Search
Erika (17788 KP) rated Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness in TV
Mar 29, 2020 (Updated Mar 29, 2020)
What the f--- did I just watch? All of these people were cuckoo-cuckoo for coco puffs.
This documentary features some of the strangest flipping people I've ever watched, all big cat enthusiast. I love cats, so I was most interested in them. I could not handle if there was anything mean done to them, and was thinking, well, your ass should be mauled at this point.
There was a strange sex cult big cat place, a sanctuary, and a rural, hick, white trash zoo. The craziest person was Joe Exotic, a gay, mullet-haired, polygamous, obsessed with big cats and killing the lady of the big cat sanctuary. Did the big cat sanctuary lady kill her husband? Was there really a murder for hire plot?
The one negative is the organization of the docu-series. It didn't make sense to me, and could have been better.
Anyway, if you want to see an interesting cross-section of America, and love cats and true crime documentaries, this is the show for you. Crime docs are one of the only things Netflix does right.
This documentary features some of the strangest flipping people I've ever watched, all big cat enthusiast. I love cats, so I was most interested in them. I could not handle if there was anything mean done to them, and was thinking, well, your ass should be mauled at this point.
There was a strange sex cult big cat place, a sanctuary, and a rural, hick, white trash zoo. The craziest person was Joe Exotic, a gay, mullet-haired, polygamous, obsessed with big cats and killing the lady of the big cat sanctuary. Did the big cat sanctuary lady kill her husband? Was there really a murder for hire plot?
The one negative is the organization of the docu-series. It didn't make sense to me, and could have been better.
Anyway, if you want to see an interesting cross-section of America, and love cats and true crime documentaries, this is the show for you. Crime docs are one of the only things Netflix does right.
Joseph Banks' Florilegium: Botanical Treasures from Cook's First Voyage
David Mabberley, Mel Gooding and Joseph Studholme
Book
Joseph Banks accompanied Captain Cook on his first voyage around the world from 1768 to 1771. A...
Flight of the Amazon Queen: 20th Anniversary Edition
Games
App
"A great game, that'll give you hours of fun and leave you feeling good. We love it!" -Mr. Bill's...
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Casino Royale (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In an effort to breathe life into franchises, Hollywood, has looked to remaking franchises instead of adding sequels. This is a stark contrast to remaking a film 10-20 years after the original film appeared, rather the new trend is to start series anew, in effect wiping away the previous history and continuity of the past films in the series.
The idea is that rather than let several years pass in a series, or creating another sequel, filmmaker will go back to the beginning and start anew, in order to propel the franchise forward.
While remakes are nothing new in Hollywood, the idea to revamp series that recently had sequels is gaining ground. With the classic Horror film “Halloween” about to be remade, it seems that Hollywood is taking a long hard look at this new trend.
Perhaps the biggest example of this trend is in the new James Bond film Casino Royale, which introduces Daniel Craig as the new 007. The film takes the controversial twist to show the first mission of Bond and how he earned the rank of 00.
The twist is that the film takes place in the modern day and for the most part, casts aside all previous history and continuity that has been established by decades of Bond films.
The story involves bond on the trail of a Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man who makes his living laundering money for various insurgents thus providing them cash for their terrorist and military missions.
In exotic locales ranging from the Caribbean to Montenegro Bond soon finds himself facing off against Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game in order to defeat Le Chiffre and thus cripple him and his network.
Of course there are plenty of subplots, and some great action sequences especially a thrilling chase in a construction site and a break neck chase in an airport that underscores that the series still have plenty of life in it and always sets the standards for stunt work in action films.
That being said the film has its issues. First, it is to long, and lengthy sequences past without action or dynamic tension. I know this is a film based on a card game, but I come to a Bond film expecting action, sex, and thrills, not a series of poker games that cover nearly 30 minutes with precious little action between them.
In addition, there is precious little romance in the film. Sure there are gorgeous women and Bond never fails to charm them, but, how many times has Bond ever passed up spending the night with a woman, simply to get out of town fast to pursue a lead. I am sure Sean Connery’s Bond would have found the time to do both with his typical style.
This is not to say that Craig is bad in his role as he does a darker and much grittier Bond than we have previously films which will serve the franchise well in the future.
What concerns me most is that from the books and all previous history, Bond is an orphan of noble birth and is a member of upper society and radiates class, sophistication and nobility, and this was evident from his early years all through his recruitment from the Royal Navy into the ranks of espionage.
Craig’s Bond does not show these qualities but rather comes across as a common Joe who is playing the part of a heavy. The appeal of Bond is underscored by the fact that he is a suave individual who can bend a person to his will as easily as he can kill without mercy or regret.
While I do not like the decision to remake the franchise, I will say that the film was much better than I expected it to be and is one of the better Bonds in recent years. Here is hoping that for the next time out, the reigns are loosed on Craig so we can allow him to interpret Bond in a way that is original and fresh, yet stays true to the source material and history of the character.
The idea is that rather than let several years pass in a series, or creating another sequel, filmmaker will go back to the beginning and start anew, in order to propel the franchise forward.
While remakes are nothing new in Hollywood, the idea to revamp series that recently had sequels is gaining ground. With the classic Horror film “Halloween” about to be remade, it seems that Hollywood is taking a long hard look at this new trend.
Perhaps the biggest example of this trend is in the new James Bond film Casino Royale, which introduces Daniel Craig as the new 007. The film takes the controversial twist to show the first mission of Bond and how he earned the rank of 00.
The twist is that the film takes place in the modern day and for the most part, casts aside all previous history and continuity that has been established by decades of Bond films.
The story involves bond on the trail of a Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man who makes his living laundering money for various insurgents thus providing them cash for their terrorist and military missions.
In exotic locales ranging from the Caribbean to Montenegro Bond soon finds himself facing off against Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game in order to defeat Le Chiffre and thus cripple him and his network.
Of course there are plenty of subplots, and some great action sequences especially a thrilling chase in a construction site and a break neck chase in an airport that underscores that the series still have plenty of life in it and always sets the standards for stunt work in action films.
That being said the film has its issues. First, it is to long, and lengthy sequences past without action or dynamic tension. I know this is a film based on a card game, but I come to a Bond film expecting action, sex, and thrills, not a series of poker games that cover nearly 30 minutes with precious little action between them.
In addition, there is precious little romance in the film. Sure there are gorgeous women and Bond never fails to charm them, but, how many times has Bond ever passed up spending the night with a woman, simply to get out of town fast to pursue a lead. I am sure Sean Connery’s Bond would have found the time to do both with his typical style.
This is not to say that Craig is bad in his role as he does a darker and much grittier Bond than we have previously films which will serve the franchise well in the future.
What concerns me most is that from the books and all previous history, Bond is an orphan of noble birth and is a member of upper society and radiates class, sophistication and nobility, and this was evident from his early years all through his recruitment from the Royal Navy into the ranks of espionage.
Craig’s Bond does not show these qualities but rather comes across as a common Joe who is playing the part of a heavy. The appeal of Bond is underscored by the fact that he is a suave individual who can bend a person to his will as easily as he can kill without mercy or regret.
While I do not like the decision to remake the franchise, I will say that the film was much better than I expected it to be and is one of the better Bonds in recent years. Here is hoping that for the next time out, the reigns are loosed on Craig so we can allow him to interpret Bond in a way that is original and fresh, yet stays true to the source material and history of the character.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?