Search
Biff Byford recommended Machine Head by Deep Purple in Music (curated)
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Eleanor & Park in Books
Jun 11, 2019
Eleanor and Park: First Love At Its Finest
Contains spoilers, click to show
I did this book for a reading vlog without knowing anything about it and that turned out to be a mistake. This book was a lot heavier than I anticipated. Trigger warnings for domestic violence and child abuse for those who want to read it.
Together, Eleanor and Park are excellent. They have witty dialogue full of 80’s references and general high school silliness. The two of them together made me nostalgic for high school with their cuteness.
That was definitely needed because the rest of the book was really dark.
From the start, Eleanor isn’t doing well. As the new kid in school, she is an easy target for bullies and has no friends to turn to (at least until Park). But her home life is even worse. After living off a neighbor’s couch for a year, Eleanor was finally allowed to move back into her mom’s house, where her mom and siblings live under the tyrannical rule of Ritchie, a violent and abusive alcoholic.
In Eleanor’s house, the feeling of danger and unease is always there, heightened by nightly fights between Ritchie and the mother and having no bathroom door. Eleanor only really feels safe in the house when Ritchie isn’t there.
Her escape becomes Park, the quiet boy on the bus who let her sit next to him and lets her read comic books over his shoulder. Slowly they develop a reluctant friendship which turns into love.
I really like Eleanor. I think she’s really smart and witty and very relatable. She’s insecure about her body and the abuse definitely took a toll on her emotional state. But in general, she’s just a normal teenager.
Park is a typical teenager as well. He’s frustratingly insecure and angsty, which makes him act like a jerk to Eleanor sometimes, especially in the beginning. But despite that, he’s usually a really nice guy who cares deeply for Eleanor. He’s pretty understanding about her home life and is patient with her, which I really like. He does a lot of things that he thinks are small, like lending Eleanor comics and making her mixtapes, but they mean the world to Eleanor, and it’s really sweet.
The only time I didn’t like him was when he found out someone was writing dirty messages on Eleanor’s textbook and he accused her of writing the messages herself. That was really out-of-character for him and was pretty horrible. Aside from that, though, he was nice. He was, in general, a normal, realistic teenage boy.
My biggest problem with the book was the ending. It wasn’t satisfying for me because it ends abruptly and I didn’t get enough closure about Eleanor’s family. It’s hinted at that they move out of the toxic house but it’s never confirmed. So because of that, it’s only 4 out of 5 stars, but still definitely worth reading.
Together, Eleanor and Park are excellent. They have witty dialogue full of 80’s references and general high school silliness. The two of them together made me nostalgic for high school with their cuteness.
That was definitely needed because the rest of the book was really dark.
From the start, Eleanor isn’t doing well. As the new kid in school, she is an easy target for bullies and has no friends to turn to (at least until Park). But her home life is even worse. After living off a neighbor’s couch for a year, Eleanor was finally allowed to move back into her mom’s house, where her mom and siblings live under the tyrannical rule of Ritchie, a violent and abusive alcoholic.
In Eleanor’s house, the feeling of danger and unease is always there, heightened by nightly fights between Ritchie and the mother and having no bathroom door. Eleanor only really feels safe in the house when Ritchie isn’t there.
Her escape becomes Park, the quiet boy on the bus who let her sit next to him and lets her read comic books over his shoulder. Slowly they develop a reluctant friendship which turns into love.
I really like Eleanor. I think she’s really smart and witty and very relatable. She’s insecure about her body and the abuse definitely took a toll on her emotional state. But in general, she’s just a normal teenager.
Park is a typical teenager as well. He’s frustratingly insecure and angsty, which makes him act like a jerk to Eleanor sometimes, especially in the beginning. But despite that, he’s usually a really nice guy who cares deeply for Eleanor. He’s pretty understanding about her home life and is patient with her, which I really like. He does a lot of things that he thinks are small, like lending Eleanor comics and making her mixtapes, but they mean the world to Eleanor, and it’s really sweet.
The only time I didn’t like him was when he found out someone was writing dirty messages on Eleanor’s textbook and he accused her of writing the messages herself. That was really out-of-character for him and was pretty horrible. Aside from that, though, he was nice. He was, in general, a normal, realistic teenage boy.
My biggest problem with the book was the ending. It wasn’t satisfying for me because it ends abruptly and I didn’t get enough closure about Eleanor’s family. It’s hinted at that they move out of the toxic house but it’s never confirmed. So because of that, it’s only 4 out of 5 stars, but still definitely worth reading.
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Well paced (1 more)
Good characters
Third times a charm
I am not terribly well versed in Guy Ritchie films, however "Snatch" is one of my favorite films. I went into this with no expectations, and without even knowing the basic plot, I was greated with a wonderful experience.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
If "Snatch" is Ritchie's attempt at perfecting "Lock Stock and two smoking barrels" then "The Gentlemen" is the final attempt at perfecting this formula. He absolutely succeeded in this in every way. "Snatch" is a GOOD movie, but this is a good FILM, in the same distinction as literature from standard fiction. We revisit his pentient for sprawling plots with a slew of characters, all intertwined but the full scale of their involvement coming to a head at the end, but he elevated this with "The Gentlemen".
We open with Charlie Hunnan, proving to me he is a capable actor when he's not faking an american accent and given a role that suits him. A pot kingpin's right hand man being greeted by Hugh Grant in a role I've never seen him in, skeezy, unattractive, cockney accent, a reporter for tabloids offering his story for a mere 20mil pounds. Grant preceeds to tell this thrilling tale of Micky (mcconaughy) the aforementioned kingpin, attempting to sell his impressive pot empire so he can retire with his wife who he absolutely loves. Through Grant, we are given a new twist on the Ritchie formula, an unreliable narrator, which just brings the story to life. We see what goes down during these days of attempted sale, the involvent of another druglord wannabe (golding), wanting a piece of the pie, the accidental involvement of Coach(Farrel) when his group of trainees piss off the wrong people, and the twisty, turny, bullet flinging fights that ensue. This movie is beautifully paced, not feeling as long as it was, witty, with plenty of laugh out loud moments, but balanced with enough gritty reality to leave you quiet as soon as you finished laughing. In true Ritchie form, by the end all the pieces fall into place, the full reality revealed in a satisfying, fun finale. However, the twist of the unreliable narrator, leaves us with the reality that we may not know everything that happened. I would argue that beyond a part with some Russians, every character and event (and there were a number of them) felt purposeful, well thought oit and completely necessary to the plot. Like it's predecessors, the music was on point, the editting and cutting perfect and leading to a slightly old school vibe while feeling fully rooted to the present. The plot was over the top, but modern and believable. Overall, it was just exceptionally fun.
He finally figured it out, and gave us something as fun as "Snatch" but elevated it to true FILM status. Making it, arguably, the better film. Highly recommend it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Over countless decades the legend of King Arthur has been depicted across a range of mediums. The timeless tale of love, betrayals, action, and adventure has remained a popular and enduring tale ever since it was first introduced.
Director Guy Ritchie has crafted a very different take on the tale as he even contributed to the screenplay for the film. As such “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”, is brimming with many of his signature elements ranging from a caper story and characters who are filled with quirks and issues.
Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur who is orphaned at an early age when his family is betrayed by his Uncle Vortigern (Jude Law). Arthur is raised in a London brothel with no knowledge of his true lineage.
Arthur learns combat and life on the streets and quickly learns how to make money through various dealings, some of which are not exactly on the level. This is where Ritchie shows his trademark style as there is a caper element to the early part of the story and a scene of Arthur and his pals walking through the aftermath of an event is complete with his signature, start, stop, and rewind moments that made up his recent “Sherlock Holmes” films.
Naturally events put Arthur and Vortigern against each other when Arthur is able to pull the legendary Excalibur from a stone as part of a test imposed on all young men of a certain age.
With his true identity in place, Arthur is marked by his Uncle as he is the only threat to his power and this forces Arthur into the protection of the resistance where he must embrace his past and find his destiny.
The film does take some liberties with the Arthurian Legend and does go a bit heavy on the FX especially with the inclusion of giant creatures which made me think at times I was watching something from the “Lord of the Rings”. The film does drag in parts but does rebound with a finale that seemed very video game esque, but sets up future films well. The cast is strong and there is plenty to like about the film as long as you are willing to be patient with the pacing of the film.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/10/king-arthur-legend-sword/
Director Guy Ritchie has crafted a very different take on the tale as he even contributed to the screenplay for the film. As such “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”, is brimming with many of his signature elements ranging from a caper story and characters who are filled with quirks and issues.
Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur who is orphaned at an early age when his family is betrayed by his Uncle Vortigern (Jude Law). Arthur is raised in a London brothel with no knowledge of his true lineage.
Arthur learns combat and life on the streets and quickly learns how to make money through various dealings, some of which are not exactly on the level. This is where Ritchie shows his trademark style as there is a caper element to the early part of the story and a scene of Arthur and his pals walking through the aftermath of an event is complete with his signature, start, stop, and rewind moments that made up his recent “Sherlock Holmes” films.
Naturally events put Arthur and Vortigern against each other when Arthur is able to pull the legendary Excalibur from a stone as part of a test imposed on all young men of a certain age.
With his true identity in place, Arthur is marked by his Uncle as he is the only threat to his power and this forces Arthur into the protection of the resistance where he must embrace his past and find his destiny.
The film does take some liberties with the Arthurian Legend and does go a bit heavy on the FX especially with the inclusion of giant creatures which made me think at times I was watching something from the “Lord of the Rings”. The film does drag in parts but does rebound with a finale that seemed very video game esque, but sets up future films well. The cast is strong and there is plenty to like about the film as long as you are willing to be patient with the pacing of the film.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/10/king-arthur-legend-sword/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It’s been a while since Guy Ritchie dealt with some proper geezers doing crime and talking bollocks. Maybe there were elements of it in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. but really it’s Rock ‘n Rolla from 2008 we are talking about. Personally I hadn’t missed it. I pretty much think he took it as far as it needed to be taken, and I much prefer the Sherlock Holmes stuff, anyway.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Sherlock Holmes (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The stories of master detective Sherlock Holmes have delighted readers, listeners, and viewers for well over a century. The tales have grown from the stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to include radio, television, and film. Director Guy Ritchie casts Robert Downey Jr. as a slightly dysfunctional but brilliant Holmes who, along with his partner Dr. Watson (Jude Law), have just stopped a bizarre ceremony and ended a murder spree in the process.
The people of London are grateful to be free of the terror induced by Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), but solving the mystery leaves Holmes somewhat despondent and uninterested in solving other mysteries. Most likely because Watson is moving out of their home and office to complete his pending marriage plans. The lack of complexity in the cases Holmes is requested to take leaves him abundant time to sulk in his study and scare the housing staff with his bizarre behavior and inventions.
The monotony of Holmes’s life is abruptly ended when Blackwood summons him shortly before his scheduled execution for his crimes. Blackwood indicates that a dark plot is in the works and though his claims are dismissed by the authorities as the desperate ravings of a madman about to be executed, Holmes begins to think there is more to the case than meets the eye. Things take a bizarre turn when Blackwood appears to rise from the dead and starts a new wave of terror over the city. Pressed into action, Holmes and Watson uncover a series of clues that reveal a diabolic plot that will alter the balance of power in England.
In a race against time, Holmes and Watson must also deal with their unresolved issues regarding Watson’s pending marriage as well as a mysterious, seductive woman from Holmes’s past (Rachel Mc Adams). What follows is a winning combination of comedy, action, mystery, and a touch of romance Ritchie knows he has a strong cast and gives Downey, Law, and Mc Adams ample room to explore their characters yet keeps them within the story.
The plot of the film may be the weakest point and at times its uncertain if it is an action buddy film or a caper picture. It attempts to blend the two but often comes up short, lacking enough action for my taste. The plot may also be confusing to some as it lacks a cohesive structure and seems to be a free roaming entity that exists within a general framework.
Downey and Law work well with one another and Downey gives a strong, clever performance in a role that requires both physical and cerebral dexterity. Mc Adams is good as the love interest in the film but would have benefited from more time to better expand her character which I hope will happen in future films.
While the film may not come across as a traditional American studio film, there is a lot to like about this new Holmes and the new franchise it launches for fans old and new.
The people of London are grateful to be free of the terror induced by Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), but solving the mystery leaves Holmes somewhat despondent and uninterested in solving other mysteries. Most likely because Watson is moving out of their home and office to complete his pending marriage plans. The lack of complexity in the cases Holmes is requested to take leaves him abundant time to sulk in his study and scare the housing staff with his bizarre behavior and inventions.
The monotony of Holmes’s life is abruptly ended when Blackwood summons him shortly before his scheduled execution for his crimes. Blackwood indicates that a dark plot is in the works and though his claims are dismissed by the authorities as the desperate ravings of a madman about to be executed, Holmes begins to think there is more to the case than meets the eye. Things take a bizarre turn when Blackwood appears to rise from the dead and starts a new wave of terror over the city. Pressed into action, Holmes and Watson uncover a series of clues that reveal a diabolic plot that will alter the balance of power in England.
In a race against time, Holmes and Watson must also deal with their unresolved issues regarding Watson’s pending marriage as well as a mysterious, seductive woman from Holmes’s past (Rachel Mc Adams). What follows is a winning combination of comedy, action, mystery, and a touch of romance Ritchie knows he has a strong cast and gives Downey, Law, and Mc Adams ample room to explore their characters yet keeps them within the story.
The plot of the film may be the weakest point and at times its uncertain if it is an action buddy film or a caper picture. It attempts to blend the two but often comes up short, lacking enough action for my taste. The plot may also be confusing to some as it lacks a cohesive structure and seems to be a free roaming entity that exists within a general framework.
Downey and Law work well with one another and Downey gives a strong, clever performance in a role that requires both physical and cerebral dexterity. Mc Adams is good as the love interest in the film but would have benefited from more time to better expand her character which I hope will happen in future films.
While the film may not come across as a traditional American studio film, there is a lot to like about this new Holmes and the new franchise it launches for fans old and new.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
