Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Spark Of Light in Books
Feb 24, 2019
Jodi Picoult tackles the age-old issue of abortion in her latest novel A Spark of Light. As a controversial topic, abortion is a challenging ethical problem to write about, however, with a mix of characters, Picoult manages to argue from all points of view. Full of secrets and shocking truths, the novel reveals the complexity of balancing the right to life with the right to choose.
The book begins with a horrifying shooting and hostage situation at a centre for women's reproductive health. George, the shooter, is angry with his daughter for having an abortion, but rather than blaming her, he takes it out on the doctors and nurses who perform the operations and the unfortunate women who happen to be in the waiting room. In fact, only one of the female hostages have had an abortion, the others are there for very different reasons.
A Spark of Light is written backwards, beginning with the hostage situation and gradually revealing the previous hours, describing how each character got themselves in this position. The chapters alternate between characters: the doctors and nurses who work at the Centre; the women who have come for treatment - not necessarily an abortion; and an anti-abortion campaigner. The most important storyline, however, is told through the eyes of three people: Wren, a fifteen-year-old trapped in the clinic; the gunman, and the negotiator, who happens to be Wren's father.
What begins as a two-sided debate about abortion - albeit in a deadly scenario - ends in a standoff between two fathers, both of whom only want to do what is best for their daughters. Although Nick, the negotiator, would not walk into a clinic and start shooting, he learns he has much more in common with the terrorist than he thought possible.
The prose is a little confusing to begin with, however, once the "backwards" writing style becomes clear, it is a very enjoyable story. The only problem with this style of writing is that readers are left with so many questions about what happened after the shooting. We become so invested in the lives of the characters, it feels almost mean not to know who they cope after the traumatising event.
The book begins with a horrifying shooting and hostage situation at a centre for women's reproductive health. George, the shooter, is angry with his daughter for having an abortion, but rather than blaming her, he takes it out on the doctors and nurses who perform the operations and the unfortunate women who happen to be in the waiting room. In fact, only one of the female hostages have had an abortion, the others are there for very different reasons.
A Spark of Light is written backwards, beginning with the hostage situation and gradually revealing the previous hours, describing how each character got themselves in this position. The chapters alternate between characters: the doctors and nurses who work at the Centre; the women who have come for treatment - not necessarily an abortion; and an anti-abortion campaigner. The most important storyline, however, is told through the eyes of three people: Wren, a fifteen-year-old trapped in the clinic; the gunman, and the negotiator, who happens to be Wren's father.
What begins as a two-sided debate about abortion - albeit in a deadly scenario - ends in a standoff between two fathers, both of whom only want to do what is best for their daughters. Although Nick, the negotiator, would not walk into a clinic and start shooting, he learns he has much more in common with the terrorist than he thought possible.
The prose is a little confusing to begin with, however, once the "backwards" writing style becomes clear, it is a very enjoyable story. The only problem with this style of writing is that readers are left with so many questions about what happened after the shooting. We become so invested in the lives of the characters, it feels almost mean not to know who they cope after the traumatising event.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Guide To Second Date Sex (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
Talk about burying the lead. Marie Claire offered its readers the chance to see A Guide To Second Date Sex free online for Valentine's Day, after seeing the cute little into from the lead actors I knew I had to give it a try.
Laura and Ryan have a chance meeting in a club after their friends abandon them, their awkward meeting turns into flirty banter and the two agree to a second date.
Both fresh off break-ups and clueless about how to go about dating they turn to their friends for help, but do too many cooks spoil the broth?
What a film. It's so awkward, but you just can't look away. I envy you if there isn't a moment in this that you can identify with. [Mum, if you're reading this I am of course playing it up for effect, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, 😬]
The keyword that kept popping up throughout my notes was "awkward", I truly hate awkward viewing. It's one of the reasons I don't like reality TV for the most part [when I do watch it I record it so I can fast forward through those bits]. I have actively walked out of the room because I couldn't cope watching things. How I managed to sit through this film I do not know. I was laughing out loud, I was burying my head in my hands, and yet I sat through it.
I can well and truly say at this point that I love George MacKay, put him in everything please. He plays Ryan, Ryan is somewhat unsuccessfully trying to get over his ex and his little experience with dating is being helped along by his flatmate Dan... but he's all for the conquest rather than the romance. Laura, played by Alexandra Roach has the backup of the internet, her mother and a friend, but she seems a little more sceptical about all the suggestions she's offered.
The setup gives you a very quick insight into our two main characters including some of the advice that's offered above. I've moaned in the past about short intros not setting up enough of the film that follows but with the way this film is laid out and the fact that the main action happens in the space of one evening means that everything unfolds very quickly and you don't need anything more.
When the present day story happens I really love the internal monologue that cuts in, the underlying insecurities and anxiety gets to bubble up. It absolutely needed it too, there's no way the film would have worked without this extra layer of humour. Without the audio the actors still do a great job, they mastered the art of the awkward silence, add the voiceover in and you get that chance to identify and match it to your own experience and internal commentary. I could write several stories in this vein based on my own experience. [Mum, again, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, 😬]
The film is based on the director's play that was performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I would love to have seen how that was done, I'm visualising something crossed between a play and Fleabag.
A Guide To Second Date Sex expresses those hideous memories that you really wish had been erased with the evening full of alcohol that accompanied them. It reflects so many girls' nights in and morning after phones calls I've been part of that it had that nostalgic feel which I think is how I stayed engaged despite my awkward reaction. It's an amusing and charming tale of dating that develops into a hilarious romp through young love and its perils.
This was an immensely entertaining watch but I really wish it ended one clip earlier than it did, and that's the only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars.
[Note to friends when you see it... Yes, that scene... I know, right?!]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-guide-to-second-date-sex-movie-review.html
Laura and Ryan have a chance meeting in a club after their friends abandon them, their awkward meeting turns into flirty banter and the two agree to a second date.
Both fresh off break-ups and clueless about how to go about dating they turn to their friends for help, but do too many cooks spoil the broth?
What a film. It's so awkward, but you just can't look away. I envy you if there isn't a moment in this that you can identify with. [Mum, if you're reading this I am of course playing it up for effect, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, 😬]
The keyword that kept popping up throughout my notes was "awkward", I truly hate awkward viewing. It's one of the reasons I don't like reality TV for the most part [when I do watch it I record it so I can fast forward through those bits]. I have actively walked out of the room because I couldn't cope watching things. How I managed to sit through this film I do not know. I was laughing out loud, I was burying my head in my hands, and yet I sat through it.
I can well and truly say at this point that I love George MacKay, put him in everything please. He plays Ryan, Ryan is somewhat unsuccessfully trying to get over his ex and his little experience with dating is being helped along by his flatmate Dan... but he's all for the conquest rather than the romance. Laura, played by Alexandra Roach has the backup of the internet, her mother and a friend, but she seems a little more sceptical about all the suggestions she's offered.
The setup gives you a very quick insight into our two main characters including some of the advice that's offered above. I've moaned in the past about short intros not setting up enough of the film that follows but with the way this film is laid out and the fact that the main action happens in the space of one evening means that everything unfolds very quickly and you don't need anything more.
When the present day story happens I really love the internal monologue that cuts in, the underlying insecurities and anxiety gets to bubble up. It absolutely needed it too, there's no way the film would have worked without this extra layer of humour. Without the audio the actors still do a great job, they mastered the art of the awkward silence, add the voiceover in and you get that chance to identify and match it to your own experience and internal commentary. I could write several stories in this vein based on my own experience. [Mum, again, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, 😬]
The film is based on the director's play that was performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I would love to have seen how that was done, I'm visualising something crossed between a play and Fleabag.
A Guide To Second Date Sex expresses those hideous memories that you really wish had been erased with the evening full of alcohol that accompanied them. It reflects so many girls' nights in and morning after phones calls I've been part of that it had that nostalgic feel which I think is how I stayed engaged despite my awkward reaction. It's an amusing and charming tale of dating that develops into a hilarious romp through young love and its perils.
This was an immensely entertaining watch but I really wish it ended one clip earlier than it did, and that's the only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars.
[Note to friends when you see it... Yes, that scene... I know, right?!]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-guide-to-second-date-sex-movie-review.html
The original is better
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing Emma into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, Emma is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of Emma has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as Mary Poppins or Nurse Matilda.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing Emma into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, Emma is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of Emma has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as Mary Poppins or Nurse Matilda.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing <i>Emma</i> into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, <i>Emma</i> is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of <i>Emma</i> has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as <i>Mary Poppins</i> or <i>Nurse Matilda</i>.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing <i>Emma</i> into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, <i>Emma</i> is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of <i>Emma</i> has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as <i>Mary Poppins</i> or <i>Nurse Matilda</i>.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Joe Elliott recommended Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars: The Motion Picture Soundtrack by David Bowie in Music (curated)
LeftSideCut (3776 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.
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
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
The Star Wars Story that nobody asked for, but was is a story worth telling?
In short, NO.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
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 there’s 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.
‘’Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.’’
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 Stark’s bravery, and his manliness, but I didn’t like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
‘’Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?
‘’That’s the only time a man an be brave’’.
I loved Arya’s fierceness, but I didn’t like her stubbornness.
‘’For the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.’’
I liked Sansa’s politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snow’s story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
‘’Let me give you some counsel, bastard.‘’ Lannister said. ‘’Never 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.’’
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 there’s 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.
‘’Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.’’
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 Stark’s bravery, and his manliness, but I didn’t like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
‘’Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?
‘’That’s the only time a man an be brave’’.
I loved Arya’s fierceness, but I didn’t like her stubbornness.
‘’For the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.’’
I liked Sansa’s politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snow’s story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
‘’Let me give you some counsel, bastard.‘’ Lannister said. ‘’Never 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.’’
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.