Search
Search results
Fred (860 KP) rated The Producers (2005) in Movies
May 27, 2019
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Beasty Bar in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
When I say ‘nightclub,’ I know what you’re thinking – strobe lights, loud music, and dancing. What you DON’T think of is the fact that getting into the club in the first place probably means you had to wait in line outside. Some people take their clubbing very seriously, and the entrance line can become a cut-throat battlefield of subtle tricks or blatant line-jumping to get you ahead (literally) of the other patrons!
Welcome to Beasty Bar – the hottest nightclub in the animal kingdom! The house is jumpin’ and the line is out the door! All of the animals are dressed to the nines and are vying for an opportunity to get into the club. But unfortunately, only a certain number of animals will be granted access. So, naturally, it’s time to get sly! Each animal has a different tactic, but if they’re not careful, they could get booted out of the line completely!
In Beasty Bar, a game of hand management with a sprinkle of ‘take that,’ players are trying to get the most animals from their hand into the club. All players receive an identical deck of cards, which are then shuffled, and draw 4 cards into their hand. On their turn, players will play one card from their hand into the line, perform the corresponding action, address any on-going abilities, and draw another card from their deck. Each animal card has a special ability, either immediate or on-going, that can be used to alter its place in the line. Choose your cards wisely – all players have the same pool of cards, and a power you used to your benefit could later be used against you! Once all cards have been played, the game ends – the player with the most animals in the club is the winner!
I generally do not like ‘Take That’ games – I can be pretty competitive and this mechanic can sometimes turn confrontational for me. That being said, I actually like Beasty Bar. Since it has such a small play area (only 5 cards at a time), the line-up is always changing. And that requires some fast and strategic thinking that negates the ‘Take That’ aspect for me – I am more focused on getting my animals ahead in line than I am in booting my opponents out of the way out of spite. You really have to think about what animal abilities you want to use and when, depending on the current line-up. Yes, cards will inevitably be kicked out of the line, but for me it doesn’t feel as vengeful in this game.
I really like that this game is easy to learn and fast to play. The concept and gameplay are simple enough, they only need to be explained once. And the game plays relatively quickly, so you can either play it multiple times in a row or use it as a filler between some heavier/longer games. All of the animal abilities are outlined in the rulebook, but if you’re ever unsure of an animal’s power, it is illustrated right at the bottom of the card for you! Gone are the days of referring back to the rulebook every turn to double-check, or having to reveal a card in your hand because you have to ask for clarification again.
Is Beasty Bar my favorite game? Absolutely not. But it’s one that I don’t mind playing when I am crunched for time or need to take a breather from a more complicated game. It’s made its way into my collection, and I think it’s going to stay. Purple Phoenix Games gives Beasty Bar a 7 / 12 (Bryan and Josh have not played it yet).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/18/beasty-bar-review/
Welcome to Beasty Bar – the hottest nightclub in the animal kingdom! The house is jumpin’ and the line is out the door! All of the animals are dressed to the nines and are vying for an opportunity to get into the club. But unfortunately, only a certain number of animals will be granted access. So, naturally, it’s time to get sly! Each animal has a different tactic, but if they’re not careful, they could get booted out of the line completely!
In Beasty Bar, a game of hand management with a sprinkle of ‘take that,’ players are trying to get the most animals from their hand into the club. All players receive an identical deck of cards, which are then shuffled, and draw 4 cards into their hand. On their turn, players will play one card from their hand into the line, perform the corresponding action, address any on-going abilities, and draw another card from their deck. Each animal card has a special ability, either immediate or on-going, that can be used to alter its place in the line. Choose your cards wisely – all players have the same pool of cards, and a power you used to your benefit could later be used against you! Once all cards have been played, the game ends – the player with the most animals in the club is the winner!
I generally do not like ‘Take That’ games – I can be pretty competitive and this mechanic can sometimes turn confrontational for me. That being said, I actually like Beasty Bar. Since it has such a small play area (only 5 cards at a time), the line-up is always changing. And that requires some fast and strategic thinking that negates the ‘Take That’ aspect for me – I am more focused on getting my animals ahead in line than I am in booting my opponents out of the way out of spite. You really have to think about what animal abilities you want to use and when, depending on the current line-up. Yes, cards will inevitably be kicked out of the line, but for me it doesn’t feel as vengeful in this game.
I really like that this game is easy to learn and fast to play. The concept and gameplay are simple enough, they only need to be explained once. And the game plays relatively quickly, so you can either play it multiple times in a row or use it as a filler between some heavier/longer games. All of the animal abilities are outlined in the rulebook, but if you’re ever unsure of an animal’s power, it is illustrated right at the bottom of the card for you! Gone are the days of referring back to the rulebook every turn to double-check, or having to reveal a card in your hand because you have to ask for clarification again.
Is Beasty Bar my favorite game? Absolutely not. But it’s one that I don’t mind playing when I am crunched for time or need to take a breather from a more complicated game. It’s made its way into my collection, and I think it’s going to stay. Purple Phoenix Games gives Beasty Bar a 7 / 12 (Bryan and Josh have not played it yet).
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/18/beasty-bar-review/
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Psychology of Time Travel in Books
Dec 30, 2018
The Psychology of Time Travel – Kate Mascarenhas [BOOK REVIEW]
Full review on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com
I love the idea of time travelling and I love the idea of time travelling books. That is the main reason why I chose to read this ARC copy. The synopsis sounded intriguing, and the cover was gorgeous. I don’t have much experience reading time travelling books. I still believe the synopsis is intriguing and the cover is gorgeous, but I am not satisfied with the feelings this book left me, after I read the last chapter.
The story begins when four ladies in the early 1960s work together and build the first time travel machine. And they are surrounded by curious people and media, and one of them has a breakdown and is expelled from the project, as she is a risk to herself and others. But they don’t just exclude her from their project, but from their whole lives, and time travelling altogether.
”Sometimes we want proximity and a crowd gives us the excuse.”
And many years after, when time travelling is something everyone knows about, secrets start to be revealed, little by little, and a murder happens without explanation. A few young women, completely unrelated and with different missions will try to get their way into the whole time-travel business, and try to figure the answers to their questions.
In The Psychology of Time Travel, one is certain – you will flow through time and places like never before. One chapter it’s 1967, and the next one, it’s 2015. You will meet a lady and her young self, her old self, and her current self, all at one place, talking to each other, or simultaneously performing a dancing act. You will get to see a world very well created, a complex structure of how time travel might work, and details that you wouldn’t thought of checking twice.
I couldn’t connect to any character. Maybe there were too many. The chapters were very short, and they travelled through years so quickly, that I couldn’t catch up. Catching up with the plot of a book, and figuring out what is going on while being presented things so fast is very frustrating. It’s like watching a movie in a foreign language, the subtitles being your only way of gathering information, and they disappear instantly, without you having a chance to understand.
The romance in this book was another thing that bothered me. While we get a lot of romantic relationships going around, one particularly threw me off my feet. A love story where one girl is in love with another. This is the completely realistic part. But the unrealistic one was that one girl lives in the present, and the other is a time-traveller in the past – so even though they are currently (technically) the same age, in reality one is in the mid 20s, and the other in the mid 80s. I couldn’t process this, or agree with it.
”You couldn’t get involved with someone who spent most of their life in a different time period from you.”
I am sure I would have loved the characters, have I had more chances to get to know them. They showed signs of bravery, and goals and hopes for a better tomorrow, with a spark unlike any others. But it all lasted so short, before we switched to another character, and so on.
Even though this one didn’t work for me – I still encourage you to give it a go, if you are a fan of time travel. The idea of time travelling is very well done, and deserves to be discussed.
A huge thank you to NetGalley and Crooked Lane Books, for providing me an ARC copy of The Psychology of Time Travel in exchange for an honest review.
I love the idea of time travelling and I love the idea of time travelling books. That is the main reason why I chose to read this ARC copy. The synopsis sounded intriguing, and the cover was gorgeous. I don’t have much experience reading time travelling books. I still believe the synopsis is intriguing and the cover is gorgeous, but I am not satisfied with the feelings this book left me, after I read the last chapter.
The story begins when four ladies in the early 1960s work together and build the first time travel machine. And they are surrounded by curious people and media, and one of them has a breakdown and is expelled from the project, as she is a risk to herself and others. But they don’t just exclude her from their project, but from their whole lives, and time travelling altogether.
”Sometimes we want proximity and a crowd gives us the excuse.”
And many years after, when time travelling is something everyone knows about, secrets start to be revealed, little by little, and a murder happens without explanation. A few young women, completely unrelated and with different missions will try to get their way into the whole time-travel business, and try to figure the answers to their questions.
In The Psychology of Time Travel, one is certain – you will flow through time and places like never before. One chapter it’s 1967, and the next one, it’s 2015. You will meet a lady and her young self, her old self, and her current self, all at one place, talking to each other, or simultaneously performing a dancing act. You will get to see a world very well created, a complex structure of how time travel might work, and details that you wouldn’t thought of checking twice.
I couldn’t connect to any character. Maybe there were too many. The chapters were very short, and they travelled through years so quickly, that I couldn’t catch up. Catching up with the plot of a book, and figuring out what is going on while being presented things so fast is very frustrating. It’s like watching a movie in a foreign language, the subtitles being your only way of gathering information, and they disappear instantly, without you having a chance to understand.
The romance in this book was another thing that bothered me. While we get a lot of romantic relationships going around, one particularly threw me off my feet. A love story where one girl is in love with another. This is the completely realistic part. But the unrealistic one was that one girl lives in the present, and the other is a time-traveller in the past – so even though they are currently (technically) the same age, in reality one is in the mid 20s, and the other in the mid 80s. I couldn’t process this, or agree with it.
”You couldn’t get involved with someone who spent most of their life in a different time period from you.”
I am sure I would have loved the characters, have I had more chances to get to know them. They showed signs of bravery, and goals and hopes for a better tomorrow, with a spark unlike any others. But it all lasted so short, before we switched to another character, and so on.
Even though this one didn’t work for me – I still encourage you to give it a go, if you are a fan of time travel. The idea of time travelling is very well done, and deserves to be discussed.
A huge thank you to NetGalley and Crooked Lane Books, for providing me an ARC copy of The Psychology of Time Travel in exchange for an honest review.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Oct 20, 2019
The cast is an impressive selection and I'll talk about some of them in a bit but first I want to mention the advertising related to the cast. Almost every poster I saw had the main cast's names plastered on it, and rightly so, but that all included Cardi B and Lizzo. I would imagine that a significant amount of people, like me, had expected to see both of their characters in a larger chunk of the film than we actually got. They were very much bit parts and giving them this poster billing seemed more like cashing in on their current success, sensible from an advertising point of view but you already had a massive cast and it really wasn't needed.
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
In Red Sparrow, Jennifer Lawrence (of Hunger Games fame) portrays Russian ballet dancer Dominika who is grievously injured at the peak of her career. Without the ability to continue dancing, she is at risk of losing not only her home, but the medical care that her sickly mother so desperately needs. In a final act of desperation, she reaches out to her uncle (masterfully portrayed by Matthias Schoenaerts), who is not only family, but also the deputy director of Russia’s intelligence agency, the SVR. He offers the means to not only keep them housed, but also to ensure that her mother continues to get the very best treatment and care from her private nurses. With no other option but to agree, she reluctantly takes an assignment to “entertain” a powerful Russian figure with the intent to swap out his cell phone, with another provided by her uncle. In an emotionally intense scene she witnesses a heinous act of murder and is forced to make a decision, join those who carried out the murder and become a Red Sparrow or die.
Dominika is then sent to the training school where all Red Sparrows learn their craft. They are taught manipulation by any means necessary, identifying what their target desires and utilizing this desire to get what they want. It’s brutal training that few succeed at, where each pupil uses their body and their minds to get information from their subjects. Dominika’s personal strength of both will and body are tested, until a call comes in from the SVR that they are in need of her newly acquired talents. She is given an opportunity to prove her worth to the state by traveling to Budapest, to get close to a C.I.A. agent, and convince him to give up the name of a mole who has been providing secrets to the Americans. This is where the dangerous game of cat and mouse starts between her and her C.I.A. target Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton).
Jennifer Lawrence in her portrayal of a strong, yet desperate Russian woman is both believable and saddening. She mastered her Russian accent and it comes across naturally. The audience sees the constant struggle between what she must do to protect her mother and the lengths that she must go to, to acquire the information the SVR needs to rout out the mole. Her character goes through numerous physical, emotional and psychological tortures as she grows closer to her end game. For a Red Sparrow failure is not an option, as failure means death.
As a spy movie, it regularly keeps you guessing up until the very end. You keep asking yourself whether Nate will be able to turn Dominika against her country and become an operative for the C.I.A., or is she simply playing the part as the sparrow and using his trust against him? As an audience member you never truly know who to trust or which side Dominika is on, and that’s what keeps the movie so intriguing throughout.
“Red Sparrow” is one of those rare films that keeps you on the edge of your seat through the entire film. As soon as you think you know where it’s going you are suddenly turned in another direction. You think you know the answers, only to be wrong the next minute…or are you? Red Sparrow is by far one of the best spy movies that I have seen in a long time. Even though there isn’t a lot of action it provides the intrigue of an intense chess game, planning multiple moves ahead to arrive at checkmate in the very end, and to that end it succeeds brilliantly.
Dominika is then sent to the training school where all Red Sparrows learn their craft. They are taught manipulation by any means necessary, identifying what their target desires and utilizing this desire to get what they want. It’s brutal training that few succeed at, where each pupil uses their body and their minds to get information from their subjects. Dominika’s personal strength of both will and body are tested, until a call comes in from the SVR that they are in need of her newly acquired talents. She is given an opportunity to prove her worth to the state by traveling to Budapest, to get close to a C.I.A. agent, and convince him to give up the name of a mole who has been providing secrets to the Americans. This is where the dangerous game of cat and mouse starts between her and her C.I.A. target Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton).
Jennifer Lawrence in her portrayal of a strong, yet desperate Russian woman is both believable and saddening. She mastered her Russian accent and it comes across naturally. The audience sees the constant struggle between what she must do to protect her mother and the lengths that she must go to, to acquire the information the SVR needs to rout out the mole. Her character goes through numerous physical, emotional and psychological tortures as she grows closer to her end game. For a Red Sparrow failure is not an option, as failure means death.
As a spy movie, it regularly keeps you guessing up until the very end. You keep asking yourself whether Nate will be able to turn Dominika against her country and become an operative for the C.I.A., or is she simply playing the part as the sparrow and using his trust against him? As an audience member you never truly know who to trust or which side Dominika is on, and that’s what keeps the movie so intriguing throughout.
“Red Sparrow” is one of those rare films that keeps you on the edge of your seat through the entire film. As soon as you think you know where it’s going you are suddenly turned in another direction. You think you know the answers, only to be wrong the next minute…or are you? Red Sparrow is by far one of the best spy movies that I have seen in a long time. Even though there isn’t a lot of action it provides the intrigue of an intense chess game, planning multiple moves ahead to arrive at checkmate in the very end, and to that end it succeeds brilliantly.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Broken Dolls (Broken Dolls, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<strong><em>Broken Dolls</em> is like a creepy version of <em>Toy Story</em></strong> (I suppose <em>Toy Story</em> could be creepy...) with live, animated dolls created from humans. They're supposed to be unemotional and feel nothing – not pain, not happiness, not loneliness...
For three decades, Ella lived her life as a doll, assisting the Professor in his creations. In those years, she's forgotten about her humanity and seems perfectly happy as a dancing doll until the Professor unveils his latest creation: a goth doll named Lisa.
Here are my thoughts on the Professor: I deem him an ingenious mad scientist. He is absolutely <em>insane</em>, feels guilty about the past, and wants to change the world. I honestly don't know what to say about the guy aside from the fact I actually feel just a tad bit bad for him in the long run.
But as odd as it might be, I enjoyed the aspect of humans being turned into dolls and living a supposedly ideal life with no emotions or feelings and a life controlled by the Professor. I didn't expect Ella to have much of a voice or a personality aside from what she knew during her time as a doll (also more robotic sounding), and it is definitely the case in the early parts of <em>Broken Dolls</em> when Puxty sets up Ella's world in a Toy Story-esque fashion.
Ella's world revolves around the Professor making her a comfy room (lots of pink) in a chest in the attic of his home (that sentence sounds weird). To pass the time away, Ella spends her days locked up in the attic practicing ballet and recording adventures from her imagination into a recorder. The attic comes out a little bland – nothing remotely interesting and Ella's day-to-day actions would have sounded repetitively boring if Puxty didn't bring Lisa and Gabby into the story.
When Ella meets Lisa, however, she doesn't like Lisa; Lisa makes multiple attempts to destroy Ella because of the theory she has about Ella and all the other dolls. Around the same time, Ella meets the Professor's granddaughter, Gabby, a girl who has a virus that will eventually lead her to an inevitable fate. Like many kids, Gabby is adventurous, and she adores and protects Ella from the moment they meet. Unfortunately for Gabby, the Professor also has plans to turn Gabby into a doll-like Ella and prevent her from dying.
In the time Ella meets Lisa and Gabby, she starts to develop feelings and emotions and becomes more curious about her time before she turned into a doll. With the help of Lisa and another doll, she also strives to dig out all of the Professor's secrets to his experiments before Gabby becomes an Ella-sized playmate. But not only does Ella uncovers the Professor's secrets, she uncovers hers as well and Puxty gives us a glimpse into Ella's human life before becoming a doll.
I personally think Ella is better off as a doll compared to being a human. With the brief glimpse of Ella's human life, she starts out extremely happy and becomes really pessimistic later on – I don't know how I would be able to handle human Ella. Since <em>Broken Dolls</em> has a sequel coming out sometime in 2016, I'm really curious how Ella will cope with her doll life as everyone around her knows who she really is and continues on with their lives.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-broken-dolls-by-tyrolin-puxty/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<strong><em>Broken Dolls</em> is like a creepy version of <em>Toy Story</em></strong> (I suppose <em>Toy Story</em> could be creepy...) with live, animated dolls created from humans. They're supposed to be unemotional and feel nothing – not pain, not happiness, not loneliness...
For three decades, Ella lived her life as a doll, assisting the Professor in his creations. In those years, she's forgotten about her humanity and seems perfectly happy as a dancing doll until the Professor unveils his latest creation: a goth doll named Lisa.
Here are my thoughts on the Professor: I deem him an ingenious mad scientist. He is absolutely <em>insane</em>, feels guilty about the past, and wants to change the world. I honestly don't know what to say about the guy aside from the fact I actually feel just a tad bit bad for him in the long run.
But as odd as it might be, I enjoyed the aspect of humans being turned into dolls and living a supposedly ideal life with no emotions or feelings and a life controlled by the Professor. I didn't expect Ella to have much of a voice or a personality aside from what she knew during her time as a doll (also more robotic sounding), and it is definitely the case in the early parts of <em>Broken Dolls</em> when Puxty sets up Ella's world in a Toy Story-esque fashion.
Ella's world revolves around the Professor making her a comfy room (lots of pink) in a chest in the attic of his home (that sentence sounds weird). To pass the time away, Ella spends her days locked up in the attic practicing ballet and recording adventures from her imagination into a recorder. The attic comes out a little bland – nothing remotely interesting and Ella's day-to-day actions would have sounded repetitively boring if Puxty didn't bring Lisa and Gabby into the story.
When Ella meets Lisa, however, she doesn't like Lisa; Lisa makes multiple attempts to destroy Ella because of the theory she has about Ella and all the other dolls. Around the same time, Ella meets the Professor's granddaughter, Gabby, a girl who has a virus that will eventually lead her to an inevitable fate. Like many kids, Gabby is adventurous, and she adores and protects Ella from the moment they meet. Unfortunately for Gabby, the Professor also has plans to turn Gabby into a doll-like Ella and prevent her from dying.
In the time Ella meets Lisa and Gabby, she starts to develop feelings and emotions and becomes more curious about her time before she turned into a doll. With the help of Lisa and another doll, she also strives to dig out all of the Professor's secrets to his experiments before Gabby becomes an Ella-sized playmate. But not only does Ella uncovers the Professor's secrets, she uncovers hers as well and Puxty gives us a glimpse into Ella's human life before becoming a doll.
I personally think Ella is better off as a doll compared to being a human. With the brief glimpse of Ella's human life, she starts out extremely happy and becomes really pessimistic later on – I don't know how I would be able to handle human Ella. Since <em>Broken Dolls</em> has a sequel coming out sometime in 2016, I'm really curious how Ella will cope with her doll life as everyone around her knows who she really is and continues on with their lives.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-broken-dolls-by-tyrolin-puxty/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Miles Ahead (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve ever found yourself in a coffee shop, bookstore, or perhaps even a jazz club in the 21st century you can’t NOT have heard either the name ‘Miles Davis’, his music, or perhaps both. If you’ve been living under a rock your whole life and by some miracle you have a smartphone, computer, or a radio find a jazz station and it’s almost a sure thing you’ll here his music within minutes. The man is no myth although the man and his music are so legendary there is almost a mythical presence to him. He is one of the greats. No question. No argument.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
Kizomba To Go™
Education and Entertainment
App
***BREAKING NEWS*** Level 2, Level 3, and the Follow Series are now available as in-app purchases! ...
