Search
Search results
We Need to Talk About ... Kevin Bridges
Book
This is the comic autobiography of 2014. A comedian's autobiography? I wonder if he's ever used...
Lonely Planet Best of USA
Lonely Planet, Amy C. Balfour, Sandra Bao and Karla Zimmerman
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet's Best of USA is your...
Lonely Planet Eastern USA
Lonely Planet, Amy C. Balfour, Adam Karlin and Karla Zimmerman
Book
#1 best-selling guide to Eastern USA Lonely Planet Eastern USA is your passport to all the most...
Lonely Planet Vienna
Lonely Planet, Marc Di Duca, Kerry Christiani and Anthony Haywood
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Vienna is your passport to...
Felipe (17 KP) rated Chaplin (1992) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
A modern tragedy meant to be one of the greats
Contains spoilers, click to show
Richard Attenborough delivers another masterpiece of cinematic biography and is a worthy successor to Ghandi. The structure of the film is told as a flashback while Charlie Chaplin is writing his autobiography with a fictional editor that does not exist. We see for the first time the flaws of who Chaplin is as a person and we see him confront his past in a way that is painful not unlike how it is painful when we relive moments in our lives we would rather choose to forget. However, the success of the film is how it strips the illusion of who Chaplin was and presents to us a person who is tragically flawed but who is unbale to appreciate his own genius. An example is when Chaplin's version of the invention of the Tramp is seen for what he imagined it to be an idealized moment in which the character is calling to him except for what it really was, We see the reality of the movies during this time; a hectic spur of the moment improvised invention drawn from real life. Yet we see Chaplin as the midwife to this new artform the movies and we see him develop it for what it is, the highest expression of art that stirs our imagination and makes us believe anything is possible. We even cry during Chaplin's moments of personal tragedy; the insanity and loss of his mother; repeated failed marriages; the death of his best friend, Douglas Fairbanks and finally his tragic and painful exile from America the only place he knew as home all taking place in the backdrop of the invention and evolution of cinema. However, I feel that in the end Chaplin is the one that comes out triumphant. In the last moments of the movie we see how Chaplin despairs that he feels that he has been forgotten and made irrelevant by the changing times; he feels that the weight of not only his age but the weight of the world on his shoulders and yet we see that everything he believes himself to be is completely wrong when Hollywood bestows on him the greatest honor which is not only the special Oscar but also a standing ovation. His final triumph is to be made a knight by Queen Elizabeth II, we are truly made to see that although flawed he is triumphant in the end.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Viking (2016) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: Viking starts as three brothers rule different kingdoms under the Russia we follow the youngest Vladimir (Kozlovsky) who is trying to end the war between them after being exiled to the frozen land of Novgorod. Completing his quest, he will need to come across new enemies, while old enemies are waiting in the wings for his weaknesses to be exposed.
Thoughts on Viking
Characters – Vladimir is the youngster son of the king, he gets the weakest area to rule, but isn’t going to let that stop him taking control of the area, he proves to be a strong leader one that is fair and will look after his people. When it comes to the rest of the characters it was hard to figure out who to focus on, because as soon as one looked like they were going to be important, they seemed to get killed.
Performances – The performances suffer because of the issues with the characters not being given the focus they require in the film, it is too hard for the audience to know who they should be following in this film.
Story – The story seems to focus on Vladimir the youngest son of the rule of Russia, whom after his death gets given part of the land to defend, we watch his rise to try and claim his crown as the rule of Russia as he takes on enemies from all over the land including his own blood. The story telling process is difficult to keep up with as we do seem to meet group one get slightly invested in these character, but nope they get killed leaving us wondering just who we are meant to be supporting through the film.
Action/History/War – The action is plenty of battle sequences, each one getting bigger, bloodier and deadlier as the film unfolds. The history, well I don’t know how accurate any of it is, most of that would involve research and the war side of the film shows us the different strategies adopted during the 10th century.
Settings – The film shows us the settings that will keep us believing we are in the time the film is set, it keeps the battles feeling down and dirty which is how you would imagine them happening.
Scene of the Movie – The hiding escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters introduced for nothing.
Final Thoughts – This is an overly complicated movie that is trying to tell a massive story only for it to end up not given enough time for most of the characters to develop or unfold.
Overall: Too long and dull
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/22/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-v-viking-2016/
Thoughts on Viking
Characters – Vladimir is the youngster son of the king, he gets the weakest area to rule, but isn’t going to let that stop him taking control of the area, he proves to be a strong leader one that is fair and will look after his people. When it comes to the rest of the characters it was hard to figure out who to focus on, because as soon as one looked like they were going to be important, they seemed to get killed.
Performances – The performances suffer because of the issues with the characters not being given the focus they require in the film, it is too hard for the audience to know who they should be following in this film.
Story – The story seems to focus on Vladimir the youngest son of the rule of Russia, whom after his death gets given part of the land to defend, we watch his rise to try and claim his crown as the rule of Russia as he takes on enemies from all over the land including his own blood. The story telling process is difficult to keep up with as we do seem to meet group one get slightly invested in these character, but nope they get killed leaving us wondering just who we are meant to be supporting through the film.
Action/History/War – The action is plenty of battle sequences, each one getting bigger, bloodier and deadlier as the film unfolds. The history, well I don’t know how accurate any of it is, most of that would involve research and the war side of the film shows us the different strategies adopted during the 10th century.
Settings – The film shows us the settings that will keep us believing we are in the time the film is set, it keeps the battles feeling down and dirty which is how you would imagine them happening.
Scene of the Movie – The hiding escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters introduced for nothing.
Final Thoughts – This is an overly complicated movie that is trying to tell a massive story only for it to end up not given enough time for most of the characters to develop or unfold.
Overall: Too long and dull
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/22/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-v-viking-2016/
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
When their mobster husbands are all sent to prison, three women decide that the only way they can survive is to take over their criminal enterprise’s, the quest is can their friendship last.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Emoji Movie (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I decided to ease into August with The Emoji Film. Now, I went on to Rotten Tomatoes after seeing some talk online about it getting a zero rating. Currently it stands at 6% with the critics... what a bunch of party poopers.
Gene lives in Alex's phone in Textopolis, a digital city where all the emojis live and work. When you've honed your emoji skill you can go and work in the cube, and be there for Alex every time he wants to send a message. Gene longs for that day, but there's one slight problem... Gene is a meh, and he's anything but meh. His parents are both experts at meh, and at his first day at work they're rather nervous... not that you could tell from their expressions.
On his first go in his cube he manages to pull the wrong face and sets off a chain of events that lead Smiler to conclude that he's a malfunction who needs to be dealt with. Gene and High Five embark on a journey to the Piracy App to meet someone who can reprogram him to be a better meh. But as they make their way there they cause a few issues on Alex's phone that makes him take the bold decision to take it back to the shop for a factory reset.
Can they reprogram Gene and have everything back to normal before that happens?...
So the critics panned it with a resounding thumbs down emoji, the general public were a little more generous, and left it at around the 50% mark.
Was the film entertaining? Yes. Will it win awards? No. But it does what you expect it to do, it makes you laugh and smile, and it got my toe tapping. I love the idea that my apps are all having a good time when I'm not using them, especially that poor little Stocks app... I mean does anyone ever use that?
There are a lot of recognisable voices in the mix. Patrick Stewart as the Poop emoji, possibly the most amusing of all.
Probably my only criticism of this is that it's not really a kid's film, and it's not really an adult's film. Which makes it a bit difficult to ever recommend to anyone. It's not worth a full price ticket at the cinema, especially as in all likelihood it'll be an adult and a child going together at the very least. I wouldn't even recommend buying it as a DVD when it comes out straight away. At some point though it will be £1 in Poundland, and then it will be worth buying. Or you can of course stream it from somewhere like Netflix or Sky before that point.
Gene lives in Alex's phone in Textopolis, a digital city where all the emojis live and work. When you've honed your emoji skill you can go and work in the cube, and be there for Alex every time he wants to send a message. Gene longs for that day, but there's one slight problem... Gene is a meh, and he's anything but meh. His parents are both experts at meh, and at his first day at work they're rather nervous... not that you could tell from their expressions.
On his first go in his cube he manages to pull the wrong face and sets off a chain of events that lead Smiler to conclude that he's a malfunction who needs to be dealt with. Gene and High Five embark on a journey to the Piracy App to meet someone who can reprogram him to be a better meh. But as they make their way there they cause a few issues on Alex's phone that makes him take the bold decision to take it back to the shop for a factory reset.
Can they reprogram Gene and have everything back to normal before that happens?...
So the critics panned it with a resounding thumbs down emoji, the general public were a little more generous, and left it at around the 50% mark.
Was the film entertaining? Yes. Will it win awards? No. But it does what you expect it to do, it makes you laugh and smile, and it got my toe tapping. I love the idea that my apps are all having a good time when I'm not using them, especially that poor little Stocks app... I mean does anyone ever use that?
There are a lot of recognisable voices in the mix. Patrick Stewart as the Poop emoji, possibly the most amusing of all.
Probably my only criticism of this is that it's not really a kid's film, and it's not really an adult's film. Which makes it a bit difficult to ever recommend to anyone. It's not worth a full price ticket at the cinema, especially as in all likelihood it'll be an adult and a child going together at the very least. I wouldn't even recommend buying it as a DVD when it comes out straight away. At some point though it will be £1 in Poundland, and then it will be worth buying. Or you can of course stream it from somewhere like Netflix or Sky before that point.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Talking to friends about what this one could be was a roller coaster. Lots of us were hoping it would be Skyscraper, but our realistic guesses were somewhere nearer previous secret screening offerings. Films that looked good but were probably not going to make massive waves on their own. We mused on the possibility of The Incredibles 2, but it didn't get much further than "that would be the dream" kind of thinking.
I have never attended a screening that filled me (pretty much everyone) with so much glee. Glee is the only appropriate word there because I had a smile on my face the whole way through.
14 years of waiting and I wasn't disappointed. For me, this one was much more enjoyable than the first. I can't deny that that's partly from the rush of getting to see it before friends do and I get to rub it in their faces... yes I know. No I won't grow up.
Skip forward to getting out of the cinema after 10pm. What? How?! The film itself runs at just under 2 hours long. That's a long time to get a kid to sit still. Hell, that's a long time to get me to sit still. There are certainly parts of the film that could have been trimmed down. Some of them made little sense to me, and some just seemed unnecessary. That being said, it didn't detract from the enjoyment.
Neither did the fact that the villain was rather predictable, as was "big twist". Had this been a new movie with no previous incarnation to give me expectations then I'm not sure how I'd have felt about it. At a guess I probably would have been disappointed. The rush of what it was has probably helped the movie over these issues.
Months ago I joked that I would have just watched a movie of Jack-Jack and his powers. That feeling hasn't changed. Every time I see this film I will be giggling and laughing so hard at that I may embarrass myself. Jack-Jack and that raccoon stole the show. A whole screen full of grown adults wheezing and crying with laughter is something to behold.
Throughout the whole 2 hours little Jack-Jack is definitely the bright spot that put a grin on my face. The raccoon incident it definitely the top scene for me. Auntie Edna came into her own, and I feel like they were channeling some Baby Herman from Roger Rabbit when they came up with that scene. What had me mesmerised though was when Lucius/Frozone gave Jack-Jack a ball of ice to eat. The attention to detail had me a little speechless, just try and look at the lens effect on that sphere of ice and tell me it's not amazing
I have never attended a screening that filled me (pretty much everyone) with so much glee. Glee is the only appropriate word there because I had a smile on my face the whole way through.
14 years of waiting and I wasn't disappointed. For me, this one was much more enjoyable than the first. I can't deny that that's partly from the rush of getting to see it before friends do and I get to rub it in their faces... yes I know. No I won't grow up.
Skip forward to getting out of the cinema after 10pm. What? How?! The film itself runs at just under 2 hours long. That's a long time to get a kid to sit still. Hell, that's a long time to get me to sit still. There are certainly parts of the film that could have been trimmed down. Some of them made little sense to me, and some just seemed unnecessary. That being said, it didn't detract from the enjoyment.
Neither did the fact that the villain was rather predictable, as was "big twist". Had this been a new movie with no previous incarnation to give me expectations then I'm not sure how I'd have felt about it. At a guess I probably would have been disappointed. The rush of what it was has probably helped the movie over these issues.
Months ago I joked that I would have just watched a movie of Jack-Jack and his powers. That feeling hasn't changed. Every time I see this film I will be giggling and laughing so hard at that I may embarrass myself. Jack-Jack and that raccoon stole the show. A whole screen full of grown adults wheezing and crying with laughter is something to behold.
Throughout the whole 2 hours little Jack-Jack is definitely the bright spot that put a grin on my face. The raccoon incident it definitely the top scene for me. Auntie Edna came into her own, and I feel like they were channeling some Baby Herman from Roger Rabbit when they came up with that scene. What had me mesmerised though was when Lucius/Frozone gave Jack-Jack a ball of ice to eat. The attention to detail had me a little speechless, just try and look at the lens effect on that sphere of ice and tell me it's not amazing
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not going to lie, the trailer for this worried me greatly. Despite Emily Blunt's roots her accent sounds like someone's stereotypical idea of a prim and proper British nanny, it stuck out like a sore thumb from the trailer.
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?