can relate to Keira Knightley’s character Megan as she is approaching 30 and she does not really have any clear direction in life. So when her boyfriend proposes, she freaks out and escapes for a week with her new 16 year old friend and her father. Believable, however rather than this film deciding to become something more akin to 2004’s Garden State, it instead abruptly turns in a “Hollywood” direction, badly.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Stewart's Performance Elevates a Mediocre Film
Pablo Loraine’s SPENCER is not a subtle film, it shows the confinement and suffocation of Lady Diana Spencer under the watchful eye of the British monarchy and is not shy about who the bad guys are.
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Awix (3310 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Oct 10, 2018
Michael Caine leads a crack team of crock crooks in robbing a safe deposit vault in London in this loosely-based-on-reality black comedy thriller. Quite apart from Caine, the film has an excellent cast (Jim Broadbent, Tom Courtenay, Ray Winstone, Paul Whitehouse, and Michael Gambon, plus Charlie Cox for the streaming generation), which will probably be what draws most people to it.
Initially this looks like it's going to be a slightly cosy comedy thriller about blokes who are too old be robbers any more, but - very pleasantly - it quite soon acquires some real heft and gravity to it, with the various members of the gang falling out and attempting to double-cross each other - most of these actors are well-known as comedians, but there is some proper meaty drama here and scenes with a definite tension to them.
Not quite as much Caine as you might hope for, but he is still the guv'nor as far as British film acting is concerned, and this is his best role for a while. Everyone else is good too. The film never quite gets the shifts between comedy and gangster thriller right, and the low budget keeps it from being very cinematic, but it's an engaging movie driven by great performances.
Initially this looks like it's going to be a slightly cosy comedy thriller about blokes who are too old be robbers any more, but - very pleasantly - it quite soon acquires some real heft and gravity to it, with the various members of the gang falling out and attempting to double-cross each other - most of these actors are well-known as comedians, but there is some proper meaty drama here and scenes with a definite tension to them.
Not quite as much Caine as you might hope for, but he is still the guv'nor as far as British film acting is concerned, and this is his best role for a while. Everyone else is good too. The film never quite gets the shifts between comedy and gangster thriller right, and the low budget keeps it from being very cinematic, but it's an engaging movie driven by great performances.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Attack the Block (2011) in Movies
Dec 30, 2018
A silly, fun British horror
When I first saw this at the cinema I absolutely loved it, but I haven’t really seen it since. On watching it again recently, I have to admit it’s not quite as good as I remembered but it’s still a very enjoyable film.
It’s a very B-movie esque horror film, with very low budget, lots of blood and a fairly unknown cast. Of course a lot of the cast have now gone on to bigger things (John Boyega, Jodie Whittaker and Luke Treadaway mainly), but they’re still very good and great to watch in this. The plot is fun and a little bit silly, and the aliens themselves are very well done. They’re creepy and pretty terrifying, without being overly complicated and there’s a lot of good physical effects thrown in here in addition to cgi. The most annoying thing about this film is the language. I completely understand why it has been set on a council estate in London, that’s part of the entertainment, however some of the slang and gang type language grates after a while. It’s difficult to understand and a little bit irritating after a while. Aside from this it’s a very enjoyable low budget horror that’s worth a watch.
It’s a very B-movie esque horror film, with very low budget, lots of blood and a fairly unknown cast. Of course a lot of the cast have now gone on to bigger things (John Boyega, Jodie Whittaker and Luke Treadaway mainly), but they’re still very good and great to watch in this. The plot is fun and a little bit silly, and the aliens themselves are very well done. They’re creepy and pretty terrifying, without being overly complicated and there’s a lot of good physical effects thrown in here in addition to cgi. The most annoying thing about this film is the language. I completely understand why it has been set on a council estate in London, that’s part of the entertainment, however some of the slang and gang type language grates after a while. It’s difficult to understand and a little bit irritating after a while. Aside from this it’s a very enjoyable low budget horror that’s worth a watch.