Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
Overhyped and disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review will contain spoilers.... and this is my opinon.
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Kitchen Food Court Craze (NEW)
Games, Food & Drink and Stickers
7.0
Rate It
App
Kitchen Food Court Craze: Cooking Simulation is a new free cooking games for kids and girls which...
Metroburbia: The Anatomy of Greater London
Book
London's suburbs are home to many thousands of people who travel into the centre every day to work,...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated the PlayStation version of Resident Evil in Video Games
Jun 27, 2020 (Updated Jun 27, 2020)
The Atmosphere (2 more)
The Horror
The depending on what you need or think that's important.
The Infested Mansion
Resident Evil- like Silent Hill, the atmosphere of a the horror genre is excellent. Resident Evil ask you the question, if you and your team got stranded and the only place to go is a old creepy manison and survive it, can you do it?. The answer for me, no! But for Chris and Jill their have to, no other choice. Thats what i love about Resident Evil, is the atmosphere of the manison, the creepest, the mystery, the suspense, the thrills and the creatures that live inside of it.
The plot: Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine, are members of an elite task force known as S.T.A.R.S., as they investigate the outskirts of Raccoon City following the disappearance of their team members. They soon become trapped in a mansion infested with zombies and other monsters. The player, having selected to play as Chris or Jill at the start of the game, must explore the mansion to uncover its secrets.
Gameplay: The player's character is a member of a special law enforcement task force who is trapped in a mansion populated by dangerous mutated creatures. The objective of the game is to uncover the mystery of the mansion and ultimately escape alive.
To fulfill the game's objective, the player uncovers various documents that provide exposition about the game's narrative, as well as clues that help them solve various puzzles within the mansion. Key items are also available that give the player access to other items or new areas. The player can arm their character with weapons to defend themselves from enemies, although the ammunition available for each firearm is limited and the player must learn to conserve the ammunition they have for situations where they will really need it
The carrying capacity of the player is limited depending on the character and items that the player does not wish to carry at the moment can be stored into an item box to be retrieved for later use. To save their progress, the player must pick up an ink ribbon and use it on any of the typewriters scattered through key locations in the game. However, the supply of ink ribbons the player can acquire is limited much like the player's ammo and healing supplies. Players will encounter and fight various infected creatures as flesh-eating zombies, undead dogs, giant spiders, and other monsters.
Resident Evil was very well received critically and commercially, and is often credited for defining the survival horror genre. Beyond video games, Resident Evil has been credited with re-popularising zombies in mainstream popular culture from the late 1990s onwards (along with The House of the Dead), leading to a renewed interest in zombie films during the 2000s. Resident Evil has since been hailed as one of the most influential and greatest video games of all time. Its success has spawned a multimedia franchise including video games, films, comics, novels, and other merchandise. The game has received dedicated ports to the Sega Saturn, Windows, and Nintendo DS. In 2002, a remake of the same name was released for the GameCube featuring updated graphics, sound, and changes to the gameplay and story. A high-definition remaster of the GameCube game was released in 2015 for modern platforms.
Resident Evil- is one of my favorite survivor horror games of all time and one of my favorite games of all times. Its intense, thrilling, suspenseful and overall scary. Resident Evil is a must to play, if you haven't already. Will you survivie the manison or not!
The plot: Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine, are members of an elite task force known as S.T.A.R.S., as they investigate the outskirts of Raccoon City following the disappearance of their team members. They soon become trapped in a mansion infested with zombies and other monsters. The player, having selected to play as Chris or Jill at the start of the game, must explore the mansion to uncover its secrets.
Gameplay: The player's character is a member of a special law enforcement task force who is trapped in a mansion populated by dangerous mutated creatures. The objective of the game is to uncover the mystery of the mansion and ultimately escape alive.
To fulfill the game's objective, the player uncovers various documents that provide exposition about the game's narrative, as well as clues that help them solve various puzzles within the mansion. Key items are also available that give the player access to other items or new areas. The player can arm their character with weapons to defend themselves from enemies, although the ammunition available for each firearm is limited and the player must learn to conserve the ammunition they have for situations where they will really need it
The carrying capacity of the player is limited depending on the character and items that the player does not wish to carry at the moment can be stored into an item box to be retrieved for later use. To save their progress, the player must pick up an ink ribbon and use it on any of the typewriters scattered through key locations in the game. However, the supply of ink ribbons the player can acquire is limited much like the player's ammo and healing supplies. Players will encounter and fight various infected creatures as flesh-eating zombies, undead dogs, giant spiders, and other monsters.
Resident Evil was very well received critically and commercially, and is often credited for defining the survival horror genre. Beyond video games, Resident Evil has been credited with re-popularising zombies in mainstream popular culture from the late 1990s onwards (along with The House of the Dead), leading to a renewed interest in zombie films during the 2000s. Resident Evil has since been hailed as one of the most influential and greatest video games of all time. Its success has spawned a multimedia franchise including video games, films, comics, novels, and other merchandise. The game has received dedicated ports to the Sega Saturn, Windows, and Nintendo DS. In 2002, a remake of the same name was released for the GameCube featuring updated graphics, sound, and changes to the gameplay and story. A high-definition remaster of the GameCube game was released in 2015 for modern platforms.
Resident Evil- is one of my favorite survivor horror games of all time and one of my favorite games of all times. Its intense, thrilling, suspenseful and overall scary. Resident Evil is a must to play, if you haven't already. Will you survivie the manison or not!
African Proverbs
Reference
App
Baganda * One who loves you, warns you. Ethiopian * Evil enters like a splinter and...
Ghost Toasters - Regular Show
Games and Entertainment
App
Save the park from a ghostly invasion in this REGULAR SHOW PLATFORM SHOOTER! Gear up with the latest...
Lee (2222 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
May 17, 2019 (Updated May 17, 2019)
More of the same, and that's perfectly ok with me!
The original John Wick movie in 2014 was one hell of a pleasant surprise. Keanu Reeves exploded onto the screen as the retired contract killer, sporting sharp suits and expertly taking out the bad guys who stole his prized car, and killed his dog. Beautifully choreographed, intensely satisfying action - just pure escapism. John Wick 2 landed in 2017 and expanded on some of the mythology introduced in the first movie, delving into the wider world of an assassin community which seemingly outnumbers average citizens! But John Wick broke the rules, losing his cool and killing a member of the High Table on the grounds of the Continental Hotel, a place designated to be safe ground for those in the assassin business. His actions led to him being deemed "excommunicado" by the High Table, with all privileges removed and an open contract of $14 million placed on his head. Wick had just an hour head start granted to him by old friend Winston, before becoming fair game for anyone and everyone. And that is where the second movie left us dangling...
Chapter 3 picks things up pretty much right from where chapter 2 ended. It's around 5:10pm, and a wounded John Wick is making his way through New York with his latest doggy friend alongside him. Excommunicado kicks in at 6pm, and he is clocked by various assassins as he moves through the streets, all preparing themselves for getting their shot at the $14 million. He takes care of the important stuff - making sure his dog is in safe hands and that his wounded shoulder is patched up - and every so often we cut to the administration room, where communications are sent out to all the assassins, paperwork gets stamped and a time check is announced. 20 minutes until excommunicado, 10 minutes, 1 minute, 5 seconds. It's an intense build up and you have no idea what's going to happen at 6pm, but you cannot wait to find out!
When 6pm arrives, it's not quite the all out war you're expecting. Instead, we get a bunch of nicely choreographed fights involving small groups of chancers, all keen to try their hand at taking out the legendary John Wick. We get book-fu, we get horse-fu, and we get a fight in a room full of knives and swords. Which is great, unless you're squeamish about anything involving sharp objects and eyeballs (that would be me then).
As much as I'd love to watch two solid hours of John Wick just kicking ass, there does need to be the odd break here and there, and there's a lengthy period where the brakes are slammed on somewhat. We get bogged down in more mythology, and while John tries to arrange safe passage to Casablanca in order to bargain for his life, an adjudicator arrives in New York to question those who seemingly broke the rules to help John in the last movie and serve suitable punishment on them.
When John hooks up with old friend Sofia (Halle Berry), things move up a gear once more. Sofia can more than hold her own in a fight and it's an impressive, albeit far too brief performance from Halle Berry. But it's her two dogs who manage to steal the show during a fight between John, Sofia and another bunch of goons. Repeatedly leaping out of nowhere and viciously taking guys down with a set of pretty impressive moves of their own. Going for the neck, pulling on arms, but mostly going for the crotch.
The final act resorts to simply providing a relentless onslaught of opponents for John to take out, and that's perfectly fine by me. Pausing for breath after each round (for our benefit as much as his!), before moving to the next. While not quite as impressive as the original movie, this was on the same level as chapter 2 for me. And I certainly haven't tired of seeing John Wick do his thing just yet.
Chapter 3 picks things up pretty much right from where chapter 2 ended. It's around 5:10pm, and a wounded John Wick is making his way through New York with his latest doggy friend alongside him. Excommunicado kicks in at 6pm, and he is clocked by various assassins as he moves through the streets, all preparing themselves for getting their shot at the $14 million. He takes care of the important stuff - making sure his dog is in safe hands and that his wounded shoulder is patched up - and every so often we cut to the administration room, where communications are sent out to all the assassins, paperwork gets stamped and a time check is announced. 20 minutes until excommunicado, 10 minutes, 1 minute, 5 seconds. It's an intense build up and you have no idea what's going to happen at 6pm, but you cannot wait to find out!
When 6pm arrives, it's not quite the all out war you're expecting. Instead, we get a bunch of nicely choreographed fights involving small groups of chancers, all keen to try their hand at taking out the legendary John Wick. We get book-fu, we get horse-fu, and we get a fight in a room full of knives and swords. Which is great, unless you're squeamish about anything involving sharp objects and eyeballs (that would be me then).
As much as I'd love to watch two solid hours of John Wick just kicking ass, there does need to be the odd break here and there, and there's a lengthy period where the brakes are slammed on somewhat. We get bogged down in more mythology, and while John tries to arrange safe passage to Casablanca in order to bargain for his life, an adjudicator arrives in New York to question those who seemingly broke the rules to help John in the last movie and serve suitable punishment on them.
When John hooks up with old friend Sofia (Halle Berry), things move up a gear once more. Sofia can more than hold her own in a fight and it's an impressive, albeit far too brief performance from Halle Berry. But it's her two dogs who manage to steal the show during a fight between John, Sofia and another bunch of goons. Repeatedly leaping out of nowhere and viciously taking guys down with a set of pretty impressive moves of their own. Going for the neck, pulling on arms, but mostly going for the crotch.
The final act resorts to simply providing a relentless onslaught of opponents for John to take out, and that's perfectly fine by me. Pausing for breath after each round (for our benefit as much as his!), before moving to the next. While not quite as impressive as the original movie, this was on the same level as chapter 2 for me. And I certainly haven't tired of seeing John Wick do his thing just yet.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
May 19, 2019 (Updated May 19, 2019)
Great Fight Choreography in a very strong 3rd Chapter
The latest installment of the JOHN WICK story (titled CHAPTER 3 - PARABELLUM) is one long chase scene. It's 2 hours and 10 minutes of John Wick (Keanu Reeves) running and fighting and chasing and fighting and running again and fighting again.
And...that's just fine with me. For JOHN WICK 3 (JW3 as I'll call it from now on) is one of the finest choreographed films (fight scene-wise) that I have seen in quite a long time.
Picking up right after JOHN WICK CHAPTER 2 - JW3 follows John as he is declared "Ex-Communicado" from the underground Assassins organization that he has been a part of, then retired from, then pulled back in with a $14 million bounty on his head.
This flick kicks right into action (literally) with John and a few "red-shirt assassins" taking on each other in a hallway filled with knives. Will all these knives be used in the ensuing fight? You bet they will be - but it is how they are used - and how this scene (and all the fight scenes) are set-up, choreographed, and shot that makes this movie a strong cut above the standard fare in this sort of film.
That's because Director Chad Stahelski - a stunt man/fight coordinator for over 70 films - wisely focuses his attention on the grace, athleticism and strength of the stunts/fights and eschews the "quick-cut edit" style of fight scenes that is so en vogue these days. Stahelski keeps his camera "in place" and lets us, the audience, watch what's going on in (seemingly) long shots that are going to have you saying to yourself "how did they do that". Stahelski has helmed all 3 John Wick films thus far and I hope he helms many, many more.
You'll also be asking yourself how did 53 year old Keanu Reeves do all that fight work? It is incredible, physical work for him - and he is up to the task. John Wick is a man of few words - and much, much action - which suits the acting talents of this performer quite well.
Back for another go in the series - and having fun along the way - are Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and Lance Reddick - as colleagues, collaborators and/or foes of John Wick in this underworld. Capably joining in - with just as much a twinkle in their eyes - are Angelica Huston, Hallee Berry (in her best work in years) and Jerome Flynn (Bron from Game of Thrones). A new addition (at least to me) was the strong work brought forth by Asia Kate Dillon (TV's ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK) as "the Adjudicator" - who is monitoring the John Wick proceedings, Special mention needs to be made of the work of Mark Dacascos (TV's Iron Chef America!) as Wick's chief adversary - a strong effort (both acting-wise and physically/fighting wise) that I just didn't know this performer had in him.
A quick side-note on some animal performances here. There is a scene where a bad guy "gets it" from a horse...and I thought...how are they going to top that...and then immediately top it - GOOD FOR YOU, HORSE! And...a film has FINALLY figured out a way to use attack/guard dogs in a way that had you rooting for these four-legged, furry friends over the fiends they are attacking.
But...make no mistake about this...this film is about the fighting...and the intriguing Assassin's world that was first presented in the original (and I do mean ORIGINAL) John Wick film. I said at the time that I hoped they would expand this world, I wanted to see more of it. And...expand it they have...for the better. The world has become more intriguing to me, and I want EVEN MORE, PLEASE, of this world and of the uniquely original fight choreography that comes along with it.
This film is not for everyone - it is bloody (but in a "cartoon way"...I wouldn't say it is gory) and it is one long chase scene. But, if this is "your thing", you'll enjoy it very much.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...that's just fine with me. For JOHN WICK 3 (JW3 as I'll call it from now on) is one of the finest choreographed films (fight scene-wise) that I have seen in quite a long time.
Picking up right after JOHN WICK CHAPTER 2 - JW3 follows John as he is declared "Ex-Communicado" from the underground Assassins organization that he has been a part of, then retired from, then pulled back in with a $14 million bounty on his head.
This flick kicks right into action (literally) with John and a few "red-shirt assassins" taking on each other in a hallway filled with knives. Will all these knives be used in the ensuing fight? You bet they will be - but it is how they are used - and how this scene (and all the fight scenes) are set-up, choreographed, and shot that makes this movie a strong cut above the standard fare in this sort of film.
That's because Director Chad Stahelski - a stunt man/fight coordinator for over 70 films - wisely focuses his attention on the grace, athleticism and strength of the stunts/fights and eschews the "quick-cut edit" style of fight scenes that is so en vogue these days. Stahelski keeps his camera "in place" and lets us, the audience, watch what's going on in (seemingly) long shots that are going to have you saying to yourself "how did they do that". Stahelski has helmed all 3 John Wick films thus far and I hope he helms many, many more.
You'll also be asking yourself how did 53 year old Keanu Reeves do all that fight work? It is incredible, physical work for him - and he is up to the task. John Wick is a man of few words - and much, much action - which suits the acting talents of this performer quite well.
Back for another go in the series - and having fun along the way - are Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and Lance Reddick - as colleagues, collaborators and/or foes of John Wick in this underworld. Capably joining in - with just as much a twinkle in their eyes - are Angelica Huston, Hallee Berry (in her best work in years) and Jerome Flynn (Bron from Game of Thrones). A new addition (at least to me) was the strong work brought forth by Asia Kate Dillon (TV's ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK) as "the Adjudicator" - who is monitoring the John Wick proceedings, Special mention needs to be made of the work of Mark Dacascos (TV's Iron Chef America!) as Wick's chief adversary - a strong effort (both acting-wise and physically/fighting wise) that I just didn't know this performer had in him.
A quick side-note on some animal performances here. There is a scene where a bad guy "gets it" from a horse...and I thought...how are they going to top that...and then immediately top it - GOOD FOR YOU, HORSE! And...a film has FINALLY figured out a way to use attack/guard dogs in a way that had you rooting for these four-legged, furry friends over the fiends they are attacking.
But...make no mistake about this...this film is about the fighting...and the intriguing Assassin's world that was first presented in the original (and I do mean ORIGINAL) John Wick film. I said at the time that I hoped they would expand this world, I wanted to see more of it. And...expand it they have...for the better. The world has become more intriguing to me, and I want EVEN MORE, PLEASE, of this world and of the uniquely original fight choreography that comes along with it.
This film is not for everyone - it is bloody (but in a "cartoon way"...I wouldn't say it is gory) and it is one long chase scene. But, if this is "your thing", you'll enjoy it very much.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars