Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 6 Days (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 6 Days starts on the 30th April 1980 when Iranian terrorists storm the Iranian Embassy in Princes Gate taking hostages and demanding the release of 91 prisoners back in Iran. We follow the negotiator Max Vernon (Strong), reporter Kate Adie (Cornish) and the specialist SAS unit with rookie Rusty Firmin (Bell) planning their ideas of for entering the embassy.
England faces the idea of negotiating with terrorists or being strong and taking them down from the within showing the strength to deal with terrorist situations. As the tensions rise, Max tries to find a peaceful solution to everything while Rusty and his team are preparing for any chance of taking the embassy by force.
Thoughts on 6 Days
Characters – Rusty Firmin is the lead on a SAS team that are called to try and solve the hostage situation, they have only ever done training never being able to get their hands-on experience before. Rusty is desperate to show they are ready to protect their country. Max Vernon is the negotiator that keeps the terrorists calm, trying to make their demands happen, he stays calm through the whole situation even when the pressure to make something happen is getting to him. Kate Adie gives updates from outside for the watching television public to see how everything unfolds, in all honesty, we don’t need to be following this character.
Performances – When you look at the performances you can’t fault them because they are give good performances, Mark Strong shines like he always does, Jamie Bell is good too, the limited scenes Abbie Cornish is in she does well to. The problem is the characters are not the most interesting.
Story – The story is based on the real Iranian terrorist hostage situation in 1980 which last the 6 Days. It shows how England didn’t want a copy of what happened in Munich, didn’t want to give into terrorism and wanted to remain strong in the eyes of the world. It also shows how while being trained to deal with the situation, the SAS had never had to tackle things in reality. This should be an interesting watch but in the end, we don’t focus on enough of the negotiation process or the tactical side leaving us feeling like we haven’t learnt enough by the end.
Action/History – The get tactical action, the most part is training ideas before one main shot, but it doesn’t feel like it was shot the best way. We learn moments from the historical events, but most comes from the reading over the storytelling.
Settings – The film is set instantly around the Embassy, which puts us into the action from the start which is all we want to see.
Scene of the Movie – The practise sieges
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I feel we should have followed one side more instead of trying to cover three angles.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough history lesson, we learn what we need to, but not enough from the action unfolding before us.
Overall: Disappointing historical drama.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/11/26/6-days-2017/
England faces the idea of negotiating with terrorists or being strong and taking them down from the within showing the strength to deal with terrorist situations. As the tensions rise, Max tries to find a peaceful solution to everything while Rusty and his team are preparing for any chance of taking the embassy by force.
Thoughts on 6 Days
Characters – Rusty Firmin is the lead on a SAS team that are called to try and solve the hostage situation, they have only ever done training never being able to get their hands-on experience before. Rusty is desperate to show they are ready to protect their country. Max Vernon is the negotiator that keeps the terrorists calm, trying to make their demands happen, he stays calm through the whole situation even when the pressure to make something happen is getting to him. Kate Adie gives updates from outside for the watching television public to see how everything unfolds, in all honesty, we don’t need to be following this character.
Performances – When you look at the performances you can’t fault them because they are give good performances, Mark Strong shines like he always does, Jamie Bell is good too, the limited scenes Abbie Cornish is in she does well to. The problem is the characters are not the most interesting.
Story – The story is based on the real Iranian terrorist hostage situation in 1980 which last the 6 Days. It shows how England didn’t want a copy of what happened in Munich, didn’t want to give into terrorism and wanted to remain strong in the eyes of the world. It also shows how while being trained to deal with the situation, the SAS had never had to tackle things in reality. This should be an interesting watch but in the end, we don’t focus on enough of the negotiation process or the tactical side leaving us feeling like we haven’t learnt enough by the end.
Action/History – The get tactical action, the most part is training ideas before one main shot, but it doesn’t feel like it was shot the best way. We learn moments from the historical events, but most comes from the reading over the storytelling.
Settings – The film is set instantly around the Embassy, which puts us into the action from the start which is all we want to see.
Scene of the Movie – The practise sieges
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I feel we should have followed one side more instead of trying to cover three angles.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough history lesson, we learn what we need to, but not enough from the action unfolding before us.
Overall: Disappointing historical drama.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/11/26/6-days-2017/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
As part of my project to compile a coffee table book called 21st Century cinema: 200 Unmissable Films, I have found it interesting, but not surprising, that almost 10% of the list since the year 2000 are animated features. It is an art form that Pixar and Disney especially, but many smaller studios, are excelling in, because of technological advances, and the free range of realising an imaginative vision. The trouble often is that they aren’t my first port of call anymore now I don’t have a kid around to watch them with. So it takes me some time to catch up on the good ones these days.
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?
Weather WOW! + News, Thermometer & Photos
Weather and News
App
"It's important to note the user interface that relies heavily on graphics that are unbelievable....
Invoice ASAP, Invoicing
Business and Productivity
App
Easy mobile invoicing & field services with desktop reporting. Manage a team of any size. ...
Coffee Lovers Magazine - Drink Better Coffee
Food & Drink and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Discover, Make, and Drink better coffee - the most beautiful magazine for coffee lovers...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) in Movies
Feb 23, 2021
Kaluuya in an Oscar worthy performance
Ever since Daniel Kaluuya burst onto the scene in 2017’s GET OUT, he has been an actor to watch - one who’s brilliance bursts off the screen in whatever project he is in.
This brilliance shines brightly in his latest effort JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH that teams him up with his GET OUT co-star LaKeith Stanfield in the true story of 1960’s Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton (Kaluuya) and his friend/Security Chief, Bill O’Neal (Stanfield) who just happens to be an FBI informant.
Directed and Written by Shaka King, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH tells an important, under-told story of the African-American struggle in the wild, changing times of America in the 1960’s.
Kaluuya’s performance as Hampton is up to the challenge of a story this big and bold - his Fred Hampton is charismatic and involving, drawing all into his world. He’s a bigger-than-life icon that demands attention whenever Kaluuya/Hampton is on the stage. I expect an Oscar nomination (at least) for this performance.
The problem with this film is that Kaluuya’s Hampton is such a strong and commanding presence that the rest of the story and characters pale in comparison to him.
Such is the case with Stanfield’s portrayal of O’Neal. I really like LaKeith Stanfield as a performer and was really looking forward to seeing him and Kaluuya go toe-to-toe, but his character is swallowed up in the largess of the Hampton character and, so, I never connected or sympathized with him. I don’t blame this on the actor, I blame this on the script and the direction of King, making the O’Neal character weak - especially when he is up against Hampton.
The character/actor that WAS able to hold their own with Kaluuya/Hampton is Dominique Fishback as Hampton’s lover (and mother of his child), Deborah Johnson. The scenes of Hampton and Johnson together were sharp and interesting - perhaps because Hampton was toned down, but also because Fishback’s portrayal of Johnson was strong enough to stand up to Kaluuya’s portrayal of Hampton.
In addition, Kaluuya’s performance is so strong in this film that it is noticeable when it is absent, so when his character is sent to prison (and disappears) for the middle 1/3 of this film, the movie drags considerably.
Finally, the film hits a plateau at about the 4/5 mark and doesn’t really build to a crescendo at the end - an ending that should be powerful, but just sorts of lies there.
All-in-all, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH is worth seeing for the powerful performance by Daniel Kaluuya that more than makes up for the shortcomings of the rest of the film.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This brilliance shines brightly in his latest effort JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH that teams him up with his GET OUT co-star LaKeith Stanfield in the true story of 1960’s Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton (Kaluuya) and his friend/Security Chief, Bill O’Neal (Stanfield) who just happens to be an FBI informant.
Directed and Written by Shaka King, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH tells an important, under-told story of the African-American struggle in the wild, changing times of America in the 1960’s.
Kaluuya’s performance as Hampton is up to the challenge of a story this big and bold - his Fred Hampton is charismatic and involving, drawing all into his world. He’s a bigger-than-life icon that demands attention whenever Kaluuya/Hampton is on the stage. I expect an Oscar nomination (at least) for this performance.
The problem with this film is that Kaluuya’s Hampton is such a strong and commanding presence that the rest of the story and characters pale in comparison to him.
Such is the case with Stanfield’s portrayal of O’Neal. I really like LaKeith Stanfield as a performer and was really looking forward to seeing him and Kaluuya go toe-to-toe, but his character is swallowed up in the largess of the Hampton character and, so, I never connected or sympathized with him. I don’t blame this on the actor, I blame this on the script and the direction of King, making the O’Neal character weak - especially when he is up against Hampton.
The character/actor that WAS able to hold their own with Kaluuya/Hampton is Dominique Fishback as Hampton’s lover (and mother of his child), Deborah Johnson. The scenes of Hampton and Johnson together were sharp and interesting - perhaps because Hampton was toned down, but also because Fishback’s portrayal of Johnson was strong enough to stand up to Kaluuya’s portrayal of Hampton.
In addition, Kaluuya’s performance is so strong in this film that it is noticeable when it is absent, so when his character is sent to prison (and disappears) for the middle 1/3 of this film, the movie drags considerably.
Finally, the film hits a plateau at about the 4/5 mark and doesn’t really build to a crescendo at the end - an ending that should be powerful, but just sorts of lies there.
All-in-all, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH is worth seeing for the powerful performance by Daniel Kaluuya that more than makes up for the shortcomings of the rest of the film.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Frightened Little Flower Bud in Books
Aug 21, 2018
View full review here: diaryofdifference.com/2018/06/11/the-frightened-little-flower-bud-renee-paule-g-r-hewitt-book-review/
I don’t usually read Children’s Books. I used to love them when I was a kid, and of course, those were the books on which I learned how to read. Those are the stories that I will always remember, with happiness in my heart and they will always have a special place in my heart.
<img src="https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1505213611l/36226869.jpg"/>;
I was lucky enough to win The Frightened Little Flower Bud on a giveaway from Booklikes, and I couldn’t be happier! This is a short, cute story about one flower, and the process of how it blooms.
Before it blooms, it has many fears as to what is going to happen, it fears that the sun will dry it, and the rain will drown it, and that it won’t be as beautiful as the other flowers out there.
It reminds me of the fears that us people have every day before we go out of the door. We fear this and that, without realising to enjoy our lives, and live them like they are our last. A perfect description of how fear and doubt can let us down, but also a perfect example of what happens when you actually get the courage and go out there, and realise that yes - you can be the prettiest flower out there.
I liked how there are questions at the end of the books, to engage the little readers after reading it. However, in all honesty, I believe that the images inside the books won’t keep a kid there for very long, and they might not be the most exiting this in the world.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="http://innahcrazy.tumblr.com/">Tumblr</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>; |
I don’t usually read Children’s Books. I used to love them when I was a kid, and of course, those were the books on which I learned how to read. Those are the stories that I will always remember, with happiness in my heart and they will always have a special place in my heart.
<img src="https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1505213611l/36226869.jpg"/>;
I was lucky enough to win The Frightened Little Flower Bud on a giveaway from Booklikes, and I couldn’t be happier! This is a short, cute story about one flower, and the process of how it blooms.
Before it blooms, it has many fears as to what is going to happen, it fears that the sun will dry it, and the rain will drown it, and that it won’t be as beautiful as the other flowers out there.
It reminds me of the fears that us people have every day before we go out of the door. We fear this and that, without realising to enjoy our lives, and live them like they are our last. A perfect description of how fear and doubt can let us down, but also a perfect example of what happens when you actually get the courage and go out there, and realise that yes - you can be the prettiest flower out there.
I liked how there are questions at the end of the books, to engage the little readers after reading it. However, in all honesty, I believe that the images inside the books won’t keep a kid there for very long, and they might not be the most exiting this in the world.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="http://innahcrazy.tumblr.com/">Tumblr</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>; |
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Full disclosure here: I am a huge fan of the original series of Planet of the Apes movies. I have them on VHS and Laser Disc, having watched them at least a dozen times each. That being said, I didn’t really enjoy 2011’s Rise of the Planet of Apes with James Franco. Not that it was a bad movie, per say, but it didn’t really keep me captivated, so much so that I can barely remember all of the main plot points. At the time I thought that I might be jaded being such a huge fan of the originals. And then I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (we’ll just refer to it as “Dawn” from here on out). I didn’t have very high expectations for Dawn.
Set 10 years after Rise, Dawn sees the world in ruins. Humans are struggling to survive after the Simian virus wreaked havoc on the planet. Living in colonies, they are unaware that there is a growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar. When the apes and the humans discover each other, they both feel threatened, but there is one man, Malcolm (Jason Clarke), who sees the compassion in Caesar and thinks that he will allow the humans to attempt work on a nearby dam to restore power to their colony. But dissent in the ranks of both sides of the banana prove to threaten this shaky alliance.
This movie blew me away. With an excellent cast to compliment the CGI apes in the movie, you quickly forget that there is any CGI involved at all. The seamless visuals make you feel like Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), Ellie (Keri Russell) and Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee) were actually interacting with the apes. The story was also very well done and seemed very plausible for the tattered world that comes about after the apocalyptic event brought on by the Simian virus. Top this all off with a tremendous score, and you have a great movie-going experience. One that definitely lives up to the original movies.
If I had one complaint about this movie, it was the rapid rate at which the apes seemed to evolve in the span of a few days. Although it’s been 10 years since the last movie, in which Caesar did speak, the movie does open with the apes communicating through inaudible language. My first thought was that they are hunt, so they are choosing to communicate in this fashion, but even when they return to their village, they continue with the inaudible, “sign-language” communication. Then over the course of the next three to four days, they slowly bring speech into their communication between themselves and the humans. The big thing is that they seem to struggle with the words at first (even Caesar), and then by the end of the movie, they are holding complete conversations. Just seems a bit rapid to me. But, it was impactful in the progression of the movie. So one small gripe on this is not enough to bring down my opinion of the film.
Here it is again, my friends. Will I buy Dawn when it is released for home consumption? You bet. Unfortunately, it is also going to force me to buy Rise as well. Though, this may not be a bad thing as a second viewing sometimes brings out the good in movies I didn’t like the first time through, especially as I now know what it is building towards. Go see this one in the theaters my friends. And be sure to check it out in 3D also, it was very well done and not overpowering as some movies have been in the past. Though if you have issues with 3D, I am sure it is just as visually appealing in 2D.
Set 10 years after Rise, Dawn sees the world in ruins. Humans are struggling to survive after the Simian virus wreaked havoc on the planet. Living in colonies, they are unaware that there is a growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar. When the apes and the humans discover each other, they both feel threatened, but there is one man, Malcolm (Jason Clarke), who sees the compassion in Caesar and thinks that he will allow the humans to attempt work on a nearby dam to restore power to their colony. But dissent in the ranks of both sides of the banana prove to threaten this shaky alliance.
This movie blew me away. With an excellent cast to compliment the CGI apes in the movie, you quickly forget that there is any CGI involved at all. The seamless visuals make you feel like Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), Ellie (Keri Russell) and Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee) were actually interacting with the apes. The story was also very well done and seemed very plausible for the tattered world that comes about after the apocalyptic event brought on by the Simian virus. Top this all off with a tremendous score, and you have a great movie-going experience. One that definitely lives up to the original movies.
If I had one complaint about this movie, it was the rapid rate at which the apes seemed to evolve in the span of a few days. Although it’s been 10 years since the last movie, in which Caesar did speak, the movie does open with the apes communicating through inaudible language. My first thought was that they are hunt, so they are choosing to communicate in this fashion, but even when they return to their village, they continue with the inaudible, “sign-language” communication. Then over the course of the next three to four days, they slowly bring speech into their communication between themselves and the humans. The big thing is that they seem to struggle with the words at first (even Caesar), and then by the end of the movie, they are holding complete conversations. Just seems a bit rapid to me. But, it was impactful in the progression of the movie. So one small gripe on this is not enough to bring down my opinion of the film.
Here it is again, my friends. Will I buy Dawn when it is released for home consumption? You bet. Unfortunately, it is also going to force me to buy Rise as well. Though, this may not be a bad thing as a second viewing sometimes brings out the good in movies I didn’t like the first time through, especially as I now know what it is building towards. Go see this one in the theaters my friends. And be sure to check it out in 3D also, it was very well done and not overpowering as some movies have been in the past. Though if you have issues with 3D, I am sure it is just as visually appealing in 2D.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Fallout 4 in Video Games
Jul 20, 2017
More Fallout (1 more)
Crafting system
It's Good To Be Back
To be honest, I thought I would have a lot more to talk about in my review. I was prepared to write a War and Peace style essay on how great Fallout 4 was and yet I find myself struggling to live up to that notion. Not because the game isn’t good, Fallout 4 is exactly what we have been waiting all these years for, but that’s just it. This game is exactly what we were hoping for and nothing more, which is more than fine with me. Playing this game for the first time feels like slipping on an old pair of comfortable slippers, the controls all come back to you immediately, the charm of a Fallout game is immediately present and it feels like you are right back at home. The world is vast, beautiful in parts and grotesque in others and I’m not just talking about the intentional aesthetic ugliness of the game’s world. Streched textures, dated character models, stiff animation loops, clipping, short draw distance and technical glitches are just some of the problems that come with Bethesda using the dated Creation Engine to create their first ‘next gen’ open world game. The best thing graphically in this game is the lighting effects and the more vibrant colour pallet. When the rays of sunshine hit the trees of Sanctuary Hills at the right moment this game can actually look quite beautiful, but that is immediately lost when you turn around and see the eerie face of Mama Murphy. So the presentation could be better, but I feel that’s to be expected from a Bethesda game and that is the problem. This shouldn’t be ‘expected’ from any game in 2015, if CD Projekt Red and Kojima Productions can produce large scale open world games that actually look like they were made this year and not a decade ago, then there is no real reason that Bethesda can’t. However even with all of these flaws and complaints that we really shouldn’t have to continually endure, Fallout 4 is still my GOTY. I mean all Fallout 4 had to do to be my GOTY was to be more of Fallout 3 and that is exactly what it is. The shooting is still clunky but I am a big fan of the VATS system and I’m really glad that they decided to keep the feature and it feels good to get back to being the loot addict that I am. Now, even the junk has a significant use! The crafting system in this game is such an awesome addition, I mean it obviously has its flaws as it isn’t the smoothest crafting system I have ever used, but in a game like fallout it just makes so much sense. I’m not really into the weapon, armour, chemistry or cooking crafting stations, but the ability to build your own settlements is awesome. It genuinely has stopped me from progressing the main quest. No spoilers, but I am at the part where you have to choose a faction to side with in the run up to the end of the game, but I couldn’t care less about any of that, I’m quite happy to just keep building up my settlements. That’s not to say that the quests and characters in this game aren’t interesting, because they are. The companions are all quite interesting, even if there is a strange lack of female options for a companion. The worst companion though, by far, is Dogmeat. He is the worst programmed and therefore the most broken. Constantly blocking corridors and doorways, not fetching items for you when they are within reaching distance and just being a general annoyance, he goes from being cute to irritant in a couple of short hours. The voice acting is also something that varies like crazy. Both the male and female protagonists are voiced excellently, (even if it is a Caucasian man and woman doing the voices, which means if your character is any other ethnicity, they will still sound white,) but the other voices of NPC’s etc are wooden and downright awful in places. The areas in this game are cool, they add to the tone and the immersion, as do the sound effects and score, but there is a level of polish that is absent here and there is no reason for it, it just lets the game down and prevents reviewers from giving that perfect 10 score. People on the internet have gave the dialogue system a lot of hate and while I can see where that is coming from, I personally think it functions fine.
Fallout 4 isn’t going to break any major grounds, it isn’t going to change the gaming landscape on any grand scale and it does feel like an old game and I’m okay with all of that. This is my GOTY because it’s more Fallout and that was all that I needed it to be. Sure it would have been nicer if the game looked a bit prettier and some of the systems were a bit smoother, but to be back in the wasteland, taking part in random battles that break out beside you as you wander through this dead world and looting until you can’t walk properly, it brings the feelings out in me that I haven’t felt since Fallout 3.
Fallout 4 isn’t going to break any major grounds, it isn’t going to change the gaming landscape on any grand scale and it does feel like an old game and I’m okay with all of that. This is my GOTY because it’s more Fallout and that was all that I needed it to be. Sure it would have been nicer if the game looked a bit prettier and some of the systems were a bit smoother, but to be back in the wasteland, taking part in random battles that break out beside you as you wander through this dead world and looting until you can’t walk properly, it brings the feelings out in me that I haven’t felt since Fallout 3.