Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Hate U Give (2018) in Movies
Feb 11, 2019
Masterpiece, One of the Best of 2018
After witnessing a murder, black high school student Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) decides to stand up against racism while dealing with her own internal conflict of self-identity.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
The toughest part about critiquing is having to say something isn’t perfect, but not really having any ideas as to how to fix it. The beginning was…good. Characters are introduced as you meet the Carter family for the first time. It definitely could have been better, however. I felt it dragged on for slightly too long, but at the same time I understand director George Tillman Jr. was going for an emotional connection. While it could’ve been better, it is solid enough of a start to get you into the movie.
Characters: 10
The film revolves around Starr and her family. Each family member contributes to the overall dynamic of the story. You can see how Starr is shaped by her strong father Maverick (Russell Hornsby) who is all about standing up for what’s right and protecting the family at all costs. Her mother Lisa (Regina Hall) just wants Starr to have a better life than herself growing up. Starr recognizes that and tries to embrace it, but also feels guilty while doing so. It was therapeutic watching Starr evolve into a woman after feeling so powerless in the earlygoings of the film. All of these characters, even those outside of the Carter family, have depth and add value to the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 10
The Hate U Give is packed with twists and turns that you don’t expect or see coming. It really is a small world that we live in, too small to go around hating each other. The film succeeds by showing us just how small this world is. There are a number of memorable scenes that remain etched in my brain long after watching the movie. It’s one of those films that stays with you, leaving you with cause for much thought.
Pace: 9
There were a few spots where the build-up was a bit slow, but it’s not a major issue that impacts the movie as a whole. This goes back to what I was mentioning in the beginning. Not perfect, but I’m not sure how much I would have done differently than Tillman Jr. For the most part, the movie is highly entertaining and has a consistent flow.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ended just the way it should, not with some fairytale conclusion, but reality. Thank God for justice, but the movie leaves us with the full understanding that there is still work yet to be done. Very strong messaging.
Overall: 95
The Hate U Give is not your typical race war movie as it pushes for peace in coexistence and challenges the ideas of self-identification. The dynamics involved here are truly interesting as you see a black vs. white vs. hood life going on and what happens when lines cross. With a solid cast and story, it is not a surprise that this is one of my favorite films of 2018.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
The toughest part about critiquing is having to say something isn’t perfect, but not really having any ideas as to how to fix it. The beginning was…good. Characters are introduced as you meet the Carter family for the first time. It definitely could have been better, however. I felt it dragged on for slightly too long, but at the same time I understand director George Tillman Jr. was going for an emotional connection. While it could’ve been better, it is solid enough of a start to get you into the movie.
Characters: 10
The film revolves around Starr and her family. Each family member contributes to the overall dynamic of the story. You can see how Starr is shaped by her strong father Maverick (Russell Hornsby) who is all about standing up for what’s right and protecting the family at all costs. Her mother Lisa (Regina Hall) just wants Starr to have a better life than herself growing up. Starr recognizes that and tries to embrace it, but also feels guilty while doing so. It was therapeutic watching Starr evolve into a woman after feeling so powerless in the earlygoings of the film. All of these characters, even those outside of the Carter family, have depth and add value to the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 10
The Hate U Give is packed with twists and turns that you don’t expect or see coming. It really is a small world that we live in, too small to go around hating each other. The film succeeds by showing us just how small this world is. There are a number of memorable scenes that remain etched in my brain long after watching the movie. It’s one of those films that stays with you, leaving you with cause for much thought.
Pace: 9
There were a few spots where the build-up was a bit slow, but it’s not a major issue that impacts the movie as a whole. This goes back to what I was mentioning in the beginning. Not perfect, but I’m not sure how much I would have done differently than Tillman Jr. For the most part, the movie is highly entertaining and has a consistent flow.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ended just the way it should, not with some fairytale conclusion, but reality. Thank God for justice, but the movie leaves us with the full understanding that there is still work yet to be done. Very strong messaging.
Overall: 95
The Hate U Give is not your typical race war movie as it pushes for peace in coexistence and challenges the ideas of self-identification. The dynamics involved here are truly interesting as you see a black vs. white vs. hood life going on and what happens when lines cross. With a solid cast and story, it is not a surprise that this is one of my favorite films of 2018.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A surprisingly heart-warming sequel
After the success of Deadpool, it’s natural to feel apprehensive about what comes next. Will it be as good as the first? Or will it fall flat? I was excited to see the Merc with a Mouth back again, but wasn’t entirely sure what to expect. I’d thankfully managed to avoid all spoilers online, so I was excited to see what the sequel would bring to the table.
Thankfully yes – it is absolutely on par with the first, if not better. In this film we get to see a more serious, empathetic version of Wade Wilson as he’s faced with some tough experiences and decisions. Ryan Reynolds does an amazing job of portraying Wilson’s sorrow, which is far removed from what we’re used to. It certainly doesn’t take away from the film’s humour, fourth wall breaking and sarcasm, but instead adds a more complex layer to the narrative. I was surprised to find myself crying at certain points in the film due to the emotional nature. The film also parodies a lot of other films, and I’m sure on a second viewing I’ll be able to spot them all, but the ones I did catch made me laugh out loud.
I adored some of the fight scenes, including Deadpool fighting someone to Skrillex’s “Bangarang” (which has to be one of my favourite cinematic moments of 2018… so far). The soundtrack is brilliant and the use of music plays a big part in this film, effectively setting the mood whether that’s humour or sorrow. An effective soundtrack really completes a film, and I am in love with Deadpool 2’s. Not to spoil anything too much, but you’ll be greeted with the likes of George Michael, Dolly Parton and AC/DC throughout the film which is a selling point if I do say so myself.
There are so many unexpected cameos in Deadpool 2 that I won’t ruin for you, but they all brought a smile to my face and I was excited to see what each actor brought to the table! Alongside these, we see familiar faces in Colossus, Negasonic Teenage Warhead, Dopinder and Weasel who all played a huge part in the first film and reciprocate this in the sequel, as well as brand new ones in vengeful cyborg Cable, ‘lucky’ Domino and out of control mutant Russell Collins.
I was so impressed with the new characters and the way they were acted, so huge praise has to be given to Josh Brolin, Zazie Beetz and Julian Dennison for bringing such complex characters to life on screen. The dynamics between characters, old and new, is a joy to watch and everything is so well scripted throughout the film.
Deadpool 2 is a strong successor to the first, with a heartwarming overall message to tie the film up in a nice little bow. Oh, and remember to sit tight whilst the credits roll… this is a Marvel film after all!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/05/27/deadpool-2-a-surprisingly-heart-warming-sequel/
Thankfully yes – it is absolutely on par with the first, if not better. In this film we get to see a more serious, empathetic version of Wade Wilson as he’s faced with some tough experiences and decisions. Ryan Reynolds does an amazing job of portraying Wilson’s sorrow, which is far removed from what we’re used to. It certainly doesn’t take away from the film’s humour, fourth wall breaking and sarcasm, but instead adds a more complex layer to the narrative. I was surprised to find myself crying at certain points in the film due to the emotional nature. The film also parodies a lot of other films, and I’m sure on a second viewing I’ll be able to spot them all, but the ones I did catch made me laugh out loud.
I adored some of the fight scenes, including Deadpool fighting someone to Skrillex’s “Bangarang” (which has to be one of my favourite cinematic moments of 2018… so far). The soundtrack is brilliant and the use of music plays a big part in this film, effectively setting the mood whether that’s humour or sorrow. An effective soundtrack really completes a film, and I am in love with Deadpool 2’s. Not to spoil anything too much, but you’ll be greeted with the likes of George Michael, Dolly Parton and AC/DC throughout the film which is a selling point if I do say so myself.
There are so many unexpected cameos in Deadpool 2 that I won’t ruin for you, but they all brought a smile to my face and I was excited to see what each actor brought to the table! Alongside these, we see familiar faces in Colossus, Negasonic Teenage Warhead, Dopinder and Weasel who all played a huge part in the first film and reciprocate this in the sequel, as well as brand new ones in vengeful cyborg Cable, ‘lucky’ Domino and out of control mutant Russell Collins.
I was so impressed with the new characters and the way they were acted, so huge praise has to be given to Josh Brolin, Zazie Beetz and Julian Dennison for bringing such complex characters to life on screen. The dynamics between characters, old and new, is a joy to watch and everything is so well scripted throughout the film.
Deadpool 2 is a strong successor to the first, with a heartwarming overall message to tie the film up in a nice little bow. Oh, and remember to sit tight whilst the credits roll… this is a Marvel film after all!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/05/27/deadpool-2-a-surprisingly-heart-warming-sequel/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hudson Hawk (1991) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Hudson Hawk starts when Hudson (Willis) is released from prison, only to be drawn into committing one more burglary with his partner in crime Tommy Five-Tone (Aiello). The next day Hudson learns that not everything was as simple as just stealing a horse figure.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Ides of March (2011) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019 (Updated Sep 13, 2019)
Characters – Stephen Meyers is the ambitious campaign manager who is wildly considered one of the best in the business with his ability to handle the media and remain calm through any situation. His life is turned upside when he becomes a pawn in the dirty tactics involved in an election race and he will need to roll his sleeves up to fight back. Governor Mike Morris is the man Stephen is working for, he is the underdog in the race and seems like the perfect candidate, only he has secrets which could ruin his campaign. Paul is Stephen’s boss, the man who took a chance on Stephen, he values loyalty over anything else and doesn’t always trust the people around him. Tom Duffy is the campaign manager on the opposite side, he does like the ideas Stephen is playing and wants him on his team, he is the first one to play him into his own game. Molly is the intern on the staff that could bring down the whole campaign with her secret. Ida is a journalist that will do anything for a story which will get her on the front page.
Performances – In the performances we have a list of all-star actors that show us just how an ensembled cast can make a movie so enjoyable. We have Ryan Gosling taking centre stage, George Clooney playing a role her is perfect for and Hoffman and Giamatti that are just acting masters with these roles showing just how talented they are.
Story – The story here follows a younger political man o the verge of his biggest campaign victory, when he gets shown the darker side of politics. Now this is an interesting story as we see how the innocent man must get dirty to survive the game and how the seasoned veterans of the game know every trick that will come their way. The mix of this keeps us on the edge of our seat through the film, the weakness in the film comes from the non-Americans struggle to keep up with who is one which Republican or Democratic side of the discussion and what level this is for the presidential candidate races. Unless you know the American political system you might fall short knowing everything going on here.
Thriller – This film does keep us on edge through the events of the campaign, this is what we want and the twists in the darker side of the political system become clear by the end.
Settings – The film throws us into every potential political arena you can think of, we get plenty of discussions some in secret others in an open forum to just what goes on behind the scenes of a campaign race.
Scene of the Movie – This will be my campaign.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the American political system.
Final Thoughts – This is a good political thriller that will keep you guessing from start to finish, it has a brilliant cast that all shine too.
Overall: Keeps you guessing from start to finish.
Performances – In the performances we have a list of all-star actors that show us just how an ensembled cast can make a movie so enjoyable. We have Ryan Gosling taking centre stage, George Clooney playing a role her is perfect for and Hoffman and Giamatti that are just acting masters with these roles showing just how talented they are.
Story – The story here follows a younger political man o the verge of his biggest campaign victory, when he gets shown the darker side of politics. Now this is an interesting story as we see how the innocent man must get dirty to survive the game and how the seasoned veterans of the game know every trick that will come their way. The mix of this keeps us on the edge of our seat through the film, the weakness in the film comes from the non-Americans struggle to keep up with who is one which Republican or Democratic side of the discussion and what level this is for the presidential candidate races. Unless you know the American political system you might fall short knowing everything going on here.
Thriller – This film does keep us on edge through the events of the campaign, this is what we want and the twists in the darker side of the political system become clear by the end.
Settings – The film throws us into every potential political arena you can think of, we get plenty of discussions some in secret others in an open forum to just what goes on behind the scenes of a campaign race.
Scene of the Movie – This will be my campaign.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the American political system.
Final Thoughts – This is a good political thriller that will keep you guessing from start to finish, it has a brilliant cast that all shine too.
Overall: Keeps you guessing from start to finish.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Village in the Woods (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters – Stephen Meyers is the ambitious campaign manager who is wildly considered one of the best in the business with his ability to handle the media and remain calm through any situation. His life is turned upside when he becomes a pawn in the dirty tactics involved in an election race and he will need to roll his sleeves up to fight back. Governor Mike Morris is the man Stephen is working for, he is the underdog in the race and seems like the perfect candidate, only he has secrets which could ruin his campaign. Paul is Stephen’s boss, the man who took a chance on Stephen, he values loyalty over anything else and doesn’t always trust the people around him. Tom Duffy is the campaign manager on the opposite side, he does like the ideas Stephen is playing and wants him on his team, he is the first one to play him into his own game. Molly is the intern on the staff that could bring down the whole campaign with her secret. Ida is a journalist that will do anything for a story which will get her on the front page.
Performances – In the performances we have a list of all-star actors that show us just how an ensembled cast can make a movie so enjoyable. We have Ryan Gosling taking centre stage, George Clooney playing a role her is perfect for and Hoffman and Giamatti that are just acting masters with these roles showing just how talented they are.
Story – The story here follows a younger political man o the verge of his biggest campaign victory, when he gets shown the darker side of politics. Now this is an interesting story as we see how the innocent man must get dirty to survive the game and how the seasoned veterans of the game know every trick that will come their way. The mix of this keeps us on the edge of our seat through the film, the weakness in the film comes from the non-Americans struggle to keep up with who is one which Republican or Democratic side of the discussion and what level this is for the presidential candidate races. Unless you know the American political system you might fall short knowing everything going on here.
Thriller – This film does keep us on edge through the events of the campaign, this is what we want and the twists in the darker side of the political system become clear by the end.
Settings – The film throws us into every potential political arena you can think of, we get plenty of discussions some in secret others in an open forum to just what goes on behind the scenes of a campaign race.
Scene of the Movie – This will be my campaign.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the American political system.
Final Thoughts – This is a good political thriller that will keep you guessing from start to finish, it has a brilliant cast that all shine too.
Overall: Keeps you guessing from start to finish.
Performances – In the performances we have a list of all-star actors that show us just how an ensembled cast can make a movie so enjoyable. We have Ryan Gosling taking centre stage, George Clooney playing a role her is perfect for and Hoffman and Giamatti that are just acting masters with these roles showing just how talented they are.
Story – The story here follows a younger political man o the verge of his biggest campaign victory, when he gets shown the darker side of politics. Now this is an interesting story as we see how the innocent man must get dirty to survive the game and how the seasoned veterans of the game know every trick that will come their way. The mix of this keeps us on the edge of our seat through the film, the weakness in the film comes from the non-Americans struggle to keep up with who is one which Republican or Democratic side of the discussion and what level this is for the presidential candidate races. Unless you know the American political system you might fall short knowing everything going on here.
Thriller – This film does keep us on edge through the events of the campaign, this is what we want and the twists in the darker side of the political system become clear by the end.
Settings – The film throws us into every potential political arena you can think of, we get plenty of discussions some in secret others in an open forum to just what goes on behind the scenes of a campaign race.
Scene of the Movie – This will be my campaign.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the American political system.
Final Thoughts – This is a good political thriller that will keep you guessing from start to finish, it has a brilliant cast that all shine too.
Overall: Keeps you guessing from start to finish.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated McLintock! (1963) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Visuals but Nothing Else
A cattle baron’s wife returns after a two-year separation wanting a divorce.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Saving Ruby King in Books
Jun 18, 2020
Ruby King is twenty-four-years-old when her mother, Alice, is found murdered in the home she shared with Ruby and Ruby's father, Lebanon. The police show little interest in--to them--another death in the King's black neighborhood, but Alice's death unhinges Ruby and leaves her alone with her violent, abusive father. Her only confidante is her best friend, Layla, who knows how long Alice and Ruby have suffered under Lebanon's wrath. But Layla is angry that Ruby won't do more to get away from Lebanon and she's even angrier at her father, a pastor, who has been close to Lebanon all these years, and yet never did anything to free Alice or Ruby from his abuse. Layla is determined to save Ruby, but as she works to rescue her friend, she starts to uncover a world of secrets and lies flowing back generations.
"I'm stitched together by the lies I tell myself and the lies people want to believe about me." ~Alice
I found this excellent and timely book to be incredibly well-written, with a power and tenderness to it that goes far behind your typical debut novel (I had to double check that this was actually West's first novel, I was so impressed).
West tells her story from a variety of points of view--Ruby; her late mother, Alice; her father, Lebanon; her best friend, Layla; Layla's father, a pastor; and more. We even hear from a central figure in all of these characters' lives--their church, via its omnipresent voice. The plot spans generations, with West giving a nuanced look at each of her complex characters. She does an amazing job of showing the power of family, for both good and bad. How choices can affect generations: one person's bad decisions can pass poison on, with children reliving dysfunction and sins.
"How can there be a me without her?" ~Ruby
No one is simply good or bad here, though Lebanon is not an easy-to-like man. Abused and neglected by his own parent, Sara, we see how Sara's neglect has turned Lebanon hard. But West is such a good writer that Lebanon is not a one-dimensional bad guy, as much as you want to hate him. I was incredibly impressed at how she could create sympathy for so many of her players, even when they did despicable things.
"Without Sara, who do I blame for...being me? Are children supposed to forgive their parents for the horrible things they've done?" ~Lebanon
This novel does an impressive job at delving into racism, domestic abuse, and sexual assault and trauma. The city of Chicago appears as its own character, springing to life via West's lovely prose. She expertly shows the difficulties black people face on the south side (and in general). I read this book during George Floyd's murder and found myself highlighting passages about police brutality that just hit me right in the gut. It's very powerful.
West's book features a variety of characters--they can be hard to keep track of at first, and I was glad to have the family tree in the beginning of the book. A few times the plot felt repetitious and the middle dragged a bit, but it picked up in the second half. There's a surprising amount of twists and turns. Overall, this is a realistic look at racism and domestic violence, but also friendship. It's quite well-written and layered with a twinge of hope throughout. I can't wait to see what West writes next. 4+ stars.
"I'm stitched together by the lies I tell myself and the lies people want to believe about me." ~Alice
I found this excellent and timely book to be incredibly well-written, with a power and tenderness to it that goes far behind your typical debut novel (I had to double check that this was actually West's first novel, I was so impressed).
West tells her story from a variety of points of view--Ruby; her late mother, Alice; her father, Lebanon; her best friend, Layla; Layla's father, a pastor; and more. We even hear from a central figure in all of these characters' lives--their church, via its omnipresent voice. The plot spans generations, with West giving a nuanced look at each of her complex characters. She does an amazing job of showing the power of family, for both good and bad. How choices can affect generations: one person's bad decisions can pass poison on, with children reliving dysfunction and sins.
"How can there be a me without her?" ~Ruby
No one is simply good or bad here, though Lebanon is not an easy-to-like man. Abused and neglected by his own parent, Sara, we see how Sara's neglect has turned Lebanon hard. But West is such a good writer that Lebanon is not a one-dimensional bad guy, as much as you want to hate him. I was incredibly impressed at how she could create sympathy for so many of her players, even when they did despicable things.
"Without Sara, who do I blame for...being me? Are children supposed to forgive their parents for the horrible things they've done?" ~Lebanon
This novel does an impressive job at delving into racism, domestic abuse, and sexual assault and trauma. The city of Chicago appears as its own character, springing to life via West's lovely prose. She expertly shows the difficulties black people face on the south side (and in general). I read this book during George Floyd's murder and found myself highlighting passages about police brutality that just hit me right in the gut. It's very powerful.
West's book features a variety of characters--they can be hard to keep track of at first, and I was glad to have the family tree in the beginning of the book. A few times the plot felt repetitious and the middle dragged a bit, but it picked up in the second half. There's a surprising amount of twists and turns. Overall, this is a realistic look at racism and domestic violence, but also friendship. It's quite well-written and layered with a twinge of hope throughout. I can't wait to see what West writes next. 4+ stars.