Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Dane Cook: Vicious Circle (2006) in Movies
Dec 5, 2020 (Updated Dec 6, 2020)
DANEgerous Edition
Less a stand-up show and more an event where you get to watch a manic cokehead scream at the top of his lungs and convulse around a small circular stage in front of a packed, sports-arena-esque crowd for nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes - one of the most breathless and impossible-to-look-away-from things I've ever seen. Say what you will about him, but he'll die before he loses your attention - it felt like *I* burned calories after watching him writhe, sweat, and shriek about for this long. Before Chappelle's similarly hit-or-miss đđ”đȘđ€đŹđŽ & đđ”đ°đŻđŠđŽ, this was arguably the most divisive stand-up special out there - most people either swore by it as one of the greats, or lambasted it as a stain on the legacy of comedy itself. It's hard to remember, but there was a time Cook was a megastar - the same year this special aired he was listed in TIME Magazine's "Top 100 Most Influential People In the World" alongside industry titans Meryl Streep and George Clooney. Outside of maybe Bam Margera I don't think any other sole entertainer represented the crass ode to reckless debauchery that was the mid-2000s quite like this guy; it's beguilingly bizarre almost solely as a piece of a pop culture time capsule alone. Though on its own merits this shockingly holds up a lot more than expected, not always funny (does some cringe 2006 shit like having two women make out on stage while Dane watches for no reason and a rather uncomfortable segment where he seemingly makes a young lady flash her breasts onstage) but home to a satiable amount of hearty chuckles and an exuberant energy that can't be denied even well past the two hour mark. Laden with dead-on observations, colossal vulgarity, intense (and super idiosyncratic) physicality, oddly cerebral camerawork + editing, and guttural cries unlike any other set I've seen... then after all that he comes back on the stage with an acoustic guitar to fucking *sing* - this is the human body being put to its endurance test as a comedic performer. A great time even if some of the jokes get drawn out way past the point of repair - what I can only describe as unforgettable, often really fucking funny, spastically aroused hyperspecificity. Nearly top-to-bottom infectious in spite of its whiffs.
Less a stand-up show and more an event where you get to watch a manic cokehead scream at the top of his lungs and convulse around a small circular stage in front of a packed, sports-arena-esque crowd for nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes - one of the most breathless and impossible-to-look-away-from things I've ever seen. Say what you will about him, but he'll die before he loses your attention - it felt like *I* burned calories after watching him writhe, sweat, and shriek about for this long. Before Chappelle's similarly hit-or-miss đđ”đȘđ€đŹđŽ & đđ”đ°đŻđŠđŽ, this was arguably the most divisive stand-up special out there - most people either swore by it as one of the greats, or lambasted it as a stain on the legacy of comedy itself. It's hard to remember, but there was a time Cook was a megastar - the same year this special aired he was listed in TIME Magazine's "Top 100 Most Influential People In the World" alongside industry titans Meryl Streep and George Clooney. Outside of maybe Bam Margera I don't think any other sole entertainer represented the crass ode to reckless debauchery that was the mid-2000s quite like this guy; it's beguilingly bizarre almost solely as a piece of a pop culture time capsule alone. Though on its own merits this shockingly holds up a lot more than expected, not always funny (does some cringe 2006 shit like having two women make out on stage while Dane watches for no reason and a rather uncomfortable segment where he seemingly makes a young lady flash her breasts onstage) but home to a satiable amount of hearty chuckles and an exuberant energy that can't be denied even well past the two hour mark. Laden with dead-on observations, colossal vulgarity, intense (and super idiosyncratic) physicality, oddly cerebral camerawork + editing, and guttural cries unlike any other set I've seen... then after all that he comes back on the stage with an acoustic guitar to fucking *sing* - this is the human body being put to its endurance test as a comedic performer. A great time even if some of the jokes get drawn out way past the point of repair - what I can only describe as unforgettable, often really fucking funny, spastically aroused hyperspecificity. Nearly top-to-bottom infectious in spite of its whiffs.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Resident Evil (2002) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Let's just brush aside for a moment that this adaption of Resident Evil bares little resemblance to the video game it's based upon and instead take a look at it as its own film, how it's comes off as a horror, and what visionary director Paul WS Anderson has to offer to the zombie genre...
...it's a terrible film, it's a shitty horror, and Anderson should just keep away from beloved franchises forever. I actually actively hate most of his films (have I mentioned this before?).
The big gaping issue with Resident Evil is it's characters and screenplay. The characters are a collection of edgy shitbags who spout one liners every two seconds and are just ripped straight from the "cliché action bastard handbook". It's difficult to care about any of them. I understand that Alice (Milla Jovovich) goes on to lead the entire franchise, but in the first entry, she hardly does or says anything, and as such, the audience doesn't get much of a chance to bond with her before the credits roll.
The script is just eye rollingly cringey. Every single line is either a "witty" quip, or lazy exposition and it becomes tiresome very quickly.
Some of the effects are ok - the zombie dogs look pretty gnarly, but The Licker (one of the only concrete connections to the game series) is brought to life with some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. To say it's aged badly would be an understatement, as I remember it looking dodgy AF back in 2002 when I was a humble 14 year old. Other than that, the whole film has that awful early 2000s aesthetic (The Matrix truly has a lot to answer for) and the inclusion of obnoxious breakbeat music cues that everyone was obsessed with at the time is the cherry on the mouldy cake. Ugh.
It's not all terrible... There are a couple of memorable set pieces, and the film manages to be somewhat entertaining here and there, but overall, Resident Evil is another garbage pile video game adaption, and the fact that George Romero wrote an unused screenplay that was much closer to the first game (and was poised to direct!) just rubs salt in this horrible festering wound left behind by Paul WS Anderson's Resident Evil. Hate it.
...it's a terrible film, it's a shitty horror, and Anderson should just keep away from beloved franchises forever. I actually actively hate most of his films (have I mentioned this before?).
The big gaping issue with Resident Evil is it's characters and screenplay. The characters are a collection of edgy shitbags who spout one liners every two seconds and are just ripped straight from the "cliché action bastard handbook". It's difficult to care about any of them. I understand that Alice (Milla Jovovich) goes on to lead the entire franchise, but in the first entry, she hardly does or says anything, and as such, the audience doesn't get much of a chance to bond with her before the credits roll.
The script is just eye rollingly cringey. Every single line is either a "witty" quip, or lazy exposition and it becomes tiresome very quickly.
Some of the effects are ok - the zombie dogs look pretty gnarly, but The Licker (one of the only concrete connections to the game series) is brought to life with some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. To say it's aged badly would be an understatement, as I remember it looking dodgy AF back in 2002 when I was a humble 14 year old. Other than that, the whole film has that awful early 2000s aesthetic (The Matrix truly has a lot to answer for) and the inclusion of obnoxious breakbeat music cues that everyone was obsessed with at the time is the cherry on the mouldy cake. Ugh.
It's not all terrible... There are a couple of memorable set pieces, and the film manages to be somewhat entertaining here and there, but overall, Resident Evil is another garbage pile video game adaption, and the fact that George Romero wrote an unused screenplay that was much closer to the first game (and was poised to direct!) just rubs salt in this horrible festering wound left behind by Paul WS Anderson's Resident Evil. Hate it.
Factually Accurate
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, Queen Bees combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner SiĂąn Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust and Design Museum, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in Queen Bees are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Womenâs Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these womenâs careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, SiĂąn Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title Queen Bees suggested it was only going to be about the womenâs lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. Queen Bees can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading Queen Bees â pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, Queen Bees is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, Queen Bees combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner SiĂąn Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust and Design Museum, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in Queen Bees are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Womenâs Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these womenâs careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, SiĂąn Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title Queen Bees suggested it was only going to be about the womenâs lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. Queen Bees can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading Queen Bees â pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, Queen Bees is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
RÉX Regent (349 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VI â Return of the Jedi (1983) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
The weakest...
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is often thought of as the weakest of the original trilogy, and whilst I would agree with that, that's not to say that it is bad. The phenomenon which had begun with"Star Wars", six years earlier was about to conclude, or so we thought, with Jedi.
The first film had pioneered the technology and concepts of which to present and achieve such a franchise in the 1970âČs and '80âČs, and "The Empire Strikes Back" is still the benchmark for part twos, but where this film falls down is that it has sacrificed narrative quality for Lucas' realisation that he could finally do what he wanted, without any hindrance from studios or production limitations.
He had the best of best in visual effects with his Industrial Light and Magic, and he had a vision which had remained unrealised in the previous two films, such as the so called failed Cantina scene in "Star Wars", which is presented here, only this time in the walls of Jabba's palace.
The first half I believe, is George Lucas' real film. Monsters and Muppets, pure fantasy as our heroes wrap up the events of the previous film, and make their daring escape from Jabba the Hutt. The second part is almost a separate film, focusing quite rightly on the Empire and the destruction of the second Death Star. But this plot is very matter of fact, and has no real charm or heart, just epic visuals and a theatrical sense.
Meanwhile, Han Solo and Princess Leia are leading a rebel assault on the forest moon of Endor, populated by the most annoying Muppets of all the dreaded Ewoks! The Ewoks must be one of cinema's greatest misjudgments, the first real misstep in Lucas' handling of the "Star Wars Saga"; but with the prequels and the constant tinkering with the originals, this was to be the thin end of the wedge.
Don't get me wrong, there are plot elements revolving around the Muppets which I liked, such as the nature vs. technology metaphor, but that doesn't excuse the Ewoks and nothing ever will! But elements such as the Speedbike chase and the final battle, all of it, the final Vader/Luke dual, the assault of the Death Star itself, and even the ludicrous Ewok assault, are excellent, visually stunning and exiting and it is enough to save this film from being bogged down by the bad.
And like I said, the money grabbing, almost narratively illiterate George Lucas has damaged and defamed his franchise with his constant tinkering, firstly with the Special Edition in 1997, and then with his Enhanced Special Edition in 2004 for the DVD release.
Lucas is a visionary and has done so much for the film industry and we should be grateful but in the end, he needs to stop milking this franchise, stop pretending that it is never finished, when he has finished it THREE times now and realise that the best of the original trilogy was directed and written by other people, all of which display more talent. Lucas is not a good director but he is a good producer and he has brought this franchise to the screen and the movie industry is better for it. But the Special Editions bring nothing important to the mix, with the exception of the finale, which does carry more scope that 1983 original.
Overall, the weakest of the "Star Wars Trilogy" is a fair assessment and at its worst, it's still leagues above any entry in the prequels, even the Episode III, which is the closest to this high standards of this series.
The first film had pioneered the technology and concepts of which to present and achieve such a franchise in the 1970âČs and '80âČs, and "The Empire Strikes Back" is still the benchmark for part twos, but where this film falls down is that it has sacrificed narrative quality for Lucas' realisation that he could finally do what he wanted, without any hindrance from studios or production limitations.
He had the best of best in visual effects with his Industrial Light and Magic, and he had a vision which had remained unrealised in the previous two films, such as the so called failed Cantina scene in "Star Wars", which is presented here, only this time in the walls of Jabba's palace.
The first half I believe, is George Lucas' real film. Monsters and Muppets, pure fantasy as our heroes wrap up the events of the previous film, and make their daring escape from Jabba the Hutt. The second part is almost a separate film, focusing quite rightly on the Empire and the destruction of the second Death Star. But this plot is very matter of fact, and has no real charm or heart, just epic visuals and a theatrical sense.
Meanwhile, Han Solo and Princess Leia are leading a rebel assault on the forest moon of Endor, populated by the most annoying Muppets of all the dreaded Ewoks! The Ewoks must be one of cinema's greatest misjudgments, the first real misstep in Lucas' handling of the "Star Wars Saga"; but with the prequels and the constant tinkering with the originals, this was to be the thin end of the wedge.
Don't get me wrong, there are plot elements revolving around the Muppets which I liked, such as the nature vs. technology metaphor, but that doesn't excuse the Ewoks and nothing ever will! But elements such as the Speedbike chase and the final battle, all of it, the final Vader/Luke dual, the assault of the Death Star itself, and even the ludicrous Ewok assault, are excellent, visually stunning and exiting and it is enough to save this film from being bogged down by the bad.
And like I said, the money grabbing, almost narratively illiterate George Lucas has damaged and defamed his franchise with his constant tinkering, firstly with the Special Edition in 1997, and then with his Enhanced Special Edition in 2004 for the DVD release.
Lucas is a visionary and has done so much for the film industry and we should be grateful but in the end, he needs to stop milking this franchise, stop pretending that it is never finished, when he has finished it THREE times now and realise that the best of the original trilogy was directed and written by other people, all of which display more talent. Lucas is not a good director but he is a good producer and he has brought this franchise to the screen and the movie industry is better for it. But the Special Editions bring nothing important to the mix, with the exception of the finale, which does carry more scope that 1983 original.
Overall, the weakest of the "Star Wars Trilogy" is a fair assessment and at its worst, it's still leagues above any entry in the prequels, even the Episode III, which is the closest to this high standards of this series.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, <i>Queen Bees</i> combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner SiĂąn Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the <i>Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust </i>and <i>Design Museum</i>, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in <i>Queen Bees</i> are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Womenâs Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these womenâs careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, SiĂąn Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title <i>Queen Bees</i> suggested it was only going to be about the womenâs lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. <i>Queen Bees</i> can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading <i>Queen Bees</i> â pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, <i>Queen Bees </i>is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
A spectacle of celebrity, talent and burning ambition, <i>Queen Bees</i> combines the biographical stories of six ambitious women who helped to shape the standards of British society between the two world wars. Londoner SiĂąn Evans is a cultural historian who has previously worked with the <i>Victoria and Albert Museum, National Trust </i>and <i>Design Museum</i>, and takes great lengths to thoroughly research into her written subject in order to portray a highly accurate insight to the lives of historical figures. Due to the non-existent political status of women in the early 1900s, the women featured in this book are virtually unknown today, yet they had a great impact during the 20s and 30s and helped to shape the Britain of today.
Although not necessarily born into it, circumstances such as marriage meant these six women were regarded as upper class. In no particular order, the names impacting on the social revolution and thus featured in <i>Queen Bees</i> are as follows: Lady Nancy Astor, the first female MP; Lady Sybil Colefax, who became a friend of Edward VIII; Lady Emerald Cunard, also connected with the royal family; Mrs. Ronnie Greville, a rather formidable woman; Lady Edith Londonderry, the founder of the Womenâs Legion; and Laura Corrigan, the youngest of the set. Evans talks the reader through these womenâs careers as professional hostesses as they compete to throw the better party, entertaining famous writers and actors as well as members of royalty, both national and foreign.
What is perhaps the most interesting, and indeed the most worth learning, is the way a couple of these women altered the future of the British monarchy. Without their interference the future George VI would never have married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and without their involvement in the relationship between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, George VI would never have come to the throne. This is such an important aspect of British history that has been widely left out and ignored. Without these hostesses influence we would all be experiencing a slightly different life.
In terms of the actual writing, SiĂąn Evans manages fairly well to engage the reader as she relates the factual story in a more or less chronological way. A slight issue is the quick, often undetected, move from one woman to the next, resulting in a lot of confusion about who is who particularly at the beginning of the book. A lot of the narrative features other key figures from the same period and often moves away from the main characters, which, whilst interesting, is not what the reader necessarily expected from a book whose title <i>Queen Bees</i> suggested it was only going to be about the womenâs lives.
Footnotes, quotes and extracts from letters and diaries help to make the book appear reliable, factual and believable. Some of the content, without back up, would have seemed rather fanciful or exaggerated. <i>Queen Bees</i> can be read as a source of entertainment or as a citation for historical research. What is found within these pages is a more unbiased account of the early twentieth century than would be found in numerous male dominated history textbooks.
Mature readers of all ages are likely to gain something from reading <i>Queen Bees</i> â pleasure, knowledge etc., however it is most likely to appeal to the contemporary feminist. With this in mind, be aware that the six hostesses were not feminists of their time; they were not involved in Suffragette movements and were fairly content to live off money earned by their husbands or fathers. Yet, on the other hand, they impacted on the future of Britain as much as the male politicians of the time. Highly political in content, <i>Queen Bees </i>is worth reading to discover our own history, but be prepared for initial confusion over who is who and rather lengthy paragraphs.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
I ummed and erred about how to start this review, should I burst into song? Should I be writing it while adorned with fairy lights? None of that is needed though, and I'll tell you why in a moment.
Kate the Christmas elf has lost her Christmas spirit, life just hasn't felt the same recently and it's affecting her friends and family as well as everything in her life. Tensions run high as she takes advantage of her close friends and slowly burns almost all of her bridges.
Then she meets Tom, he's happy-go-lucky and all about something more to life. Where she's single-minded and oblivious he's caring and mindful of everyone, the pair couldn't be more different while still being the perfect match.
So... a Christmas film using the music of George Michael. Christmas probably appears in 95% of the shots and yet at no point did I feel very Christmassy. As for the music, if I hadn't been told they use his tracks in there I would have just said they just used Last Christmas because they thought they should match the title.
A fair bit of the film takes place at night which does allow for some beautiful illuminated shots of London. The settings are all very well suited for this, I always think that Covent Garden looks like the perfect place for a Christmas paradise when it's made up properly... and that Christmas shop! I died and went to heaven!
I've had no real previous experience with Emilia Clarke as an actress, I've never knowingly seen her in anything (yes, I've never watched Game Of Thrones), but I was impressed with her portrayal of Kate. It all felt very natural, there was a lot of sass but she also managed to keep it together during the serious moments. I don't think I'll be going back to watch GoT after this but I may well give some of her other films a go.
Henry Golding plays the perfect gentleman, that might be his niche. There's nothing to object to in his performance at all, I might have some issues with the way he's written in the script but Golding brought Tom to life perfectly on screen.
The best support performance for me was definitely Santa, played by Michelle Yeoh. Santa and Kate playing off against each other was wonderful to see, no matter whether it eas a dramatic moment or a comedy one they bounced back and forth incredibly well. Seeing Yeoh listed for this was a little dubious but it was delightful to see.
Emma Thompson's portrayal was enjoyable, though the accent did change the feel of the humour. I do question why Kate's family needed to be of Croatian descent. I'm not one to say "this was trying to make a statement" but there wasn't anything of any major consequence in the film that required it to be that way. It didn't feel like the film gained anything from this apart from an opportunity to shoehorn in Brexit.
Despite my quibbling, which you know I love to do, Last Christmas was a thoroughly enjoyable film. It is much more drama than it is Christmas film, Christmas honestly feels incidental even though Emilia Clarke is dressed as an elf most of the time. Sure its message might be a little "hidden agenda" and overly sweet but it's a great bit of entertainment. Just remember, don't be the arsehole who spoils it for someone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/last-christmas-movie-review.html
Kate the Christmas elf has lost her Christmas spirit, life just hasn't felt the same recently and it's affecting her friends and family as well as everything in her life. Tensions run high as she takes advantage of her close friends and slowly burns almost all of her bridges.
Then she meets Tom, he's happy-go-lucky and all about something more to life. Where she's single-minded and oblivious he's caring and mindful of everyone, the pair couldn't be more different while still being the perfect match.
So... a Christmas film using the music of George Michael. Christmas probably appears in 95% of the shots and yet at no point did I feel very Christmassy. As for the music, if I hadn't been told they use his tracks in there I would have just said they just used Last Christmas because they thought they should match the title.
A fair bit of the film takes place at night which does allow for some beautiful illuminated shots of London. The settings are all very well suited for this, I always think that Covent Garden looks like the perfect place for a Christmas paradise when it's made up properly... and that Christmas shop! I died and went to heaven!
I've had no real previous experience with Emilia Clarke as an actress, I've never knowingly seen her in anything (yes, I've never watched Game Of Thrones), but I was impressed with her portrayal of Kate. It all felt very natural, there was a lot of sass but she also managed to keep it together during the serious moments. I don't think I'll be going back to watch GoT after this but I may well give some of her other films a go.
Henry Golding plays the perfect gentleman, that might be his niche. There's nothing to object to in his performance at all, I might have some issues with the way he's written in the script but Golding brought Tom to life perfectly on screen.
The best support performance for me was definitely Santa, played by Michelle Yeoh. Santa and Kate playing off against each other was wonderful to see, no matter whether it eas a dramatic moment or a comedy one they bounced back and forth incredibly well. Seeing Yeoh listed for this was a little dubious but it was delightful to see.
Emma Thompson's portrayal was enjoyable, though the accent did change the feel of the humour. I do question why Kate's family needed to be of Croatian descent. I'm not one to say "this was trying to make a statement" but there wasn't anything of any major consequence in the film that required it to be that way. It didn't feel like the film gained anything from this apart from an opportunity to shoehorn in Brexit.
Despite my quibbling, which you know I love to do, Last Christmas was a thoroughly enjoyable film. It is much more drama than it is Christmas film, Christmas honestly feels incidental even though Emilia Clarke is dressed as an elf most of the time. Sure its message might be a little "hidden agenda" and overly sweet but it's a great bit of entertainment. Just remember, don't be the arsehole who spoils it for someone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/last-christmas-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avatar: The Way of Water (2021) in Movies
Jan 2, 2023
Strong Visuals - Weak Everything Else
See AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER on the biggest 3D Screen, with the best Sound System possible. It is a technical marvelâŠway ahead of anything that has, thus far, been seen on a movie screen.
Itâs too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of itâs native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they donât have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this âyoung actressâ was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visualsâŠbut not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Itâs too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of itâs native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they donât have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this âyoung actressâ was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visualsâŠbut not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Janeeny (200 KP) rated Persuasion in Books
Jun 10, 2019
Iâm always a little dubious about certain âClassicsâ. Give me a Charles Dickens or an HG Wells any day of the week and Iâm happy. I become a little more dubious around what I call âsocietyâ classics, like George Elliot and Jane Austen. It all stems from the time I read Middlemarch and found it to be a 900 page soap opera where NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENS!! Although so far I have never been disappointed by a Jane Austen novel, when I have to read a book that essentially revolves around social customs and classes I break out in a cold sweat! .
So I was a little apprehensive when my recommended book for the month from my Penguin Reading challenge was 'Persuasion', but at 249 pages I thought Iâd just crack on and get it over with.
I was pleasantly surprised.
Persuasion is about a young woman named Anne Elliot who, previous to the beginning of the story, was betrothed to Naval Officer Frederick Wentworth, but broke it off after being 'persuaded' (see what they did there!) by her family and a close friend that the match was beneath her. It is seven years later and Anne discovers that Wentworth has returned and is, lamentably, involved in her social circle. What follows is a deep exploration of Anne's feelings, thoughts and regrets on the decision she made 7 years ago, and the circumstances that may allow her to make amends.
As I said before I havenât been disappointed by a Jane Austen novel yet, and this one was no exception. It is essentially a âwill they wont theyâ story that does keep you guessing until the end. Whilst it is a basic storyline it is laced with little dramas that keep you engaged but do not overshadow the main story.
In the introduction in my book it says that Jane Austen once described Anne Elliot as âalmost too good for meâ I can understand what she means as Anne is a very self-effacing heroin. She puts others thoughts and needs before her own and has an equitable view of the world. Unfortunately in my eyes this does make her far too pliant, and whilst this aspect of her does lend to the back story of why she never married Wentworth seven years ago, when she is insulted and exploited by her family I did find myself wishing she had a little more gumption.
Aside from that I found it a very pleasant societal love story.
So I was a little apprehensive when my recommended book for the month from my Penguin Reading challenge was 'Persuasion', but at 249 pages I thought Iâd just crack on and get it over with.
I was pleasantly surprised.
Persuasion is about a young woman named Anne Elliot who, previous to the beginning of the story, was betrothed to Naval Officer Frederick Wentworth, but broke it off after being 'persuaded' (see what they did there!) by her family and a close friend that the match was beneath her. It is seven years later and Anne discovers that Wentworth has returned and is, lamentably, involved in her social circle. What follows is a deep exploration of Anne's feelings, thoughts and regrets on the decision she made 7 years ago, and the circumstances that may allow her to make amends.
As I said before I havenât been disappointed by a Jane Austen novel yet, and this one was no exception. It is essentially a âwill they wont theyâ story that does keep you guessing until the end. Whilst it is a basic storyline it is laced with little dramas that keep you engaged but do not overshadow the main story.
In the introduction in my book it says that Jane Austen once described Anne Elliot as âalmost too good for meâ I can understand what she means as Anne is a very self-effacing heroin. She puts others thoughts and needs before her own and has an equitable view of the world. Unfortunately in my eyes this does make her far too pliant, and whilst this aspect of her does lend to the back story of why she never married Wentworth seven years ago, when she is insulted and exploited by her family I did find myself wishing she had a little more gumption.
Aside from that I found it a very pleasant societal love story.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated A Game of Thrones in Books
Oct 19, 2018
Full review can be found on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com
This book will shake and break your heart. This book will make you realise that life is anything but gentle. But this book will also bring you the greatest adventure you have yet to see.
I have bought my whole book collection back in 2014. I have been procrastinating with this series for four years. And today, while writing this review, I thank the old gods and the new, for convincing me to read the first book.
I am probably one of the last people that have reviewed this book, and I assume you all already know a lot about the Game of Thrones series.
It is a book about one Iron Throne, and all the wars, fights, betrayals are about who will be sitting on that throne, and who will be in charge of all kingdoms.
Now, starting off, I am still not sure why people would send armies and armies of soldiers in order to win the throne, when it seems that no matter who becomes a king, that person gets instantly killed. And no kingdom respects each other, and kings and lords keep fighting off and wasting resources for a lost purpose, so thereâs that as well.
We have many houses, Stark, Lannister, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, Targaryen, Tyrell, Greyjoy, Martell, etc - and they all feature with something unique to their house. Most importantly, they all either want the throne, want revenge or want them both.
But just to clarify - I loved the book!
George R.R. Martin is a genius! He has created this amazing world, and characters that are so alive that make you either hate them or love them, but with all your heart. He has created relationships so tangled and stories so well written, that he puts other authors to shame.
The book is written from a third person perspective, and each chapter features a character. And with each chapter, George moves the time gradually, so we are not stuck in a loop of time pause. I enjoyed this method quite a lot! It kept the story line going very smoothly.
ââMost men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.ââ
There were so many characters I admired. But my connection with these characters in this book is unlike any other connection I have made. I usually either love or hate a character. But here, I judged actions, and relationships, and things people said and did!
I liked Eddard Starkâs bravery, and his manliness, but I didnât like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
ââCan a man still be brave if heâs afraid?
ââThatâs the only time a man an be braveââ.
I loved Aryaâs fierceness, but I didnât like her stubbornness.
ââFor the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.ââ
I liked Sansaâs politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snowâs story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
ââLet me give you some counsel, bastard.ââ Lannister said. ââNever forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armor yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.ââ
I loved many other characters for things they did, and hated many others, but I cherished the difference in each and every character, and that was the beauty in it - that even though an author can create so many characters, he can make them so different from each other.
In this book, you will encounter everything: mostly mean people, ready to kill everyone and anyone standing in the way of their plans. You will read about a story of a family that falls apart, a kingdom that vanishes, a fight between kings, how a little girl will learn life in one day, how a mother will watch her children disappear, one by one.
This book will shake and break your heart. This book will make you realise that life is anything but gentle. But this book will also bring you the greatest adventure you have yet to see.
I have bought my whole book collection back in 2014. I have been procrastinating with this series for four years. And today, while writing this review, I thank the old gods and the new, for convincing me to read the first book.
I am probably one of the last people that have reviewed this book, and I assume you all already know a lot about the Game of Thrones series.
It is a book about one Iron Throne, and all the wars, fights, betrayals are about who will be sitting on that throne, and who will be in charge of all kingdoms.
Now, starting off, I am still not sure why people would send armies and armies of soldiers in order to win the throne, when it seems that no matter who becomes a king, that person gets instantly killed. And no kingdom respects each other, and kings and lords keep fighting off and wasting resources for a lost purpose, so thereâs that as well.
We have many houses, Stark, Lannister, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, Targaryen, Tyrell, Greyjoy, Martell, etc - and they all feature with something unique to their house. Most importantly, they all either want the throne, want revenge or want them both.
But just to clarify - I loved the book!
George R.R. Martin is a genius! He has created this amazing world, and characters that are so alive that make you either hate them or love them, but with all your heart. He has created relationships so tangled and stories so well written, that he puts other authors to shame.
The book is written from a third person perspective, and each chapter features a character. And with each chapter, George moves the time gradually, so we are not stuck in a loop of time pause. I enjoyed this method quite a lot! It kept the story line going very smoothly.
ââMost men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.ââ
There were so many characters I admired. But my connection with these characters in this book is unlike any other connection I have made. I usually either love or hate a character. But here, I judged actions, and relationships, and things people said and did!
I liked Eddard Starkâs bravery, and his manliness, but I didnât like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
ââCan a man still be brave if heâs afraid?
ââThatâs the only time a man an be braveââ.
I loved Aryaâs fierceness, but I didnât like her stubbornness.
ââFor the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.ââ
I liked Sansaâs politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snowâs story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
ââLet me give you some counsel, bastard.ââ Lannister said. ââNever forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armor yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.ââ
I loved many other characters for things they did, and hated many others, but I cherished the difference in each and every character, and that was the beauty in it - that even though an author can create so many characters, he can make them so different from each other.
In this book, you will encounter everything: mostly mean people, ready to kill everyone and anyone standing in the way of their plans. You will read about a story of a family that falls apart, a kingdom that vanishes, a fight between kings, how a little girl will learn life in one day, how a mother will watch her children disappear, one by one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A tremendously energetic and fun video game spin-off.
In this #TimesUp year, reviewing a film like âTomb Raiderâ is just asking for trouble! So where shall I start digging my shallow grave?
Letâs start with the video game⊠âTomb Raiderâ is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land masturâŠ. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikanderâs Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, Iâll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! đ
For this film is good⊠very good.
âIâM SORRYâŠ.? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??â âBut this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! ⊠They are all uniformly s****e!â
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know â I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (âEx Machinaâ; âThe Danish Girlâ; âThe Light Between Oceansâ) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, sheâs vulnerable. And itâs all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in âEdge of Tomorrowâ!
Donât you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a âfox and houndsâ bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croftâs character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, âMoney Monsterâ), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, âDarkest Hourâ) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, âMurder on the Orient Expressâ) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead fatherâs original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
Itâs a rollercoaster ride thatâs really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from âIndiana Jones and the Last Crusadeâ. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall thatâs just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from âThe Lost Worldâ!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movieâs tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (âKingsmanâ; âEddie the Eagleâ) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (âDistrict 9â) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel â the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (âThe Hateful Eightâ) â is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first ânon-Norwegianâ film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early âsummer blockbusterâ actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Letâs start with the video game⊠âTomb Raiderâ is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land masturâŠ. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikanderâs Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, Iâll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! đ
For this film is good⊠very good.
âIâM SORRYâŠ.? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??â âBut this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! ⊠They are all uniformly s****e!â
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know â I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (âEx Machinaâ; âThe Danish Girlâ; âThe Light Between Oceansâ) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, sheâs vulnerable. And itâs all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in âEdge of Tomorrowâ!
Donât you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a âfox and houndsâ bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croftâs character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, âMoney Monsterâ), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, âDarkest Hourâ) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, âMurder on the Orient Expressâ) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead fatherâs original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
Itâs a rollercoaster ride thatâs really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from âIndiana Jones and the Last Crusadeâ. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall thatâs just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from âThe Lost Worldâ!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movieâs tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (âKingsmanâ; âEddie the Eagleâ) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (âDistrict 9â) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel â the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (âThe Hateful Eightâ) â is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first ânon-Norwegianâ film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early âsummer blockbusterâ actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!