Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated The Green Knight (2020) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Green Knight, based upon the poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, does the poem justice. We join our relatively pure-hearted Sir Gawain (Dev Patel) on Christmas morning, as he wakes up in what appears to be a brothel. He rushes home to his Mother (Sarita Choudhury), to change for the Christmas Day feast with the aged King (Sean Harris). Mother is left behind as Gawain goes to the feast, and conjures the appearance of the Green Knight.
Gawain agrees to the Christmas game proposed by the Green Knight, so he can be knighted himself. The game is the same as the poem, a knight gives a blow to the Green Knight, and a year from that date, the knight will visit the Green Chapel so he can return the favor.
The year passes, and Gawain sets out on his quest. Mother gives him the gift of a green sash, that will protect him as he faces the journey and the Green Knight. He sets off on his trippy journey, encountering a scavenger (Barry Keoghan) along the way and is quickly delayed in his quest and left for dead, losing his green sash. After freeing himself, he sets out on his allegory-filled quest again, encountering St. Winifred (Erin Kellyman), giants, and is led by a fox to a castle near the Green Chapel.
The castle is where the film gets back on track with the poem. The Lord (Joel Egerton) shows kindness and hospitality, while his wife (Alicia Vikander), takes the role as temptress. Alicia Vikander plays both the Lady, and the prostitute that Gawain is in love with back home. It’s understandably confusing for Gawain. The same deal is struck between the Lord and Gawain, while the Lord is away on the hunt, he will give Gawain everything he catches, while Gawain promises to give the Lord anything he receives at the castle. Gawain does not end up keeping the agreement as he’s seduced by the Lady and gets the green sash back. He escapes the castle and goes to the Green Chapel to finish the Christmas game. The end was very interesting, would Gawain choose to be courageous and maintain his honor, accepting death? Or would he be a coward, running away to be knighted, then subsequently become King? The ending was scary good.
My first thought after the film ended was that we finally got a film that did an Arthurian legend justice. I happened to be really into Arthuriana, so this film was such a treat. Though, I am left with some questions. I’m not sure which sister Mother was supposed to be. Was Mother Morgaine or Morgause? I assume it was Morgause, but Mother was a little more witchy, so maybe Morgaine? I also don’t know if in the film, the Green Knight was the Lord. The characters were played by two different actors, but the Lord is definitely supposed to be the Green Knight.
Another thing I did like is that I don’t believe they ever called the King by his name, Arthur. This was a smart move, as the story was centralized on Sir Gawain, and not about Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
The one sore thumb for me was Alicia Vikander. Her accent when she was the prostitute, Essel, was horrid. I also think that character wasn’t really needed at all because she was just annoying. The whole brothel situation itself was kind of lame because Gawain was supposed to be pure and innocent. The innocence being lost at the Castle was a major part of the poem.
Dev Patel was excellent as Gawain; I was entranced by him, and he kept my attention the entire film. I know there were grumblings about his casting, but seriously, this is a fantasy story. It also is not impossible for people of a different race to be present all over Europe. There once was this empire called Rome, that encompassed a very large area, and enabled people to travel around and settle in areas.
I had been looking forward to this film since March of 2020, and it completely delivered. I hope we get more films like this, rather than the barrage of big dumb action and comic book films. I can’t wait to go see this film again!
Gawain agrees to the Christmas game proposed by the Green Knight, so he can be knighted himself. The game is the same as the poem, a knight gives a blow to the Green Knight, and a year from that date, the knight will visit the Green Chapel so he can return the favor.
The year passes, and Gawain sets out on his quest. Mother gives him the gift of a green sash, that will protect him as he faces the journey and the Green Knight. He sets off on his trippy journey, encountering a scavenger (Barry Keoghan) along the way and is quickly delayed in his quest and left for dead, losing his green sash. After freeing himself, he sets out on his allegory-filled quest again, encountering St. Winifred (Erin Kellyman), giants, and is led by a fox to a castle near the Green Chapel.
The castle is where the film gets back on track with the poem. The Lord (Joel Egerton) shows kindness and hospitality, while his wife (Alicia Vikander), takes the role as temptress. Alicia Vikander plays both the Lady, and the prostitute that Gawain is in love with back home. It’s understandably confusing for Gawain. The same deal is struck between the Lord and Gawain, while the Lord is away on the hunt, he will give Gawain everything he catches, while Gawain promises to give the Lord anything he receives at the castle. Gawain does not end up keeping the agreement as he’s seduced by the Lady and gets the green sash back. He escapes the castle and goes to the Green Chapel to finish the Christmas game. The end was very interesting, would Gawain choose to be courageous and maintain his honor, accepting death? Or would he be a coward, running away to be knighted, then subsequently become King? The ending was scary good.
My first thought after the film ended was that we finally got a film that did an Arthurian legend justice. I happened to be really into Arthuriana, so this film was such a treat. Though, I am left with some questions. I’m not sure which sister Mother was supposed to be. Was Mother Morgaine or Morgause? I assume it was Morgause, but Mother was a little more witchy, so maybe Morgaine? I also don’t know if in the film, the Green Knight was the Lord. The characters were played by two different actors, but the Lord is definitely supposed to be the Green Knight.
Another thing I did like is that I don’t believe they ever called the King by his name, Arthur. This was a smart move, as the story was centralized on Sir Gawain, and not about Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
The one sore thumb for me was Alicia Vikander. Her accent when she was the prostitute, Essel, was horrid. I also think that character wasn’t really needed at all because she was just annoying. The whole brothel situation itself was kind of lame because Gawain was supposed to be pure and innocent. The innocence being lost at the Castle was a major part of the poem.
Dev Patel was excellent as Gawain; I was entranced by him, and he kept my attention the entire film. I know there were grumblings about his casting, but seriously, this is a fantasy story. It also is not impossible for people of a different race to be present all over Europe. There once was this empire called Rome, that encompassed a very large area, and enabled people to travel around and settle in areas.
I had been looking forward to this film since March of 2020, and it completely delivered. I hope we get more films like this, rather than the barrage of big dumb action and comic book films. I can’t wait to go see this film again!
Dream Quest
Games
App
Play cards! Kill monsters! Level Up! Dream Quest is a roguelike deckbuilding game inspired by the...
I'll Be Your Blue Sky
9.0
Rate It
Book
The New York Times bestselling author revisits the characters from her beloved novels Love Walked In...
fiction contemporary fiction series
Jamie (131 KP) rated Dead by Daylight in Video Games
Jul 15, 2017
Genuinely fun & thrilling (2 more)
Survive with Friends & Kill Your Friends modes are both fun
Steep learning curve that rewards skilled players
Riddled with bugs and easily exploited (2 more)
Toxic community
Useless ranking system
Fun horror themed multiplayer action
It's been almost a year since DBD was first released and for me it's been a year of both joy and frustration. I love the game, it's still one of my favorites, and it's an absolute blast to play with friends. The developers have made signifcant progress since launch in terms of fixing bugs, rebalancing mechanics, and adding content both to keep the game fresh but also to improve the quality of life for both survivors and killers. When I first started it was genuinely tense until I got used to the game, and the Halloween update last year brought back the old scares at least for a little while even for relatively seasoned players. It's nice to see that the dev team is still actively working on the game.
With that said, while I recommend this game I do so cautiously. On release the game was riddled with bugs and had serious issues with the queue system, and while some of the issues with both of those things have been fixed there are still some glaring problems that don't seem to have any easy fixes. The game can be easy to abuse and there have been problems in the past with cheaters and bots (thankfully not so much anymore). Game lobbies are peer to peer which means that survivors will be at the mercy of the other person's internet connection. There is a ranking system that means next to nothing as there are no end of season rewards, just a steam achievement and bragging rights.
Add in the fact that this game is extremely competitive, you'll pretty regularly run into some salty people. You get killers that camp, survivors that abuse infinites, and on occasion the random angry messages and trash talk on steam. A good number of the folks I used to play with ended up rage quitting for one reason or another, so this game can have that effect on folks.
Overall though, I still enjoy DBD on occasion, I like to see the new stuff that gets added or fixed. While the bugs, occasional long queue times, and lag can be extremely frustrating at times I feel that the good outweighs the bad. As long as you don't take it too seriously and just have fun it can be a really enjoyable, especially with the right people.
With that said, while I recommend this game I do so cautiously. On release the game was riddled with bugs and had serious issues with the queue system, and while some of the issues with both of those things have been fixed there are still some glaring problems that don't seem to have any easy fixes. The game can be easy to abuse and there have been problems in the past with cheaters and bots (thankfully not so much anymore). Game lobbies are peer to peer which means that survivors will be at the mercy of the other person's internet connection. There is a ranking system that means next to nothing as there are no end of season rewards, just a steam achievement and bragging rights.
Add in the fact that this game is extremely competitive, you'll pretty regularly run into some salty people. You get killers that camp, survivors that abuse infinites, and on occasion the random angry messages and trash talk on steam. A good number of the folks I used to play with ended up rage quitting for one reason or another, so this game can have that effect on folks.
Overall though, I still enjoy DBD on occasion, I like to see the new stuff that gets added or fixed. While the bugs, occasional long queue times, and lag can be extremely frustrating at times I feel that the good outweighs the bad. As long as you don't take it too seriously and just have fun it can be a really enjoyable, especially with the right people.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink (Pilgrims, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I liked Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink. For the most part, it was a good read. There was only one thing that I didn't particularly like, but it was a pretty large part.
The good:
-The plot was fun. I enjoyed the storyline, the twists and turns, and the ending. Some of it I saw coming, some of it I didn't—but even when I expected it, I enjoyed seeing it work out.
-The characters: Dev (Libby's extremely gay friend) was fabulous in every sense of the word. If he were real, he'd be my buddy, even though he'd be constantly criticizing my shoes. Garrett, the reporter, is so nerd-tastic that I literally geeked out when he was introduced. Cam's romantic side was the hero every girl dreams about.
-The relationship progression: I knew from the get-go that Cam was going to be the greasy sleazy character that charms the girls but is really a jerk, and that Garrett was going to be the awesome-sauce hero. But when Libby first meets the characters, the reader perceives them just like she does: that Cam was a Shakespeare-quoting flower-throwing romantic, and Garrett was a nerd (again, I liked him more from the beginning anyway). The transition happened so slowly and flawlessly that I didn't see it happen, it just did.
-I've lead camps before. They're so much fun. Strohm nailed it! I loved the little girls! Ah for those scenes I totally wanted to be Libby.
-The writing was totally great. It felt like a teen's interior monologue, it was witty, fun, clear, and easy to read. It was perfect for the genre.
-The ending was pretty darn perfect. I liked what Libby learned, and how she changed. If the character hasn't changed from the beginning of the book to the end, nothing happened! The change was good. All in all the whole book was pretty cute.
The only not-so-good thing:
-I couldn't figure Libby out. Why doesn't she watch Battlestar Galactica or play Assassin's Creed? (That would totally be her thing. I bet after this story ends she turns into a total geek.) Libby was somewhat contradictory. She seemed to have a pretty clear view of right and wrong, and she was smart, but she didn't pick up on things that were blatantly obvious (trying to keep it spoiler-free here).
When there is only one not-so-good thing in the whole book, usually I'll rate it pretty high. But when the only not-so-good thing in the whole book is the main character? The whole way through reading this I kept thinking "Libby, what the heck are you thinking?" and she kind of annoyed me. I liked her, but again, her character seemed conflicting.
All in all, I enjoyed Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink, and would still recommend it for a fun quick light read.
Content/Recommendation: Little language, few references to sex. Ages 14+
The good:
-The plot was fun. I enjoyed the storyline, the twists and turns, and the ending. Some of it I saw coming, some of it I didn't—but even when I expected it, I enjoyed seeing it work out.
-The characters: Dev (Libby's extremely gay friend) was fabulous in every sense of the word. If he were real, he'd be my buddy, even though he'd be constantly criticizing my shoes. Garrett, the reporter, is so nerd-tastic that I literally geeked out when he was introduced. Cam's romantic side was the hero every girl dreams about.
-The relationship progression: I knew from the get-go that Cam was going to be the greasy sleazy character that charms the girls but is really a jerk, and that Garrett was going to be the awesome-sauce hero. But when Libby first meets the characters, the reader perceives them just like she does: that Cam was a Shakespeare-quoting flower-throwing romantic, and Garrett was a nerd (again, I liked him more from the beginning anyway). The transition happened so slowly and flawlessly that I didn't see it happen, it just did.
-I've lead camps before. They're so much fun. Strohm nailed it! I loved the little girls! Ah for those scenes I totally wanted to be Libby.
-The writing was totally great. It felt like a teen's interior monologue, it was witty, fun, clear, and easy to read. It was perfect for the genre.
-The ending was pretty darn perfect. I liked what Libby learned, and how she changed. If the character hasn't changed from the beginning of the book to the end, nothing happened! The change was good. All in all the whole book was pretty cute.
The only not-so-good thing:
-I couldn't figure Libby out. Why doesn't she watch Battlestar Galactica or play Assassin's Creed? (That would totally be her thing. I bet after this story ends she turns into a total geek.) Libby was somewhat contradictory. She seemed to have a pretty clear view of right and wrong, and she was smart, but she didn't pick up on things that were blatantly obvious (trying to keep it spoiler-free here).
When there is only one not-so-good thing in the whole book, usually I'll rate it pretty high. But when the only not-so-good thing in the whole book is the main character? The whole way through reading this I kept thinking "Libby, what the heck are you thinking?" and she kind of annoyed me. I liked her, but again, her character seemed conflicting.
All in all, I enjoyed Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink, and would still recommend it for a fun quick light read.
Content/Recommendation: Little language, few references to sex. Ages 14+
Climate Earth 3D
Weather and Education
App
The brand new Climate Earth 3D is a Hi-Def visualization of global weather conditions with forecasts...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Chappie (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A little rough around the edges
District 9 was a tough act to follow for first-time director Neill Blomkamp. His follow up to 2009’s sci-fi sleeper hit was the mediocre Elysium that whilst having a gargantuan budget and the likes of Jodie Foster and Matt Damon, failed on the most basic of levels – storytelling.
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
More classic literature retold for the modern audience, this time with a very distinctive and chaotic style.
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Sukhmani Sahib : Paath in Gurmukhi Hindi English Translation and Meaning
Book and Reference
App
Sukhmani Sahib now in Gurmukhi, Hindi, English and also Translation in English. Each line is...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) Sep 9, 2021
Andy K (10821 KP) Sep 10, 2021