Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Gift (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new film ‘The Gift’ will be the first movie released by the new company STX Entertainment.
It stars Jason Bateman as Simon, Joel Edgerton as Gordo, and Rebecca Hall as Robyn, Simons’ wife.
The story begins with Simon and Robyn just moving back to Los Angeles. He works in cyber security, and she is an interior designer trying to start her own business.
While out shopping for new home decor, Robyn is approached by a man she’s never seen, who says he is an old acquaintance of Simons.
Through a series of instances where Gordo delivers unasked for, and at least in Simons case, unwanted, gifts the story unravels into a twisty path of creepy stalking behavior with an undercurrent of as yet unrevealed plots for revenge.
While Robyn thinks that Gordo is just lonely and trying to make a friendly good impression, Simon insists that Gordo is ‘weird’ and that he has an ulterior motive due to his attraction to Robyn.
While not quite a ‘Fatal Attraction’ story as much as a ‘Revenge’ plot, this movie does keep you interested, invested and involved. It isn’t quite a ‘digging your nails into your palms’ kind of scary but more of a ‘what the HECK is he doing’, and ‘oh my gosh he can’t possibly be doing THAT’ story.
At least twice, the audience jumped and some of us yelped at at least one point.
The movie keeps you not quite sure who to feel most sorry for and not quite knowing who, if anyone, you are ‘rooting for’
The end is a twisted mess (in a good way) that had my jaw dropping and saying to myself ‘oh no no no no no no NO that’s not happening, it can’t be that way…..’, even though I had seen it coming.
I liked the movie and think people looking for a psychological thriller will really enjoy it.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars.
It stars Jason Bateman as Simon, Joel Edgerton as Gordo, and Rebecca Hall as Robyn, Simons’ wife.
The story begins with Simon and Robyn just moving back to Los Angeles. He works in cyber security, and she is an interior designer trying to start her own business.
While out shopping for new home decor, Robyn is approached by a man she’s never seen, who says he is an old acquaintance of Simons.
Through a series of instances where Gordo delivers unasked for, and at least in Simons case, unwanted, gifts the story unravels into a twisty path of creepy stalking behavior with an undercurrent of as yet unrevealed plots for revenge.
While Robyn thinks that Gordo is just lonely and trying to make a friendly good impression, Simon insists that Gordo is ‘weird’ and that he has an ulterior motive due to his attraction to Robyn.
While not quite a ‘Fatal Attraction’ story as much as a ‘Revenge’ plot, this movie does keep you interested, invested and involved. It isn’t quite a ‘digging your nails into your palms’ kind of scary but more of a ‘what the HECK is he doing’, and ‘oh my gosh he can’t possibly be doing THAT’ story.
At least twice, the audience jumped and some of us yelped at at least one point.
The movie keeps you not quite sure who to feel most sorry for and not quite knowing who, if anyone, you are ‘rooting for’
The end is a twisted mess (in a good way) that had my jaw dropping and saying to myself ‘oh no no no no no no NO that’s not happening, it can’t be that way…..’, even though I had seen it coming.
I liked the movie and think people looking for a psychological thriller will really enjoy it.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated It Comes At Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
There are some things that are truly frightening. For some, it could be ghosts while others fear zombies. There are many things that concern us and even keep us awake at night. With It Comes At Night, audiences are faced with one of the greatest fears that man has: the unknown.
The film features Paul (Joel Edgerton) a father and husband who is seeking to keep his family safe in the wilderness from unknown threats. He and his family are uncertain of what has taken place. They are not sure if the population has become victims to terrorism, disease, or some sort of supernatural occurrence. Paranoia builds as a stranger arrives on their land. What are his intentions? Can they trust each other long enough to survive? Will they outlast whatever has consumed countless others?
The film is haunting and will have its audience trying to guess and discover what exactly is taking place. The film is reminiscent of The Village, The Happening, and other movies that rely on ambiguity. For some films, the mystery may be the downfall as it leads nowhere. With It Comes At Night, the filmmakers allow for reality to seep into the lives that viewers are witnessing on the screen. For this film, the ambiguity allows for the audience to question how they would behave or adapt in a seemingly post-apocalyptic environment. We like to think that we know, but we can never be sure. This comes through with the actions of each of the characters. They are alone and afraid.
The film is deep in its approach to what the world would look like should calamity approach. People would become distrustful, fight, turn on each other, kill without thinking, and eventually sink into the realization that they don’t know what to do. It Comes at Night allows for the reality of horror to be exposed. It is not knowing how to face a certain danger, it is about having to come to terms with the unknown.
The film features Paul (Joel Edgerton) a father and husband who is seeking to keep his family safe in the wilderness from unknown threats. He and his family are uncertain of what has taken place. They are not sure if the population has become victims to terrorism, disease, or some sort of supernatural occurrence. Paranoia builds as a stranger arrives on their land. What are his intentions? Can they trust each other long enough to survive? Will they outlast whatever has consumed countless others?
The film is haunting and will have its audience trying to guess and discover what exactly is taking place. The film is reminiscent of The Village, The Happening, and other movies that rely on ambiguity. For some films, the mystery may be the downfall as it leads nowhere. With It Comes At Night, the filmmakers allow for reality to seep into the lives that viewers are witnessing on the screen. For this film, the ambiguity allows for the audience to question how they would behave or adapt in a seemingly post-apocalyptic environment. We like to think that we know, but we can never be sure. This comes through with the actions of each of the characters. They are alone and afraid.
The film is deep in its approach to what the world would look like should calamity approach. People would become distrustful, fight, turn on each other, kill without thinking, and eventually sink into the realization that they don’t know what to do. It Comes at Night allows for the reality of horror to be exposed. It is not knowing how to face a certain danger, it is about having to come to terms with the unknown.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Another King Fighting Film
Story: The King starts as the war between the English and the Scots continues to rage on, King Henry IV (Mendlesohn) is getting tired of the bloodshed and disloyalty being found in his own soldiers and with his health getting worse he recalls his son Hal (Chalamet) to his side.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Exodus: Gods and Kings is a new movie directed by Ridley Scott.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Loving (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Hidden Vigour: Negga excels in another glimpse into America’s racist past.
A few weeks ago when I reviewed “Hidden Figures” I pointed out the how absurd the racist behaviour at NASA in the 60’s must have appeared to a young boy in the audience at my screening. In many ways, “Loving” – a film that has had a lot less publicity and is a less obvious ‘crowd-pleaser’ – makes a useful companion piece to that film.
It tells the true story (yes, yet ANOTHER ‘true story’!) of Richard and Mildred Loving who travelled from their home town of Central Point Virginia to Washington DC where – as a mixed race couple – they could legally get married.
However, on returning to their home state and living together as man and wife, they fell foul of the State’s repulsive antimiscegenation statute which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail, which was suspended on the requirement that – unbelievable but true – the couple leave Virginia and not return (together) for 25 years. The film documents the fight of the couple – largely led by the feisty Mildred (Ruth Negga) – to fight the injustice, taking the case ultimately to the US Supreme Court for an historic ruling.
This was an Oscar-nominated performance by Ruth Negga and, man, is it deserved. It’s a performance of such quiet understated power that it is a joy to watch. But also strong is that of Joel Edgerton (“Midnight Special“, “The Great Gatsby“) as Richard who here adopts a largely sulky and subservient manner that contrasts beautifully with Negga’s perky optimism.
I also loved the performance of Marton Csokas (Celeborn from “The Lord of the Rings”), chillingly unreasonable as the bigoted Sheriff Brooks and Michael Shannon (“Nocturnal Animals“, “Midnight Special“) as the Time photographer Grey Villet, capturing a classic picture that is shown (in standard ‘true story’ fashion) at the end of the film (and below).
Written and directed by Jeff Nichols, whose “Midnight Special” last year made my top 10 of the year, this is a thoughtful and educational piece that should particularly appeal to older viewers keen to see a drama of historical importance beautifully told.
It tells the true story (yes, yet ANOTHER ‘true story’!) of Richard and Mildred Loving who travelled from their home town of Central Point Virginia to Washington DC where – as a mixed race couple – they could legally get married.
However, on returning to their home state and living together as man and wife, they fell foul of the State’s repulsive antimiscegenation statute which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail, which was suspended on the requirement that – unbelievable but true – the couple leave Virginia and not return (together) for 25 years. The film documents the fight of the couple – largely led by the feisty Mildred (Ruth Negga) – to fight the injustice, taking the case ultimately to the US Supreme Court for an historic ruling.
This was an Oscar-nominated performance by Ruth Negga and, man, is it deserved. It’s a performance of such quiet understated power that it is a joy to watch. But also strong is that of Joel Edgerton (“Midnight Special“, “The Great Gatsby“) as Richard who here adopts a largely sulky and subservient manner that contrasts beautifully with Negga’s perky optimism.
I also loved the performance of Marton Csokas (Celeborn from “The Lord of the Rings”), chillingly unreasonable as the bigoted Sheriff Brooks and Michael Shannon (“Nocturnal Animals“, “Midnight Special“) as the Time photographer Grey Villet, capturing a classic picture that is shown (in standard ‘true story’ fashion) at the end of the film (and below).
Written and directed by Jeff Nichols, whose “Midnight Special” last year made my top 10 of the year, this is a thoughtful and educational piece that should particularly appeal to older viewers keen to see a drama of historical importance beautifully told.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
This one is pretty straightforward - The Thing (2011) is an ok film that is completely dwarfed by The Thing (1982) - honestly, fuck knows why it doesn't have a different title.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Kinky Boots (2006) in Movies
Nov 29, 2019
Verdict: Enjoyable
Story: Kinky Boots starts as we meet two men Charlie (Edgerton) and Lola (Ejiofor) who have grown up under the shadows of their father’s that wanted them to follow in their footsteps. Charlie is forced to take over his family’s show making business, finding it about to go under unless he can find a new idea, which sees him making a chance meeting with the drag queen Lola, who has a full show in London.
Charlie sees a chance to grab his company into a new niche market, by producing shoes for drag queen, seeing how they are struggling to find heels that could support a man’s weight, Charlie risks his whole company on this, while needing to deal with the homophobia shown towards Lola in Northampton.
Thoughts on Kinky Boots
Characters – Charlie is the son of a show maker, the business has kept the community together for generations and despite his decision to leave the area, he is drawn back after his father’s death. He is facing the hardest decision of his life once he learns that the business will need to close, but risks everything to take a chance on a new niche market, where he has to put his uncertainties behind him. Lola is a drag queen in Soho, they take centre stage on a daily show, even if they deal with the haters in life, a chance meeting gives them a chance to design heels for drag queens, both characters have been struggling with father’s that are disapproving in their life choices. Lola has also been dealing with discrimination for years. Lauren is one of the employees that is being made redundant, but pushes Charlie into finding a niche market. Nicola is the fiancée of Charlie who is set for a move to London, who does try to support him through his decisions, but pushed to the limits when he puts their own home on the line.
Performances – Chiwetel Ejiofor gives us a brilliant performance committing to the character through the whole film. Joel Edgerton is great too, in a role that shows him looking a lot weaker than his normal tougher guy roles. Sarah-Jane Potts and Jemima Rooper complete the main supporting cast where everybody does a great job.
Story – The story here follows a struggling shoe company owner that makes a drastic design to turn his factor into a place where they make heels and shoes for drag queens after meeting with one on a trip in London. This is a story that is based on a true story, which showed an unlikely partnership saved a factory from closure even if Charlie had to risk everything to make sure his employees have a job and put aside his feelings towards drag queens. We do get the deeper story about how people will have their own desires and interests that people shouldn’t judge them on.
Comedy/Musical – The comedy in the film mostly comes from the different reactions to Lola, while some are positive, others are negative, but it is Lola’s respond that gets the laughs, with the musical side of the film coming from Lola’s performance.
Settings – The film uses the two main settings, first London where people are more accepting and Northampton where they aren’t used to seeing drag queens, the settings show the different mindsets.
Scene of the Movie – Milan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The factory workers mentality.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun musical that does put out the important messages about how to treat people in life because you never know how important they could be to your own future.
Overall: Important Comedy.
Story: Kinky Boots starts as we meet two men Charlie (Edgerton) and Lola (Ejiofor) who have grown up under the shadows of their father’s that wanted them to follow in their footsteps. Charlie is forced to take over his family’s show making business, finding it about to go under unless he can find a new idea, which sees him making a chance meeting with the drag queen Lola, who has a full show in London.
Charlie sees a chance to grab his company into a new niche market, by producing shoes for drag queen, seeing how they are struggling to find heels that could support a man’s weight, Charlie risks his whole company on this, while needing to deal with the homophobia shown towards Lola in Northampton.
Thoughts on Kinky Boots
Characters – Charlie is the son of a show maker, the business has kept the community together for generations and despite his decision to leave the area, he is drawn back after his father’s death. He is facing the hardest decision of his life once he learns that the business will need to close, but risks everything to take a chance on a new niche market, where he has to put his uncertainties behind him. Lola is a drag queen in Soho, they take centre stage on a daily show, even if they deal with the haters in life, a chance meeting gives them a chance to design heels for drag queens, both characters have been struggling with father’s that are disapproving in their life choices. Lola has also been dealing with discrimination for years. Lauren is one of the employees that is being made redundant, but pushes Charlie into finding a niche market. Nicola is the fiancée of Charlie who is set for a move to London, who does try to support him through his decisions, but pushed to the limits when he puts their own home on the line.
Performances – Chiwetel Ejiofor gives us a brilliant performance committing to the character through the whole film. Joel Edgerton is great too, in a role that shows him looking a lot weaker than his normal tougher guy roles. Sarah-Jane Potts and Jemima Rooper complete the main supporting cast where everybody does a great job.
Story – The story here follows a struggling shoe company owner that makes a drastic design to turn his factor into a place where they make heels and shoes for drag queens after meeting with one on a trip in London. This is a story that is based on a true story, which showed an unlikely partnership saved a factory from closure even if Charlie had to risk everything to make sure his employees have a job and put aside his feelings towards drag queens. We do get the deeper story about how people will have their own desires and interests that people shouldn’t judge them on.
Comedy/Musical – The comedy in the film mostly comes from the different reactions to Lola, while some are positive, others are negative, but it is Lola’s respond that gets the laughs, with the musical side of the film coming from Lola’s performance.
Settings – The film uses the two main settings, first London where people are more accepting and Northampton where they aren’t used to seeing drag queens, the settings show the different mindsets.
Scene of the Movie – Milan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The factory workers mentality.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun musical that does put out the important messages about how to treat people in life because you never know how important they could be to your own future.
Overall: Important Comedy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A United Kingdom (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“In to Africa”.
I managed to miss this film when it was first shown at the end of 2016. And what a shame as it would have UNDOUBTEDLY made my “Films of the Year” list.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
DiscoStu (6 KP) rated Bright (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018 (Updated Jan 8, 2018)
“A competent buddy cop movie that offers solid pacing and character portrayals at the expense of building up the films (admittedly) interesting universe”.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Netflix’s ‘Bright’, directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad) and starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, brings the big budget box office trappings of a fully fledged cinema release to their home streaming subscription service and arguably the end result is a fun and enjoyable, if slightly flawed, buddy-cop-movie-with-a-twist that sets up a universe you’ll likely want to see more of.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Never entertaining, frequently repugnant
Director Francis Lawrence and Hollywood sweetheart Jennifer Lawrence (they are no relation, I’ve checked) aren’t a new combination when it comes to film-making.
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/