Search
Frederick, Conrad and Manfred of Hohenstaufen, Kings of Sicily: The Chronicle of Nicholas of Jamsilla 1210-1258
Book
In the decade following the death of Frederick II in 1250, his sons Conrad and Manfred had to defend...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) created a post
Jan 16, 2018
Maxwell Leadership Bible
Book and Reference
App
The Leadership expert, John Maxwell, brings an in-depth look at God's laws for leaders and...
Alex Kapranos recommended track Lady Rachel by Kevin Ayers in Confessions of Doctor Dream and Other Stories by Kevin Ayers in Music (curated)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Jul 31, 2021
Firstly, let it be known that The Suicide Squad is a far, far, superior movie to 2016's Suicide Squad (although, that's not exactly a tall order...)
It's fun, frantic, sweary, gory, and is, above all, unmistakably a James Gunn film.
The remants of the 2016 version that remain are improved, namely Rick Flag and Harley Quinn. Both characters are well fleshed out and likable. Stand them side by side with all the newcomers and you have a wonderfully weird line up of D-list DC villains. Amongst the massive ensemble, the meatier roles are given to Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka-Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and of course, the show stealer King Shark (Sylvester Stallone). I would happily kill for him, and Sebastian the rat....
All of these characters are simply a pleasure to watch. Their interactions with eachother are frequently hilarious and the combined team give this movie a huge fricking heart that was so lacking back in 2016.
My main criticism is the pacing. After an amusingly brutal opening gambit, the whole thing takes a bit of a dive. The humour isn't quite enough to hold the slow-paced first hour together, and I found myself drifting on more than one occasion. I also wasn't a fan of the arty title cards that crop up throughout (with the exception of one during the films final act, which is quite possibly one of my favourite moments in the history of comic book movies...)
Sure, this whole part drags the experience down as a whole, but the last hour is an absolute riot. A fantastic scene involving Harley Quinn, a long hallway, and a javelin, marks a triumphant turn in proceedings, and the build up and resulting climax is batshit insane, with a villain I genuinely thought I'd never get to see in the big screen. It's horrifically entertaining and doesn't let up until the credits roll.
Ultimately, The Suicide Squad is heaps of gory fun, and a welcome addition to the mixed bag that is the DCEU. Personally, I would love to see Gunn return to the franchise in some form. Hell, give him the keys to the whole kingdom and see what happens.
It's fun, frantic, sweary, gory, and is, above all, unmistakably a James Gunn film.
The remants of the 2016 version that remain are improved, namely Rick Flag and Harley Quinn. Both characters are well fleshed out and likable. Stand them side by side with all the newcomers and you have a wonderfully weird line up of D-list DC villains. Amongst the massive ensemble, the meatier roles are given to Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka-Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and of course, the show stealer King Shark (Sylvester Stallone). I would happily kill for him, and Sebastian the rat....
All of these characters are simply a pleasure to watch. Their interactions with eachother are frequently hilarious and the combined team give this movie a huge fricking heart that was so lacking back in 2016.
My main criticism is the pacing. After an amusingly brutal opening gambit, the whole thing takes a bit of a dive. The humour isn't quite enough to hold the slow-paced first hour together, and I found myself drifting on more than one occasion. I also wasn't a fan of the arty title cards that crop up throughout (with the exception of one during the films final act, which is quite possibly one of my favourite moments in the history of comic book movies...)
Sure, this whole part drags the experience down as a whole, but the last hour is an absolute riot. A fantastic scene involving Harley Quinn, a long hallway, and a javelin, marks a triumphant turn in proceedings, and the build up and resulting climax is batshit insane, with a villain I genuinely thought I'd never get to see in the big screen. It's horrifically entertaining and doesn't let up until the credits roll.
Ultimately, The Suicide Squad is heaps of gory fun, and a welcome addition to the mixed bag that is the DCEU. Personally, I would love to see Gunn return to the franchise in some form. Hell, give him the keys to the whole kingdom and see what happens.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Studio 666 (2022) in Movies
Apr 6, 2022
If you like Foo Fighters, if you like metal, if you like The Evil Dead, then Studio 666 will be right up your street.
Considering that none of them are actors, the whole band do a pretty decent job here. Even the more awkward moments are played off nicely with a frequently funny script. The Foos have a well documented history of goofy music videos with a specific brand of humour, and Studio 666 definitely carries the same vibe over its feature length runtime. There are some familiar faces peppered throughout to pad up the cast. Jeff Garlin appears, being very Jeff Garlin. Leslie Grossman from American Horror Story, up-and-coming scream queen Jenna Ortega, and bonafide legend John Carpenter bring the horror credentials. A cameo from Lionel Richie (alongside a legit jump scare) and Slayer's Kerry King cover the music side of things, and the comedy is represented by the likes of Whitney Cummings and Will Forte. It's a pretty decent cast that surround Dave and the boys.
After the initial set up, proceedings do drag a fair bit in the middle, before everything goes full blown batshit. The gore in this movie is pretty ridiculous, and practically done for the most part with some impressive effects work. There's one kill in particular involving a chainsaw which is easily one of the gnarliest I've seen in a while. Even the CG demons don't look too shabby. As mentioned earlier, The Evil Dead has a huge part to play here, and the film is clearly influenced by it and its sequel, from the gratuitous blood sprays (and a blood filled lightbulb) to the way certain shots are framed, to an evil book made of human flesh, the whole project feels like one big homage.
Studio 666 is silly, visceral, gory fun, full of music industry jokes, a clear cut love for the horror genre, and a disgustingly riffy soundtrack. It could have quite easily been 15-20 minutes shorter, but it's a minor qualm that won't stop it from surely becoming a cult classic.
Considering that none of them are actors, the whole band do a pretty decent job here. Even the more awkward moments are played off nicely with a frequently funny script. The Foos have a well documented history of goofy music videos with a specific brand of humour, and Studio 666 definitely carries the same vibe over its feature length runtime. There are some familiar faces peppered throughout to pad up the cast. Jeff Garlin appears, being very Jeff Garlin. Leslie Grossman from American Horror Story, up-and-coming scream queen Jenna Ortega, and bonafide legend John Carpenter bring the horror credentials. A cameo from Lionel Richie (alongside a legit jump scare) and Slayer's Kerry King cover the music side of things, and the comedy is represented by the likes of Whitney Cummings and Will Forte. It's a pretty decent cast that surround Dave and the boys.
After the initial set up, proceedings do drag a fair bit in the middle, before everything goes full blown batshit. The gore in this movie is pretty ridiculous, and practically done for the most part with some impressive effects work. There's one kill in particular involving a chainsaw which is easily one of the gnarliest I've seen in a while. Even the CG demons don't look too shabby. As mentioned earlier, The Evil Dead has a huge part to play here, and the film is clearly influenced by it and its sequel, from the gratuitous blood sprays (and a blood filled lightbulb) to the way certain shots are framed, to an evil book made of human flesh, the whole project feels like one big homage.
Studio 666 is silly, visceral, gory fun, full of music industry jokes, a clear cut love for the horror genre, and a disgustingly riffy soundtrack. It could have quite easily been 15-20 minutes shorter, but it's a minor qualm that won't stop it from surely becoming a cult classic.
David McK (3245 KP) rated Blood's Game in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Like, I'm sure, many others, my first exposure to the writings of [a:Angus Donald|584064|Angus Donald|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] was when I picked up [b:Outlaw|6624899|Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347668868s/6624899.jpg|6819139] on sale: a novel which reimagined the familiar character of Robin Hood, and which I thoroughly enjoyed: so much so that I made it a point to pick up all the novels in that series ([b:Outlaw|6624899|Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347668868s/6624899.jpg|6819139], [b:Holy Warrior|7710240|Holy Warrior (The Outlaw Chronicles, #2)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327539941s/7710240.jpg|10428506], [b:King's Man|11351795|King's Man (The Outlaw Chronicles, #3)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328436464s/11351795.jpg|16281574], [b:Warlord|13077584|Warlord (The Outlaw Chronicles, #4)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1342984405s/13077584.jpg|18244685], [b:Grail Knight|20613734|Grail Knight (The Outlaw Chronicles #5)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1410172817s/20613734.jpg|21976159], [b:The Iron Castle|19857964|The Iron Castle (Outlaw Chronicles, #6)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1402550564s/19857964.jpg|27860558] and (finally) [b:The Death of Robin Hood|29348050|The Death of Robin Hood (The Outlaw Chronicles, #8)|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1467543641s/29348050.jpg|49585935]).
This, however, would be the first time I had read one of Donald's novels that concerned a different central character, and that had a different setting: would it, I wondered, be more of the same, or would it have it's own 'feel'?
The answer, I can now say, is the latter.
Replacing Alan-a-Dale with Holcroft Blood, and told in the more traditional her-and-know third-person narrative (instead of the conceit of an elderly Alan recalling his youthful adventures with Robin Hood), this particular novel deals with the (attempted) theft of the Crown Jewels from the Tower of England during the reign of King Charles II, not long after the restoration.
While that (attempted) theft is carried out by Thomas Blood - who was caught red-handed but later, incredibly, was granted a pardon by Charles II - this novel does not have Thomas as the central character: rather, instead, we follow the fortunes of his youngest son Holcroft: a son who, throughout the course of this novel, becomes friends with Sir John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough (and Winston Churchill's direct descendant).
Whether true or not, young Holcroft is portrayed in this as suffering from a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome, able to easily code and decode correspondence sent to his master The Duke of Buckingham from his various spies and informants: a skill that comes in handy in this tale! I have to say, too, that the court of King Charles II comes across as incredibly decadent, full of scheming and back-stabbing rivals out wholly for themselves ...
I'd be interested in seeing where this series goes, especially as the next entry ([b:Blood's Revolution|36146468|Blood's Revolution|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1504033386s/36146468.jpg|57749834]) concerns itself - at least, according to the blurb at the back of this - with what is (in this country - Northern Ireland - at least) a very divisive and pivotal moment in English history.
This, however, would be the first time I had read one of Donald's novels that concerned a different central character, and that had a different setting: would it, I wondered, be more of the same, or would it have it's own 'feel'?
The answer, I can now say, is the latter.
Replacing Alan-a-Dale with Holcroft Blood, and told in the more traditional her-and-know third-person narrative (instead of the conceit of an elderly Alan recalling his youthful adventures with Robin Hood), this particular novel deals with the (attempted) theft of the Crown Jewels from the Tower of England during the reign of King Charles II, not long after the restoration.
While that (attempted) theft is carried out by Thomas Blood - who was caught red-handed but later, incredibly, was granted a pardon by Charles II - this novel does not have Thomas as the central character: rather, instead, we follow the fortunes of his youngest son Holcroft: a son who, throughout the course of this novel, becomes friends with Sir John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough (and Winston Churchill's direct descendant).
Whether true or not, young Holcroft is portrayed in this as suffering from a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome, able to easily code and decode correspondence sent to his master The Duke of Buckingham from his various spies and informants: a skill that comes in handy in this tale! I have to say, too, that the court of King Charles II comes across as incredibly decadent, full of scheming and back-stabbing rivals out wholly for themselves ...
I'd be interested in seeing where this series goes, especially as the next entry ([b:Blood's Revolution|36146468|Blood's Revolution|Angus Donald|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1504033386s/36146468.jpg|57749834]) concerns itself - at least, according to the blurb at the back of this - with what is (in this country - Northern Ireland - at least) a very divisive and pivotal moment in English history.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Black Ops.
There was a joke on the internet the other day that made me laugh and laugh. Virtually the only white people in “Black Panther” are the Hobbit/LOTR stars Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis…. they are the Tolkein white guys! It’s actually getting to feel quite isolating as an ‘average white guy’ at the movies! After a plethora of #SheDo films about empowered women, now comes the first black-centred Marvel film… stuffed full of powerful women too!
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The legendary King Kong returns in an all new adventure that gives the classic tale a much needed update and new setting. Unlike Perter Jackson’s retelling of the original Black and White film, “Kong: Skull Island” eschews the old for the new and in doing so breathes a much needed new life and vitality into the franchise.
The film is set in 1973 when William Randa (John Goodman), informs the government that they have detected a previously unknown island and need to investigate it before the Soviets learn of it and beat them to whatever the island my hold.
William recruits a team which includes a former British officer named James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston), and Photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), to assist his team lead by Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins), in mapping the island.
William also asks for a military escort and the government enlists Lt. Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), and his team to accompany the mission. Packard is trying to find his place in the world as he and his helicopter combat team are dealing with the recent end of the Vietnam War. His men are looking forward to going home and resuming their lives, but a dour Packard jumps at the chance for another mission over the uncertainty of the future.
Upon arriving on the mysterious island and starting their survey mission by using seismic charges, the team attract the attention of Kong who is not at all pleased with the intrusion on his island. Kong makes short work of the copters and the team finds themselves scattered about the dangerous island. They soon learn that Kong is not the only danger on the island and must find a way to rejoin each other and make it to their extraction point alive.
Naturally some of the characters have a hidden agenda and there are dangerous and action around every corner. Further complicating matters is the appearance of Marlow (John C. Reilly), a downed WWII pilot who has been stranded on the island for 23 years and warns of dangers far greater than Kong that are ahead of the team.
The film combines a solid cast with state of the art special effects to take a new twist on the standard adventure fare. While many parts of the film remain silly Popcorn entertainment, the quality of the assembled cast allows the film to move beyond being just an assembly of potential victims for a menagerie of CGI creatures to dispatch.
While the story is more in lines with the linear and thin plots of adventure films of old, the sum of the parts does add up to an enjoyable film experience for those who like the giant creature films. You will want to make sure to stay after the credits as there is a very good scene that shows a setup for a future film that had those in attendance at our press screening cheering.
The film may be a bit intense for younger viewers but if you are looking for a touch of nostalgia and action, you may find the film just what you need.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/08/kong-skull-island/
The film is set in 1973 when William Randa (John Goodman), informs the government that they have detected a previously unknown island and need to investigate it before the Soviets learn of it and beat them to whatever the island my hold.
William recruits a team which includes a former British officer named James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston), and Photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), to assist his team lead by Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins), in mapping the island.
William also asks for a military escort and the government enlists Lt. Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), and his team to accompany the mission. Packard is trying to find his place in the world as he and his helicopter combat team are dealing with the recent end of the Vietnam War. His men are looking forward to going home and resuming their lives, but a dour Packard jumps at the chance for another mission over the uncertainty of the future.
Upon arriving on the mysterious island and starting their survey mission by using seismic charges, the team attract the attention of Kong who is not at all pleased with the intrusion on his island. Kong makes short work of the copters and the team finds themselves scattered about the dangerous island. They soon learn that Kong is not the only danger on the island and must find a way to rejoin each other and make it to their extraction point alive.
Naturally some of the characters have a hidden agenda and there are dangerous and action around every corner. Further complicating matters is the appearance of Marlow (John C. Reilly), a downed WWII pilot who has been stranded on the island for 23 years and warns of dangers far greater than Kong that are ahead of the team.
The film combines a solid cast with state of the art special effects to take a new twist on the standard adventure fare. While many parts of the film remain silly Popcorn entertainment, the quality of the assembled cast allows the film to move beyond being just an assembly of potential victims for a menagerie of CGI creatures to dispatch.
While the story is more in lines with the linear and thin plots of adventure films of old, the sum of the parts does add up to an enjoyable film experience for those who like the giant creature films. You will want to make sure to stay after the credits as there is a very good scene that shows a setup for a future film that had those in attendance at our press screening cheering.
The film may be a bit intense for younger viewers but if you are looking for a touch of nostalgia and action, you may find the film just what you need.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/08/kong-skull-island/