Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It is 1934, and our moustachioed detective has just solved a theft in Jerusalem. He looks forward to resting in Istanbul, but his break is interrupted with the news that he must return to London for a case. It seems like Poirot's luck is in, having just met his friend who is director of the Orient Express.
Once on board Poirot catches the attention of the businessman, Samuel Ratchett. Ratchett has received threatening letters, and wishes to hire the detective as his bodyguard during their journey, but the offer is politely declined.
That night an avalanche derails he train and the passengers are stranded. In the morning Ratchett is found dead, stabbed a dozen times. Poirot and Bouc, the train director, investigate the passengers as repairs begin. Poirot discovers a partially destroyed note connecting Ratchett to the kidnapping of Daisy Armstrong, a child who was abducted from her bedroom and held for ransom. After the ransom was paid, Daisy was found murdered. Ratchett is identified as John Cassetti, Daisy’s kidnapper and murderer.
First off, let me address the elephant in the room... that'll be Kenneth Branagh as Poirot. David Suchet will always be my Poirot, he's perfect. Branagh, for me, has an overacting issue. And that moustache, it's just ridiculous. That's not even taking into account the scene where Poirot is laying in bed and he doesn't have his night-time moustache cosy on. Crazy.
Agatha Christie's tale has definitely been given the Hollywood treatment. It's gone from the quite dark Suchet version, to something quite farcical in comparison. I can understand remaking some things, but when you have such a definitive portrayal of a character why would you recast them?
Having just rewatched the 2010 version I will say that the story line in the movie is probably easier to understand. It's also more suitable for a younger audience.
As a passing comment to everyone who was surprised to hear they were going to do Death On The Nile next... no shit, Poirot! It was dropped in at the end of the film.
Once on board Poirot catches the attention of the businessman, Samuel Ratchett. Ratchett has received threatening letters, and wishes to hire the detective as his bodyguard during their journey, but the offer is politely declined.
That night an avalanche derails he train and the passengers are stranded. In the morning Ratchett is found dead, stabbed a dozen times. Poirot and Bouc, the train director, investigate the passengers as repairs begin. Poirot discovers a partially destroyed note connecting Ratchett to the kidnapping of Daisy Armstrong, a child who was abducted from her bedroom and held for ransom. After the ransom was paid, Daisy was found murdered. Ratchett is identified as John Cassetti, Daisy’s kidnapper and murderer.
First off, let me address the elephant in the room... that'll be Kenneth Branagh as Poirot. David Suchet will always be my Poirot, he's perfect. Branagh, for me, has an overacting issue. And that moustache, it's just ridiculous. That's not even taking into account the scene where Poirot is laying in bed and he doesn't have his night-time moustache cosy on. Crazy.
Agatha Christie's tale has definitely been given the Hollywood treatment. It's gone from the quite dark Suchet version, to something quite farcical in comparison. I can understand remaking some things, but when you have such a definitive portrayal of a character why would you recast them?
Having just rewatched the 2010 version I will say that the story line in the movie is probably easier to understand. It's also more suitable for a younger audience.
As a passing comment to everyone who was surprised to hear they were going to do Death On The Nile next... no shit, Poirot! It was dropped in at the end of the film.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Sep 30, 2019
Most Hollywood scholars and film critics agree Vertigo is the ultimate Hitchcock masterpiece with Psycho, North By Northwest or Rear Window rounding out the top 4. Although I would give each a 10 out of 10, I would say Psycho is probably my all time favorite.
Maybe you could say Vertigo is a better technical film or it uses camera, lighting, sets and scenery better, but Psycho has all of that as well and then some. I remember reading somewhere a list of movies where mid way through the film the plot was hijacked in a completely different direction than it had been going (for movies like From Dusk Till Dawn and True Lies), but Psycho was not listed.
I was extremely surprised in that by 1960, how many filmmakers would dare kill off their only main character and the only one the audience cares about partially through and leave the audience gasping as what was to happen next? I wish I had been sitting in a darkened theatre in 1960 to see just that. Working at movie theatres for years, I have had my share of watching crowd reaction both in laughter and in fear, and I can see how movie makers enjoy doing this themselves for their own films.
Great movies keep you coming back even though you are completely familiar with every detail already, but still come back to rewatch anyways.
I have to assume Anthony Perkins did too good of a job as Norman Bates to have any casting directors use him for different roles. He reprised Norman, several times in the 80s and 90s, and also had roles in other films like The Black Hole and Murder on the Orient Express, but no one really remembers him for anything other than Psycho. He was just that great.
I absolutely love the Bernard Herrmann score, especially over the haunting opening credit sequence. One of the best of all time. Have to mention Janet Leigh also won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. She was memorable and marvelous as well.
And Hitch never won Best Director.
Maybe you could say Vertigo is a better technical film or it uses camera, lighting, sets and scenery better, but Psycho has all of that as well and then some. I remember reading somewhere a list of movies where mid way through the film the plot was hijacked in a completely different direction than it had been going (for movies like From Dusk Till Dawn and True Lies), but Psycho was not listed.
I was extremely surprised in that by 1960, how many filmmakers would dare kill off their only main character and the only one the audience cares about partially through and leave the audience gasping as what was to happen next? I wish I had been sitting in a darkened theatre in 1960 to see just that. Working at movie theatres for years, I have had my share of watching crowd reaction both in laughter and in fear, and I can see how movie makers enjoy doing this themselves for their own films.
Great movies keep you coming back even though you are completely familiar with every detail already, but still come back to rewatch anyways.
I have to assume Anthony Perkins did too good of a job as Norman Bates to have any casting directors use him for different roles. He reprised Norman, several times in the 80s and 90s, and also had roles in other films like The Black Hole and Murder on the Orient Express, but no one really remembers him for anything other than Psycho. He was just that great.
I absolutely love the Bernard Herrmann score, especially over the haunting opening credit sequence. One of the best of all time. Have to mention Janet Leigh also won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. She was memorable and marvelous as well.
And Hitch never won Best Director.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Judy, is the biopic based on the stage play “End of the Rainbow” which chronicles Judy Garland’s five week run in 1968 London, at The Talk of the Town Nightclub. Ms. Garland, one of the victims of the old Hollywood studio treatments that contributed to her tragic upbringing.
The ever malleable Renee Zellweger embodies Judy Garland throughout this film. Ms. Garland’s physical affectations are translated to the screen so much that we are transported , convinced that she is Judy. Yet, there are a couple of moments where the mask slips and we see Ms. Zellweger instead .
The film begins with Judy working, doing a show at an event and being paid very much less than she has in the past. She is uninsurable, unreliable and absolutely inconsistent. Her lifelong habits have taken most of who she was and she keeps getting up every time to keep fighting.
She also has custody of her two kids, Lorna and Joe Luft. She does not have a place to call home to provide a stable environment for the children. Their father Sid Luft is challenging custody and Judy has provided enough fodder to have custody of her children revert to their father. Her intent is to be a good mother, as opposed to the parent she had growing up.
Flashbacks are cut in throughout the movie, showing her on the set of the Wizard of Oz with Louis B. Mayer, at a movie set where they film a choreographed birthday party for Judy.
We are shown how terribly manipulative and cruel the studio system was towards the actresses back then. The pills, starvation, demands, and gaslighting had created the person that was Judy.
The movie is about the tragedy that was Judy Garland’s life. However, there are many points of light in her life and we are shown that in the movie. Judy is definitely a film blanketed with the shadows of sadness from her life.
The transition of Zellweger to Judy who explained had a distracting flaw that I struggled with. Ms. Zellweger has a pleasant voice, but she is not Ms. Garland who’s lovely voice with rich timbre is beautifully unique.
Very dramatic film, such a transformative performance by Renee Zellweger.
The ever malleable Renee Zellweger embodies Judy Garland throughout this film. Ms. Garland’s physical affectations are translated to the screen so much that we are transported , convinced that she is Judy. Yet, there are a couple of moments where the mask slips and we see Ms. Zellweger instead .
The film begins with Judy working, doing a show at an event and being paid very much less than she has in the past. She is uninsurable, unreliable and absolutely inconsistent. Her lifelong habits have taken most of who she was and she keeps getting up every time to keep fighting.
She also has custody of her two kids, Lorna and Joe Luft. She does not have a place to call home to provide a stable environment for the children. Their father Sid Luft is challenging custody and Judy has provided enough fodder to have custody of her children revert to their father. Her intent is to be a good mother, as opposed to the parent she had growing up.
Flashbacks are cut in throughout the movie, showing her on the set of the Wizard of Oz with Louis B. Mayer, at a movie set where they film a choreographed birthday party for Judy.
We are shown how terribly manipulative and cruel the studio system was towards the actresses back then. The pills, starvation, demands, and gaslighting had created the person that was Judy.
The movie is about the tragedy that was Judy Garland’s life. However, there are many points of light in her life and we are shown that in the movie. Judy is definitely a film blanketed with the shadows of sadness from her life.
The transition of Zellweger to Judy who explained had a distracting flaw that I struggled with. Ms. Zellweger has a pleasant voice, but she is not Ms. Garland who’s lovely voice with rich timbre is beautifully unique.
Very dramatic film, such a transformative performance by Renee Zellweger.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 20, 2019
All style, too much substance
I'm a big Tarantino fan and I really wanted to like this film, but I'm afraid like The Hateful Eight before it, I just found it far too rambling and long winded.
Don't get me wrong, I get what he was trying to do here with the classic Hollywood era, I just think it has been poorly executed. Instead of going for 'all style, no substance', Tarantino appears to have gone for all style and too much substance. Visually this film looks stunning, the set design and the costumes look amazing. The cast are brilliant, there's some great supporting faces in this and truly marvellous turns from Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Honestly it's these two that kept my attention for the nearly 3 hour run time. The ideas are good and the dialogue is good, the problem is that there's just way too much of it. Every scene has been dragged out way past the point of enjoyment, and there are so many pointless scenes in this that could easily have been cut out without affecting the barely there plot. He could've at least replaced some of these dragged out scenes with more of a main plot, especially as the only thing interesting about this film was the small bits with the Mansons in it.
I'm starting to wonder if Tarantino is becoming a bit complacent. He's known for his dialogue, but this is just too much. Its worrying when a 3 hour film gets interesting 15 minutes towards the end, which is the only time we see any in depth violence. Had this film been cut by at least an hour, it would've actually been very good. It's just a shame it had to ramble on for so long.
I've marked this higher than I probably should, but only because there is a lot to appreciate in this film and some wonderful performances, it just should've been in a much shorter runtime. I havent seen The Hateful Eight since it was on at the cinema as I can't bear to put myself through it again, and I'm afraid to say it's the same for this.
Don't get me wrong, I get what he was trying to do here with the classic Hollywood era, I just think it has been poorly executed. Instead of going for 'all style, no substance', Tarantino appears to have gone for all style and too much substance. Visually this film looks stunning, the set design and the costumes look amazing. The cast are brilliant, there's some great supporting faces in this and truly marvellous turns from Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Honestly it's these two that kept my attention for the nearly 3 hour run time. The ideas are good and the dialogue is good, the problem is that there's just way too much of it. Every scene has been dragged out way past the point of enjoyment, and there are so many pointless scenes in this that could easily have been cut out without affecting the barely there plot. He could've at least replaced some of these dragged out scenes with more of a main plot, especially as the only thing interesting about this film was the small bits with the Mansons in it.
I'm starting to wonder if Tarantino is becoming a bit complacent. He's known for his dialogue, but this is just too much. Its worrying when a 3 hour film gets interesting 15 minutes towards the end, which is the only time we see any in depth violence. Had this film been cut by at least an hour, it would've actually been very good. It's just a shame it had to ramble on for so long.
I've marked this higher than I probably should, but only because there is a lot to appreciate in this film and some wonderful performances, it just should've been in a much shorter runtime. I havent seen The Hateful Eight since it was on at the cinema as I can't bear to put myself through it again, and I'm afraid to say it's the same for this.
Cute CUT - Full Featured Video Editor
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
Now, you can DRAW movies, AND you can draw ON movies! Cute CUT’s powerful, easy-to-use editing...
Build a Problem by Dodie
Album
At just 25, Dodie has already done a lot of living. Some of that has played out online as she made a...
The Greatest Love Story Ever Told
Nick Offerman and Megan Mullally
8.0
Rate It
Book
At last, the full story behind Megan Mullally and Nick Offerman's epic romance, including stories,...
memoir biography celebrity
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Nov 2, 2021
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Windswept & Interesting in Books
Aug 12, 2022
143 of 230
Book
Windswept and Interesting
By Billy Connolly
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
In his first full-length autobiography, comedy legend and national treasure Billy Connolly reveals the truth behind his windswept and interesting life.
Born in a tenement flat in Glasgow in 1942, orphaned by the age of 4, and a survivor of appalling abuse at the hands of his own family, Billy's life is a remarkable story of success against all the odds.
Billy found his escape first as an apprentice welder in the shipyards of the River Clyde. Later he became a folk musician - a 'rambling man' - with a genuine talent for playing the banjo. But it was his ability to spin stories, tell jokes and hold an audience in the palm of his hand that truly set him apart.
As a young comedian Billy broke all the rules. He was fearless and outspoken - willing to call out hypocrisy wherever he saw it. But his stand-up was full of warmth, humility and silliness too. His startling, hairy 'glam-rock' stage appearance - wearing leotards, scissor suits and banana boots - only added to his appeal.
It was an appearance on Michael Parkinson's chat show in 1975 - and one outrageous story in particular - that catapulted Billy from cult hero to national star. TV shows, documentaries, international fame and award-winning Hollywood movies followed. Billy's pitch-perfect stand-up comedy kept coming too - for over 50 years, in fact - until a double diagnosis of cancer and Parkinson's Disease brought his remarkable live performances to an end. Since then he has continued making TV shows, creating extraordinary drawings... and writing.
I grew up watching Billy my dad absolutely loved him. The only swearing we were allowed to watch. I have always loved him the one comedian that I took from my childhood and kept watching. I discovered so much in this book that I never knew and you have to admire him. He went through so much but never seems bitter, he never really flaunts his fame in this book and plays a lot down. Such an amazing insight into his life and a really good read.
Book
Windswept and Interesting
By Billy Connolly
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
In his first full-length autobiography, comedy legend and national treasure Billy Connolly reveals the truth behind his windswept and interesting life.
Born in a tenement flat in Glasgow in 1942, orphaned by the age of 4, and a survivor of appalling abuse at the hands of his own family, Billy's life is a remarkable story of success against all the odds.
Billy found his escape first as an apprentice welder in the shipyards of the River Clyde. Later he became a folk musician - a 'rambling man' - with a genuine talent for playing the banjo. But it was his ability to spin stories, tell jokes and hold an audience in the palm of his hand that truly set him apart.
As a young comedian Billy broke all the rules. He was fearless and outspoken - willing to call out hypocrisy wherever he saw it. But his stand-up was full of warmth, humility and silliness too. His startling, hairy 'glam-rock' stage appearance - wearing leotards, scissor suits and banana boots - only added to his appeal.
It was an appearance on Michael Parkinson's chat show in 1975 - and one outrageous story in particular - that catapulted Billy from cult hero to national star. TV shows, documentaries, international fame and award-winning Hollywood movies followed. Billy's pitch-perfect stand-up comedy kept coming too - for over 50 years, in fact - until a double diagnosis of cancer and Parkinson's Disease brought his remarkable live performances to an end. Since then he has continued making TV shows, creating extraordinary drawings... and writing.
I grew up watching Billy my dad absolutely loved him. The only swearing we were allowed to watch. I have always loved him the one comedian that I took from my childhood and kept watching. I discovered so much in this book that I never knew and you have to admire him. He went through so much but never seems bitter, he never really flaunts his fame in this book and plays a lot down. Such an amazing insight into his life and a really good read.