Search
Search results
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Princess Diarist in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Carrie Fisher's latest memoir details a behind the scenes look of the first <i>Star Wars</i> film. Motivated by the recent discovery of the journals she wrote while filming <i>Star Wars</i> in the late 1970s, Fisher discusses her naive nineteen-year-old self: not yet famous (though with famous parents) and unprepared for the juggernaut that would become the <i>Star Wars</i> franchise. She also covers her now famous co-star, Harrison Ford, and their relationship during the three months of filming. Fisher presents excerpts from her discovered journals and ponders on her life and the fame and notoriety that playing Princess Leia has brought her.
I am new to the <i>Star Wars</i> fandom, having only recently discovered the films myself in the past two years or so. My four-year-old daughters love them (and Leia), so I was intrigued by the idea of Fisher's memoir. While I like the films, I don't consider myself a fanatic by any stretch of the imagination. Still, I was interested in hearing some behind the scenes tidbits about filming. And Fisher starts out with such facts, explaining how an early scene was re-written due to the physical limitations of Peter Mayhew, who played Chewbacca. It's that sort of information that I find fascinating--and imagine other <i>Star Wars</i> fans would as well.
And, I won't lie, I was also fascinated by Fisher's reported relationship with Harrison Ford, who is about 15 years her senior (and was married while they were filming). Her portrayal of Harrison in the book seems spot on and is actually quite humorous at times. Unfortunately, her actual detail of the relationship is scant at best, and we really don't get much insight into their romance. What we do get is a lot of particulars about Fisher's own insecurities about herself, her body, her acting, etc.
She includes actual excerpts of the journals she found in the middle of the book, and I confess, I eventually started skimming them, because they were just agony to read. I can understand how they resonate from the perspective of a lovestruck teenager (because, truly, she was just that at the time), but so many years later, they just seem like a lot of bad poetry and ramblings that make no sense out of context. And beyond a few stories about Harrison, we really get nothing in the book that explains them, which is unfortunate, as Fisher seems witty and interesting (albeit insecure, but hey, so am I). I understand her angst from the journals, I really do, but I'm not honestly sure I wanted to read it in such form.
Plus, after that section of the book, we move on to Fisher discussing her fans and how "being Leia" has affected her life. And, again, I get it: we all forget how no one expected <i>Star Wars</i> to be so big. You wouldn't at nineteen realize what you were getting into, and I'm sure this character has absorbed much of her identity. And maybe it was reading this on the heel of Anna Kendrick's memoir, but I can only take so much of celebrities complaining about their fame and lives. The second half of Fisher's book, basically, is her capturing "conversations" with awestruck fans explaining how much Leia and <i>Star Wars</i> meant to them. But, really, it's mocking them and illustrating how tiresome the "lap dance" (her words) of signing autographs and appearing at various conventions can be. But, you know, as she states, it's worth it for the money. You can't help but feel a little offended on the part of these devoted, crazy fans, and a little less sorry for Fisher, even if she was not included on merchandising shares for <i>Star Wars</i>.
Sigh. Overall, I'm a bit conflicted on this one. Bits and pieces were very interesting. But I would have enjoyed hearing more about the actual set and her interactions with the other actors beyond Harrison Ford. While I also didn't mind hearing about Fisher's impressions of how Leia impacted her life, the fandom sections just rubbed me the wrong way. 2.5 stars.
I am new to the <i>Star Wars</i> fandom, having only recently discovered the films myself in the past two years or so. My four-year-old daughters love them (and Leia), so I was intrigued by the idea of Fisher's memoir. While I like the films, I don't consider myself a fanatic by any stretch of the imagination. Still, I was interested in hearing some behind the scenes tidbits about filming. And Fisher starts out with such facts, explaining how an early scene was re-written due to the physical limitations of Peter Mayhew, who played Chewbacca. It's that sort of information that I find fascinating--and imagine other <i>Star Wars</i> fans would as well.
And, I won't lie, I was also fascinated by Fisher's reported relationship with Harrison Ford, who is about 15 years her senior (and was married while they were filming). Her portrayal of Harrison in the book seems spot on and is actually quite humorous at times. Unfortunately, her actual detail of the relationship is scant at best, and we really don't get much insight into their romance. What we do get is a lot of particulars about Fisher's own insecurities about herself, her body, her acting, etc.
She includes actual excerpts of the journals she found in the middle of the book, and I confess, I eventually started skimming them, because they were just agony to read. I can understand how they resonate from the perspective of a lovestruck teenager (because, truly, she was just that at the time), but so many years later, they just seem like a lot of bad poetry and ramblings that make no sense out of context. And beyond a few stories about Harrison, we really get nothing in the book that explains them, which is unfortunate, as Fisher seems witty and interesting (albeit insecure, but hey, so am I). I understand her angst from the journals, I really do, but I'm not honestly sure I wanted to read it in such form.
Plus, after that section of the book, we move on to Fisher discussing her fans and how "being Leia" has affected her life. And, again, I get it: we all forget how no one expected <i>Star Wars</i> to be so big. You wouldn't at nineteen realize what you were getting into, and I'm sure this character has absorbed much of her identity. And maybe it was reading this on the heel of Anna Kendrick's memoir, but I can only take so much of celebrities complaining about their fame and lives. The second half of Fisher's book, basically, is her capturing "conversations" with awestruck fans explaining how much Leia and <i>Star Wars</i> meant to them. But, really, it's mocking them and illustrating how tiresome the "lap dance" (her words) of signing autographs and appearing at various conventions can be. But, you know, as she states, it's worth it for the money. You can't help but feel a little offended on the part of these devoted, crazy fans, and a little less sorry for Fisher, even if she was not included on merchandising shares for <i>Star Wars</i>.
Sigh. Overall, I'm a bit conflicted on this one. Bits and pieces were very interesting. But I would have enjoyed hearing more about the actual set and her interactions with the other actors beyond Harrison Ford. While I also didn't mind hearing about Fisher's impressions of how Leia impacted her life, the fandom sections just rubbed me the wrong way. 2.5 stars.
Nick Friesen (96 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Dark and gorgeous setting (4 more)
Harrison Ford
Thought-provoking premise
That moody Vangelis score
Rutger Hauer
Best in Class Cyberpunk Neo-Noir
Most Sci-Fi fans these days probably rank Blade Runner somewhere in their top five favorites. Its status and influence on Sci-Fi, especially in the Cyberpunk sub-genre, is undeniable. When it was first released in 1982, however, it was not so well appreciated. It was met with polarized reviews and underwhelming domestic box office figures. This was probably due to some misplaced expectations of the movie. The studio erroneously marketed Blade Runner as an action/adventure, and not to mention, Harrison Ford was riding the fame of another Sci-Fi franchise that was much more action-oriented. It's no surprise then, that audiences and critics alike were initially turned off by the slow-burn pacing of detective noir that Blade Runner pulled into a science fiction setting. Today, Blade Runner is a celebrated masterpiece of filmmaking and adored by fans around the world. However, with a sequel coming soon, those new to the franchise might be a little confused due to the existence of multiple versions of the film. Let's clear that up a bit.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
David McK (3194 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019 (Updated May 8, 2021)
It's a Star Wars movie (3 more)
Donald Glover
Woody Harrelson
Alden Ehrenreich gives it his all in playing a younger Han Solo
Alden Ehrenreich is no Harrison Ford (2 more)
Predictable plot
The leader of Crimson Dawn didn't need to be who it is
The second of Disney's 'A Star Wars story' spin-off from the main (numbered) films followimg Rogue One, this one is largely held responsible for Disney's decision to slow down on releasing this spins offs (originally intended to be one every other year, in between the main ones) when it underperformed at the box office.
Personally, I feel a large reason for that underperformance is that, of all the characters in the original saga, Han is probably one of those least in the need to get an origin/prologue movie and that this was released during the summer months instead of the more traditional festive release period for a Star Wars movie.
Whereas Rogue One was, largely, a war movie, this one takes a different approach: more of a heist (complete with double and triple crossing) Western movie, if anything.
Personally, I feel a large reason for that underperformance is that, of all the characters in the original saga, Han is probably one of those least in the need to get an origin/prologue movie and that this was released during the summer months instead of the more traditional festive release period for a Star Wars movie.
Whereas Rogue One was, largely, a war movie, this one takes a different approach: more of a heist (complete with double and triple crossing) Western movie, if anything.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Witness (1985) in Movies
Feb 21, 2021
Very classy romantic drama-thriller. When a young Amish boy witnesses a brutal murder, it leads to detective John Book uncovering widespread corruption in his own department. He is forced to hide out amongst the Amish, and finds he is drawn to their way of life almost despite himself.
This is a classic movie, but also one of those films which looks deceptively simple and straightforward: there are no staggering plot twists, no big set pieces (except for the one where some people build a barn) - it's one of those very brave films with the confidence to take its time and let the characters and story grow and breathe. The contrast between the ugliness of the big city and the quiet consolations of the Amish lifestyle is carefully achieved; Harrison Ford seizes the chance to lead the movie and give a proper acting performance (this got him his Oscar nomination). A great film; didn't quite make me want to go and live on a farm, but a close thing.
This is a classic movie, but also one of those films which looks deceptively simple and straightforward: there are no staggering plot twists, no big set pieces (except for the one where some people build a barn) - it's one of those very brave films with the confidence to take its time and let the characters and story grow and breathe. The contrast between the ugliness of the big city and the quiet consolations of the Amish lifestyle is carefully achieved; Harrison Ford seizes the chance to lead the movie and give a proper acting performance (this got him his Oscar nomination). A great film; didn't quite make me want to go and live on a farm, but a close thing.
Kevin Phillipson (9955 KP) rated Indiana jones and the dial of destiny (2023) in Movies
Jun 30, 2023
Harrison ford (1 more)
Phobe waller-bridge
Start off by saying this is better indiana jones film than kingdom of crystal skull said it I would say 4th best indie film of the 5 with last crusade being the best if this the last one then it out on high there's plenty from the start showing a younger indiana jones doing what he does best defeating nazis In search of the mcguffin of the title and then we see older at the end of his career u know the rest its a fun movie with plenty of good action scenes not forgetting the new casting of phobe waller-bridge as his sidekick have to admit she's rather good some point gonna have to watch flea bag and then there's mads mikkelsen as the villian of the movie and does it so well as only mads can overall u see it definitely.
My top five indie films
1 last crusade
2 raiders of the lost ark
3 Temple of doom
4 dial of destiny
5 kingdom of crystal skull
My top five indie films
1 last crusade
2 raiders of the lost ark
3 Temple of doom
4 dial of destiny
5 kingdom of crystal skull
David McK (3194 KP) rated Indiana jones and the dial of destiny (2023) in Movies
Jul 9, 2023
Eels look like snakes? No they don't ...
Harrison Ford is over 80 now.
So fair play to him for returning to one of his most iconic roles, as Doctor Henry Jones Jr aka Indiana Jones, in what must surely by his swansong for that role.
And even more fair play for the film not making light of his age, but working it 'properly' into the plot (which has an absolute bonkers ending), with Jones - at one point - wondering aloud what he is even doing scaling a rock face at his age (and with mention made of the events of Temple of Doom in particular, at this point).
The whole prologue of the film - here, helmed by James Mangold instead of Spielberg - is set during the closing stages of World War II, and sees a CGI de-aged Ford battling Nazis in pursuit of a stolen relic, that leads him to the real McGuffin of the movie, the Dial of the title.
Jump forward to the late 60s, and Jones is retiring from academia when he is visited by the daughter of an old friend who wants his help in recovering said relic.
Initially hesitant - and following the breakup of his marriage to Marion, and, as we later discover, the fate of Mutt - Jones soon finds himself drawn back into the way of his old life.
For my money, this is better than Crystal Skull, with the the Dial as a McGuffin, 'suiting' Indiana Jones better than the sci-fi trappings of that earlier film, and with Phoebe Waller-Bridge a better foil than Shia LaBeouf.
Still not up there with the original trilogy, though.
So fair play to him for returning to one of his most iconic roles, as Doctor Henry Jones Jr aka Indiana Jones, in what must surely by his swansong for that role.
And even more fair play for the film not making light of his age, but working it 'properly' into the plot (which has an absolute bonkers ending), with Jones - at one point - wondering aloud what he is even doing scaling a rock face at his age (and with mention made of the events of Temple of Doom in particular, at this point).
The whole prologue of the film - here, helmed by James Mangold instead of Spielberg - is set during the closing stages of World War II, and sees a CGI de-aged Ford battling Nazis in pursuit of a stolen relic, that leads him to the real McGuffin of the movie, the Dial of the title.
Jump forward to the late 60s, and Jones is retiring from academia when he is visited by the daughter of an old friend who wants his help in recovering said relic.
Initially hesitant - and following the breakup of his marriage to Marion, and, as we later discover, the fate of Mutt - Jones soon finds himself drawn back into the way of his old life.
For my money, this is better than Crystal Skull, with the the Dial as a McGuffin, 'suiting' Indiana Jones better than the sci-fi trappings of that earlier film, and with Phoebe Waller-Bridge a better foil than Shia LaBeouf.
Still not up there with the original trilogy, though.
Holly Johnson recommended Blade Runner Soundtrack by Vangelis in Music (curated)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018
Pretty visuals are just not enough any more
As usual I am late to the party as to just watching this movie tonight, but I was not impressed overall.
In the days of every high budget movie now has striking visuals the last 15 years, it is not impressive enough to me to just have a movie look good. I am all about nonlinear storytelling, or movies that are vague and not all tied up in a know at the end, but this movie just felt like it was missing something.
I'm sure Harrison Ford got a health paycheck (as he always says on all the talk shows he's on promoting his films these days) to reprise his role from Ridley's Scott's 1982 classic, but he really doesn't have much to work with here. This time Deckard is a hideaway recluse with some loose ends in his life.
This film puts to rest some of the hanging threads in the many versions of the original film and there are a few surprises too.
Overall, I would say interesting film with some cool visuals, but ultimately disappointing.
In the days of every high budget movie now has striking visuals the last 15 years, it is not impressive enough to me to just have a movie look good. I am all about nonlinear storytelling, or movies that are vague and not all tied up in a know at the end, but this movie just felt like it was missing something.
I'm sure Harrison Ford got a health paycheck (as he always says on all the talk shows he's on promoting his films these days) to reprise his role from Ridley's Scott's 1982 classic, but he really doesn't have much to work with here. This time Deckard is a hideaway recluse with some loose ends in his life.
This film puts to rest some of the hanging threads in the many versions of the original film and there are a few surprises too.
Overall, I would say interesting film with some cool visuals, but ultimately disappointing.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Devil's Own (1997) in Movies
Jul 4, 2021
I don't know what's worse: a film that's underwritten and knows it, or a film which sets up such thought-provoking themes only to immediately ditch them by the wayside (which this one is). It's so frustrating how this had most of the elements just on principle alone to be really, really good and it still wasn't. Seemingly intentionally unexciting, so much so that Brad Pitt's middle-schooler-impression-of-Daniel-Day-Lewis-from-𝘐𝘯-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘕𝘢𝘮𝘦-𝘰𝘧-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 accent is actually the best part of it. Gets semi-engaging in the last 45 minutes if only because it finally gets some of the right look + feel for what this wants to be, but even then it's got no bite and is disgustingly pro-cop (a cop who shot dead an unarmed victim multiple times then tried to force everyone to cover it up and doesn't regret it can be redeemed without doing anything!). Poises itself to go over issues of oppression, nationalism, trauma, violence, and what happens when they all intersect - but never does. Harrison Ford is so bland here, too. Doesn't even care about its own story, what a fucking shame. This really coulda been something.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) in Movies
May 26, 2020 (Updated May 26, 2020)
Old Indy: Nuke The CGI Refrigeror
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull- is the fourth indiana movie. I wish their didnt make a fourth movie, cause in my opinion and others the trilogy as a whole was and is perfect. The third movie was called, "The Last Crusade", so it should of been the last, but nope. Over 20's year, their had to make anethor one. Thanks Steven, George and Harrison, cause we really needed anethor one. With CGI Gophers, Monkey's, Aliens, and also Indiana surviving a atomic bomb test by hiding in a refrigator and surviving. Ya, no. He should be dead. Relying on to much CGI, pointless charcters, plot and a terrible ending. This movie doesnt live up to the oringal trilogy.
The plot: It's the height of the Cold War, and famous archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), returning from his latest adventure, finds out his job at Marshall College is in jeopardy. He meets Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), a young man who wants Indy to help him find the legendary Crystal Skull of Akator, and the pair set out for Peru. However, deadly agent Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) is searching for the powerful artifact, too, because the Soviets believe it can help them conquer the world.
I mean the action was good, the adventure was good and Cate Blanchett was good as the villian, everything else was bad.
But at the same time though its always good to see Indiana and his adventures. To see Indiana back after all these years, did put a smile on my face. Old Indiana.
Though in my opinon, just watch the oringal trilogy, its 10x better than this garbage. I mean this bomb. Atomic Bomb, boom got them. Seriously, dont watch this one, its bad.
The plot: It's the height of the Cold War, and famous archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), returning from his latest adventure, finds out his job at Marshall College is in jeopardy. He meets Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), a young man who wants Indy to help him find the legendary Crystal Skull of Akator, and the pair set out for Peru. However, deadly agent Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) is searching for the powerful artifact, too, because the Soviets believe it can help them conquer the world.
I mean the action was good, the adventure was good and Cate Blanchett was good as the villian, everything else was bad.
But at the same time though its always good to see Indiana and his adventures. To see Indiana back after all these years, did put a smile on my face. Old Indiana.
Though in my opinon, just watch the oringal trilogy, its 10x better than this garbage. I mean this bomb. Atomic Bomb, boom got them. Seriously, dont watch this one, its bad.
