Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2020
1917 is a remarkable film through and through, and I can't praise it enough.
The cast, the cinematography, the set pieces, the music score are all outstanding.
The plot revolves around Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) embarking on a seemingly impossible mission across no man's land in Northern France, deep into enemy territory to deliver a message to a fellow regiment, with the aim of preventing them from walking into a trap and potentially losing 1600 soldiers.
The two lead actors are fantastic, portraying two soldiers leaning on each other to achieve their goal.
The journey that takes place is tough and harrowing at times. There's a point about half way through the movie where the pace just doesn't slow down once. It's extremely intense, and bolstered infinitely by the shooting style.
The film is shot in a way that gives the viewer the impression of a one take movie. It's edited together so well that it appears seamless, and allows for some truly breathtaking moments, and never lets you break away from events unfolding. It caught my attention immediately and never lost it for one second.
This method allows for a very stylish looking experience, but it's a kind of style that never detracts or takes away from the horror of war. It's a perfect combination, ensuring that scenes of action feel relentless, whilst sadder moments are suitably poignant and perfectly executed. The emotional beats in 1917 are something else and took me by surprise. I have no shame in saying that I was fighting back tears a couple of times.
By the times the credits rolled, I was just sat in stunned silence, something that has only happened to me a few times before when it comes to movies.
1917 is pretty much perfect. A great war film, a great drama, and en effective exploration of what friendship and duty really mean.
Make the time to watch it if you haven't already!
The cast, the cinematography, the set pieces, the music score are all outstanding.
The plot revolves around Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) embarking on a seemingly impossible mission across no man's land in Northern France, deep into enemy territory to deliver a message to a fellow regiment, with the aim of preventing them from walking into a trap and potentially losing 1600 soldiers.
The two lead actors are fantastic, portraying two soldiers leaning on each other to achieve their goal.
The journey that takes place is tough and harrowing at times. There's a point about half way through the movie where the pace just doesn't slow down once. It's extremely intense, and bolstered infinitely by the shooting style.
The film is shot in a way that gives the viewer the impression of a one take movie. It's edited together so well that it appears seamless, and allows for some truly breathtaking moments, and never lets you break away from events unfolding. It caught my attention immediately and never lost it for one second.
This method allows for a very stylish looking experience, but it's a kind of style that never detracts or takes away from the horror of war. It's a perfect combination, ensuring that scenes of action feel relentless, whilst sadder moments are suitably poignant and perfectly executed. The emotional beats in 1917 are something else and took me by surprise. I have no shame in saying that I was fighting back tears a couple of times.
By the times the credits rolled, I was just sat in stunned silence, something that has only happened to me a few times before when it comes to movies.
1917 is pretty much perfect. A great war film, a great drama, and en effective exploration of what friendship and duty really mean.
Make the time to watch it if you haven't already!
Michael Packner (32 KP) rated The Shining (1980) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The atmosphere is perfect. (1 more)
Jack Nicholson gives the performance of a lifetime.
Some of the film is confusing and/or hard to follow (2 more)
Shelly Duvall is underwhelming.
The movie is a tad too slow at times, drawing unwanted attention to how long it is.
Ok, this is the second time I've seen this film. The first time I hated it, even though I really wanted to like it. I found it boring and just pointless, minus Nicholson's truly amazing performance. I decided to give it a second chance because it is considered the greatest horror film of all time, and the current polar vortex just felt like the perfect opportunity to get in the mood. I definitely enjoyed it more this time around. It kept my interest throughout this time around, and there actually is quite a bit to love, but alas, I still find this film highly overrated. There are still so many parts that either don't do it for me or just simply don't make any fucking sense. Maybe I'm just missing something obvious. If that's the case, fair enough, but I don't quite entirely get it. Nicholson is still a god in this film and the film is fantastic at building true tension, but the greatest of all time this film simply is not. Sorry.
Awix (3310 KP) rated La Flor (2018) in Movies
Nov 2, 2019
How can one rating do justice to film-making on this scale? The simple numbers involved are staggering: the film lasts thirteen and a half hours, took nine years to make, is composed of six different episodes comprising many more sub-narratives. It's usually shown over three or four days, for obvious reasons. Even the closing credits last for over forty minutes (yes, I stayed: my thought process was basically 'Well, I've come this far..).
There's at least one horror movie in the mix, along with a musical melodrama, a sprawling existential spy thriller, and a metafictional self-parody. Characters include archaeologists, witches, Casanova and Margaret Thatcher. Just about the only thing holding it together is the presence of the same four actresses, who play significant roles in almost every episode. It begins very generic, but becomes increasingly strange and avant garde as it progresses. One would say it has become completely unravelled by the end, but it's not as if it was ever very ravelled. Parts of it are indisputably brilliant and highly accomplished, others are kind of indifferent; some of it is actively irritating. In the end it is a gargantuan, self-indulgent oddity. Some of it is definitely worth watching, but the whole thirteen hours...? I'm not sure. Maybe wait until it comes on TV.
There's at least one horror movie in the mix, along with a musical melodrama, a sprawling existential spy thriller, and a metafictional self-parody. Characters include archaeologists, witches, Casanova and Margaret Thatcher. Just about the only thing holding it together is the presence of the same four actresses, who play significant roles in almost every episode. It begins very generic, but becomes increasingly strange and avant garde as it progresses. One would say it has become completely unravelled by the end, but it's not as if it was ever very ravelled. Parts of it are indisputably brilliant and highly accomplished, others are kind of indifferent; some of it is actively irritating. In the end it is a gargantuan, self-indulgent oddity. Some of it is definitely worth watching, but the whole thirteen hours...? I'm not sure. Maybe wait until it comes on TV.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Babadook (2014) in Movies
Dec 11, 2019
Minimalist Creep
Wow was I surprised by this. My daughters have been after me for a while to watch, but I have to not being a big fan of modern CGI horror like The Conjuring, Insidious, etc. I made the mistake of including this film in that group and I was wrong.
Modern audiences have grown short attention spans even having film studios get rid of opening film credits, so it is refreshing these days when a film takes its time and leaves something to our imagination. I have written in several reviews the last few years that just because modern filmmakers can do something, doesn't mean they should. Modern CGI effects leave virtually nothing a movie maker can accomplish with enough imagination are computer work done to it; however, I still maintain the "Jaws" theory of the less you show the audience the more they have to used their own imaginations and therefore the film's "Babadook" becomes even more scary.
I loved the way the creature was shown mostly in shadow and not really given a good glimpse most of the way through. Even when it presents itself, you don't really get a good look at it and a lot of the scare is also through creepy, haunting sound effects.
I guess I will have to listen to my daughters from now on!
Modern audiences have grown short attention spans even having film studios get rid of opening film credits, so it is refreshing these days when a film takes its time and leaves something to our imagination. I have written in several reviews the last few years that just because modern filmmakers can do something, doesn't mean they should. Modern CGI effects leave virtually nothing a movie maker can accomplish with enough imagination are computer work done to it; however, I still maintain the "Jaws" theory of the less you show the audience the more they have to used their own imaginations and therefore the film's "Babadook" becomes even more scary.
I loved the way the creature was shown mostly in shadow and not really given a good glimpse most of the way through. Even when it presents itself, you don't really get a good look at it and a lot of the scare is also through creepy, haunting sound effects.
I guess I will have to listen to my daughters from now on!
Super Scary Halloween Crochet: 35 Gruesome Patterns to Sink Your Hook into
Book
Sink your hook into this brilliant collection of 35 Halloween toys and accessories. If you are bored...
Queer European Cinema: Queering Cinematic Time and Space
Book
Queer European Cinema commences with an overview of LGBTQ representation throughout cinematic...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Darkman (1990) in Movies
Mar 5, 2021
In The Shadows
Darkman- is a dark twisted superhero movie directed by horror icon Sam Raimi. Its a excellent film as well.
The plot: When thugs employed by a crime boss lead a vicious assault on Dr. Peyton Wilder (Liam Neeson), leaving him literally and psychologically scarred, an emergency procedure allows him to survive. Upon his recovery, Wilder can find solace only by returning to his scientific work developing synthetic skin, and seeking revenge against the crime boss. He assumes a phantom avenger persona called Darkman, who, with malleable facial qualities, is able to infiltrate and sow terror in the criminal community.
Unable to secure the rights to either The Shadow or Batman, Raimi decided to create his own superhero and struck a deal with Universal Studios to make his first Hollywood studio film.
Initially, Raimi's longtime friend and collaborator Bruce Campbell was set to play Darkman, but the studio balked at the idea because they did not think Campbell could carry the role. Gary Oldman and Bill Paxton were also considered.
Sam had wanted to work with Frances McDormand but the studio resisted this notion and almost cast Julia Roberts before Pretty Woman made her a star. At one point, they wanted Demi Moore for the role. The director even tested Bridget Fonda but felt that she was too young for Neeson.
Its a excellent film.
The plot: When thugs employed by a crime boss lead a vicious assault on Dr. Peyton Wilder (Liam Neeson), leaving him literally and psychologically scarred, an emergency procedure allows him to survive. Upon his recovery, Wilder can find solace only by returning to his scientific work developing synthetic skin, and seeking revenge against the crime boss. He assumes a phantom avenger persona called Darkman, who, with malleable facial qualities, is able to infiltrate and sow terror in the criminal community.
Unable to secure the rights to either The Shadow or Batman, Raimi decided to create his own superhero and struck a deal with Universal Studios to make his first Hollywood studio film.
Initially, Raimi's longtime friend and collaborator Bruce Campbell was set to play Darkman, but the studio balked at the idea because they did not think Campbell could carry the role. Gary Oldman and Bill Paxton were also considered.
Sam had wanted to work with Frances McDormand but the studio resisted this notion and almost cast Julia Roberts before Pretty Woman made her a star. At one point, they wanted Demi Moore for the role. The director even tested Bridget Fonda but felt that she was too young for Neeson.
Its a excellent film.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated You Are Not Alone (2014) in Movies
Sep 19, 2020
Something my friends and I would have rented from the video store in 2011 on a Friday night after school and loved - and much to my delight this is actually pretty good stuff. One half reasonably fun "day in the life" with a perfect rural small town feel and really likable characters, one half most easily avoidable horror movie situation ever with one creepy motherfucking killer played out at enticing length. Doesn't really get all it can get out of the first-person gimmick but it's done well overall, at times feels like you're watching yourself get stuck in this situation and there's nothing you can do about it - which of course I was fully on board for. Genuinely shocked how stellar the acting is, how many good songs are on the soundtrack, and how little the budget shows all for a Kickstarter film. Has a few damn scary moments but sometimes this can feel a little *too* calculated - a loud, cued score and over-obvious slowed motions where silence and more natural movements would succeed. But I can't complain too much, it looks great and doesn't mess around with any stupidly obvious whodunit twists or predictable jump scares or whatever - routinely wrings the fear out of something as simple as looking around a corner. The biggest reason this isn't rated any higher is because I desperately wanted more of it.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019 (Updated Aug 26, 2019)
Spielberg and Lucas' wonderful adventure shows you can ignore most of the accepted rules of screenwriting (the script here has some iffy plot devices, peculiar character moments, and the most literal deus ex machina ending in cinema history) and still end up with a virtually perfect movie. You can see how it appeals to the same desire for good-vs-evil escapism as Lucas' most famous creation, but there is an obvious love for the glamour and romance of Golden Age Hollywood here too, and a mysticism that in many way makes it the culmination of all the movies about faith Lucas and Spielberg made in the late 1970s (outside of horror films and biblical epics, this is one of the few mainstream movies predicated on the existence of God).
On one level this is essentially a succession of one set-piece after another, but what set-pieces they are - most movies would be happy to have one sequence like the one in the snake pit, or the plane fight, or the truck chase, and Spielberg cheerfully rattles them off without really pausing for breath. The film is also careful to take its time to establish character and humour, too. This is one of those movies where you can't help feeling that any changes would only end up spoiling it.
On one level this is essentially a succession of one set-piece after another, but what set-pieces they are - most movies would be happy to have one sequence like the one in the snake pit, or the plane fight, or the truck chase, and Spielberg cheerfully rattles them off without really pausing for breath. The film is also careful to take its time to establish character and humour, too. This is one of those movies where you can't help feeling that any changes would only end up spoiling it.
Slip Out the Back Jack (Jack Ryder Book 2)
Book
They take turns with the knife, cutting their thumbs open. A drop of blood lands on the dark wooden...
horror suspense mystery contemporary fiction series