Search
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Aug 30, 2017
Not a comedy, but a beautiful drama
This is not a comedy. I repeat this is not a comedy. So if you read reviews saying that it is, they clearly have a very dark sense of humour. This is rather a tragically beautiful drama about writers attempting to make morale-boosting WWII movie which eventually ends up more pro-feminist than expected. The film is being made under perilous circumstances during the blitz, so there is a high casualty turnout. It is a romantic film, but not in the usual situation.
The cast includes some of finest British actors, with brilliant standout performances from Bill Nighy, a brief cameo from Jeremy Irons, Richard E Grant, Sam Clafin (Hunger Games, Me Before You), as well as better than usual performance from Gemma Arterton. I shed a few tears near the end. Hats off for showing women's role during the war effort.
The cast includes some of finest British actors, with brilliant standout performances from Bill Nighy, a brief cameo from Jeremy Irons, Richard E Grant, Sam Clafin (Hunger Games, Me Before You), as well as better than usual performance from Gemma Arterton. I shed a few tears near the end. Hats off for showing women's role during the war effort.
Assassin's Creed (2016)
5.8
Rate It
Movie
Through its a revolutionary technology that unlocks his genetic memories, Callum Lynch (Michael...
kitty ♡ (68 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Dec 5, 2017 (Updated Dec 5, 2017)
ezra miller as the flash (4 more)
jeremy irons
amy adams
aquaman's "my man!"
ray fisher
gal gadot (2 more)
ben affleck
the fact that lois and martha were seemingly a-ok with bruce's plan
don't let the critics get you down
Contains spoilers, click to show
let me just start this off with: when barry allen said "i need... friends" I FELT THAT
anyway, with that being said, this movie got way too much shit for existing. the mistake people keep making is comparing it to the avengers, which i get because it's basically the same plot, but please give the writers and the cast and crew more credit.
the one thing that still annoys me though is the fact that martha and lois didn't have a scene with bruce in which they talk about resurrecting clark. correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, martha seemed surprised and doubtful? like she JUST got word of her son being jump-started back to life? umm? ethics department, hello?? why were lois and martha just okay with letting this happen umm???
anyway, with that being said, this movie got way too much shit for existing. the mistake people keep making is comparing it to the avengers, which i get because it's basically the same plot, but please give the writers and the cast and crew more credit.
the one thing that still annoys me though is the fact that martha and lois didn't have a scene with bruce in which they talk about resurrecting clark. correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, martha seemed surprised and doubtful? like she JUST got word of her son being jump-started back to life? umm? ethics department, hello?? why were lois and martha just okay with letting this happen umm???
Paul Schneider recommended Dead Ringers (1988) in Movies (curated)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Mar 21, 2018
Quite a good adaptation
I've read a lot of negative reviews of this film, so i was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be quite good.
As an adaptation of the book, it sticks fairly faithfully to the original plot although choose to condense a few plot points to fit it into an already overly long running time. The ending for me was the biggest and best surprise, as it differs from the book and I thought actually made for a much better ending. They also managed to turn a very slow burning plot into something still very intriguing.
Jennifer Lawrence does okay, although her accent seems patchy at times and her fake hair is a little irritating. Joel Edgerton sadly isn't given much to go on as his character is very underdeveloped, however Jeremy Irons does well as per usual.
The main problem is that this is taken from a very detailed book which sadly can't be included completely in the film. This ended up with a few matters not being explained or elaborated on properly and it felt a like it was missing something. Not too bad for readers of the book like me, but my other half was left a tad confused!
As an adaptation of the book, it sticks fairly faithfully to the original plot although choose to condense a few plot points to fit it into an already overly long running time. The ending for me was the biggest and best surprise, as it differs from the book and I thought actually made for a much better ending. They also managed to turn a very slow burning plot into something still very intriguing.
Jennifer Lawrence does okay, although her accent seems patchy at times and her fake hair is a little irritating. Joel Edgerton sadly isn't given much to go on as his character is very underdeveloped, however Jeremy Irons does well as per usual.
The main problem is that this is taken from a very detailed book which sadly can't be included completely in the film. This ended up with a few matters not being explained or elaborated on properly and it felt a like it was missing something. Not too bad for readers of the book like me, but my other half was left a tad confused!
Red Sparrow
7.3
Rate It
Book
SOON TO BE A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE starring Jennifer Lawrence, Joel Edgerton and Jeremy Irons....
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 1914, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) traveled from his poverty-stricken existence in Madras, India to Trinity College, Cambridge in the hope that he would have his theories published and be recognized for the mathematical genius he was. While there, despite facing racism, hostility and severe illness, he formed an important relationship with G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) that would lead to breakthroughs in mathematics that are still relevant today.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
May 14, 2022
Not As Bad As You Heard
“It’s Not As Bad As You Heard” is the very definition of damning with faint praise, but that phrase accurately describes one of the highest profile film failures of 2021 - HOUSE OF GUCCI.
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Nov 12, 2019 (Updated Nov 12, 2019)
Nahhhh
Assassin's Creed is a series of (mostly) decent games that I personally enjoy. It's got a simple yet solid premise that has a story running in a select time in history, whilst simultaneously having another story running in modern day. It's full of parkour action, and flashy combat, and lends itself nicely to a movie adaption format?
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
Neil Jordan: Interviews
Book
These interviews cover the career to date of Neil Jordan (b. 1950), easily the most renowned...