Search
Search results
ClareR (5589 KP) rated The Battle For England: Women at war in Medieval England (Wars of the Magna Carta #1) in Books
Jan 22, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2019)
Women in medieval England
This is a book packed with history, told from the points of view of a priest, a female castellan, a female Keeper of the Kings Forest and a Knight (he gets about a chapter). It must have been very unusual for there to be female Castellans and Keepers of the Forest in a time where a womans primary function was to get married and give birth to sons who could inherit a title. The women in this story seem to have to prove themselves constantly to outsiders - the people who live under their rule don't need to see the proof, they have experience of how good these two women are at their jobs.
The years after the Magna Carta was signed were very unsettled. King John had problems with Phillip of France, losing lands in France and allowing the French in to England to take over castles and land by force. With the death of John, his 9 year old son succeeds him and William Marshall becomes his Regent. I have read other books about William Marshall, and what I read here seemed to be in keeping (most writers seem to be in agreement at the kind of man he must have been).
Nicolaa of Lincoln and Matilda of Laxton were not weak females. I really liked how they were portrayed, and I enjoyed reading the chapters from their points of view as it showed how strong and independent they were. I really liked Father Barnards chapters too. It gave an objective look at how these two women reacted in their situations.
I am a real sucker for historical fiction, and I feel that this was a really well researched novel. There was nothing overly sensationalised, which made it more believable for me. I will probably read the next book in this series. I'm interested to see if there is more from these two impressive women.
Many thanks to Sapere Books for a copy of this book to read and review.
The years after the Magna Carta was signed were very unsettled. King John had problems with Phillip of France, losing lands in France and allowing the French in to England to take over castles and land by force. With the death of John, his 9 year old son succeeds him and William Marshall becomes his Regent. I have read other books about William Marshall, and what I read here seemed to be in keeping (most writers seem to be in agreement at the kind of man he must have been).
Nicolaa of Lincoln and Matilda of Laxton were not weak females. I really liked how they were portrayed, and I enjoyed reading the chapters from their points of view as it showed how strong and independent they were. I really liked Father Barnards chapters too. It gave an objective look at how these two women reacted in their situations.
I am a real sucker for historical fiction, and I feel that this was a really well researched novel. There was nothing overly sensationalised, which made it more believable for me. I will probably read the next book in this series. I'm interested to see if there is more from these two impressive women.
Many thanks to Sapere Books for a copy of this book to read and review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 5, 2021
James Gunn returns with the sequel to 2016’s Suicide Squad. This time, the nefarious company woman Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), returns to Belle Reve to recruit the next iteration of Task Force X. Initially, we are introduced to the new recruits: Savant (Michael Rooker), Blackguard (Pete Davidson), Javelin (Flula Borg), Mongal (Mayling Ng), T.D.K. (Nathan Fillion) and The Weasel (Sean Gunn). We meet our favorites from the first film: Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney). They have signed on to be dropped into a small island nation, Corto Maltese.
This country, just taken over by a military coup has a lab with a 30-year secret weapon. Ms. Waller offers them years off each team member’s sentence to “Save the World”. Or, in this case, infiltrate Corto Maltese to find and destroy the project. Our hapless but highly skilled group lands and takes on heavy fire.
Meanwhile, we have Team B led by Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), King Shark (The physical, John Economos with the voice of Sylvester Stallone). As the separate teams go forth and bond in violence, we find out more about their personal childhood traumas that made them the criminals they have become.
This sequel has James Gunn’s DNA all over the film. He raised the bar from the first film by providing bright, visual treats. The action is violent in a cartoonish manner that buffers the impact when one looks at the many ways one can dispatch a human. The story goes from sarcasm, dry wit, demented clown to the stooges’ physical hilarity. As we watch the Squad fight their way across the island, there are points where these characters are skilled killers despite the humor in their murderous madness.
I was laughing throughout the film, it certainly felt like a panacea for these challenging times. Pay attention, there are little moments of snappy comebacks that feel like they’re from old-school Mad Magazine. The pace runs steadily which helps the dissonance become more impactful. The Suicide Squad was not boring, it was very entertaining and such a campy ride. FYI: there are TWO after-credit scenes.
The Soundtrack is so very good from the first shot, to the after credit, shotsThis Summer Blockbuster certainly delivers the entertainment.
4.75 out of 5 Stars
This country, just taken over by a military coup has a lab with a 30-year secret weapon. Ms. Waller offers them years off each team member’s sentence to “Save the World”. Or, in this case, infiltrate Corto Maltese to find and destroy the project. Our hapless but highly skilled group lands and takes on heavy fire.
Meanwhile, we have Team B led by Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), King Shark (The physical, John Economos with the voice of Sylvester Stallone). As the separate teams go forth and bond in violence, we find out more about their personal childhood traumas that made them the criminals they have become.
This sequel has James Gunn’s DNA all over the film. He raised the bar from the first film by providing bright, visual treats. The action is violent in a cartoonish manner that buffers the impact when one looks at the many ways one can dispatch a human. The story goes from sarcasm, dry wit, demented clown to the stooges’ physical hilarity. As we watch the Squad fight their way across the island, there are points where these characters are skilled killers despite the humor in their murderous madness.
I was laughing throughout the film, it certainly felt like a panacea for these challenging times. Pay attention, there are little moments of snappy comebacks that feel like they’re from old-school Mad Magazine. The pace runs steadily which helps the dissonance become more impactful. The Suicide Squad was not boring, it was very entertaining and such a campy ride. FYI: there are TWO after-credit scenes.
The Soundtrack is so very good from the first shot, to the after credit, shotsThis Summer Blockbuster certainly delivers the entertainment.
4.75 out of 5 Stars
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Pig (2021) in Movies
Nov 30, 2021
Nicolas Cage's placement within the zeitgeist is almost legendary at this point. His various unhinged performances over the decades have ensured that he's the go-to-guy for any movie with a whacky premise that needs a lead who will commit to the part, no matter how ludicrous. Pig is a film that has fallen a little foul of this. It's a film that had been mistakenly billed to me as "John Wick but with Nicolas Cage and a pig", a film that's very synopsis lends itself to the absurdity that surrounds Cage and his career.
The finished project however is an emotional and heartfelt triumph. For starters, the whole movie is shot beautifully with plenty of stunning cinematography on display. It verges into arthouse territory fairly regularly, but works hand in hand with the way the narrative chugs along, quite wonderfully.
The slower pace of proceedings is filled with great dialogue and great turns from the likes of Adam Arkin and the ever-reliable Alex Wolff, but make no mistake, Pig belongs to Cage 100%. His performance here is nothing short of fantastic. His character is layered, and aspects of him are slowly revealed as the story unfolds, and Cage delivers it all pretty flawlessly. No joke, probably his career highlight.
The tone is a rollercoaster, from optimism amongst sadness to flat out despair. The climactic scene in particular is an absolutly beautiful and emotional shit show, that lands perfectly thanks to its stellar cast.
Pig is a movie that I didn't expect to get me as much as it did. It's an incredibly competent, subtle, and well realised debut full-length feature from Michael Sarnoski, that I imagine will be criminally overlooked when awards season rolls around. Give Nicolas Cage an Oscar dammit!
The finished project however is an emotional and heartfelt triumph. For starters, the whole movie is shot beautifully with plenty of stunning cinematography on display. It verges into arthouse territory fairly regularly, but works hand in hand with the way the narrative chugs along, quite wonderfully.
The slower pace of proceedings is filled with great dialogue and great turns from the likes of Adam Arkin and the ever-reliable Alex Wolff, but make no mistake, Pig belongs to Cage 100%. His performance here is nothing short of fantastic. His character is layered, and aspects of him are slowly revealed as the story unfolds, and Cage delivers it all pretty flawlessly. No joke, probably his career highlight.
The tone is a rollercoaster, from optimism amongst sadness to flat out despair. The climactic scene in particular is an absolutly beautiful and emotional shit show, that lands perfectly thanks to its stellar cast.
Pig is a movie that I didn't expect to get me as much as it did. It's an incredibly competent, subtle, and well realised debut full-length feature from Michael Sarnoski, that I imagine will be criminally overlooked when awards season rolls around. Give Nicolas Cage an Oscar dammit!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Killer (2023) in Movies
Nov 18, 2023
Interesting...but ends with a "thud"
Director David Fincher has a strong track record of interesting films…SE7EN, FIGHT CLUB, THE SOCIAL NETWORK (to name a few). Michael Fassbender is one of the more interesting actors working today…HUNGER, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, PROMETHEUS (to name a few). So when these 2 got together to make a film of the graphic novel THE KILLER, anticipation was high.
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Olympus Has Fallen (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Mike Banning (Butler) is a Secret Service agent in the Presidential detail, and it could be argued a friend to the President; he even lands a punch in an opening boxing practice. All of that changes when, during a horrible automobile accident, the President’s wife is killed. Mike couldn’t save them both, so he chose to save the President. After making “the right call”, as his director (Angela Bassett) tells him; the President just couldn’t stand to be reminded of the failure and moves Mike to the Treasury. Mike wants back into the detail, and he gets his chance when a Korean terrorist infiltrates the White House and all of the fail safes in place to keep an incursion from happening. Banning jumps into action and becomes the only one left/able to save the President and his son.
Admittedly I am a Gerard Butler fan. I see this character as a watered-down, but trying really hard, version of John McLane ala Die Hard. Except the one liners feel forced, not funny, as does the unwarranted use of foul language. A New York cop is one thing for cursing, but it just doesn’t feel right seeing it come out of a Secret Service Agent. Morgan Freeman does an excellent job portraying a man making the tough decisions as Speaker Trumbull (the acting President for much of the movie); he makes mistakes and corrects his actions based on those mistakes. Aaron Eckhart is ok as the President, but doesn’t have the gravity needed to really pull that level of authority off; he is very much an every-man version of the President. His relationship with his son and that of Banning’s and the President’s son is very believable and heartfelt.
While action packed and fast paced; the plot is wholly unbelievable. Maybe I’m just an arrogant American, but I highly doubt the sheer number of protocols that were breached would actually happen. It felt like Eckhart’s character was overriding them through the whole attack sequence. I actually could believe the amount of time it took to respond to the call, but I’ve been to the North Lawn, and could see the snipers from the street and on the surrounding buildings. The White House is just too protected to make an assault like the one depicted.
I enjoyed the movie as long as I didn’t think too much about what was actually happening.
Admittedly I am a Gerard Butler fan. I see this character as a watered-down, but trying really hard, version of John McLane ala Die Hard. Except the one liners feel forced, not funny, as does the unwarranted use of foul language. A New York cop is one thing for cursing, but it just doesn’t feel right seeing it come out of a Secret Service Agent. Morgan Freeman does an excellent job portraying a man making the tough decisions as Speaker Trumbull (the acting President for much of the movie); he makes mistakes and corrects his actions based on those mistakes. Aaron Eckhart is ok as the President, but doesn’t have the gravity needed to really pull that level of authority off; he is very much an every-man version of the President. His relationship with his son and that of Banning’s and the President’s son is very believable and heartfelt.
While action packed and fast paced; the plot is wholly unbelievable. Maybe I’m just an arrogant American, but I highly doubt the sheer number of protocols that were breached would actually happen. It felt like Eckhart’s character was overriding them through the whole attack sequence. I actually could believe the amount of time it took to respond to the call, but I’ve been to the North Lawn, and could see the snipers from the street and on the surrounding buildings. The White House is just too protected to make an assault like the one depicted.
I enjoyed the movie as long as I didn’t think too much about what was actually happening.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Social Media involvement in political manipulation? Don’t be ridiculous!
Set in the near future “The Circle” tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said “like”!) Emma Watson (“Beauty and the Beast“) plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Doctor Who”) but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having “executive potential” by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“) and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt).
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Nov 13, 2020
2014 was a damn fine year for Marvel Studios in terms of quality, their two outputs being The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. They're just a big double-whammy example of how comic book movies can get things right.
GOTG was a very niche property before hand. A bunch of little know Marvel characters galavanting around space, with revolving line ups involving inconsistent degrees of absurdity. The fact that batshit crazy characters such as Groot and Rocket Raccoon are now household names is an indication of just how effective this movie was.
James Gunn proves that he is the man for the job by melding together his own signature style (alongside his regular collaborator Michael Rooker of course) with the tried and tested Marvel formula of big action, and frequent humour. It's a toss up between this and Thor Ragnarok for funniest MCU movie for sure. Nearly every joke lands well, and unlike the sequel, the humour is never overdone. The balance is near perfect.
The cast are mainly to thank for that of course. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, and the voice talents of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel make up the titular Guardians, and they are all unique and have intriguing back stories. They are well developed as the film plays out, and together make for an irreplaceable band of misfits.
The supporting cast include the aformentioned Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, John C. Reilly, Lee Pace, Glenn Close, Peter Serafinowicz, Sean Gunn, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro, and a first appearance by Josh Brolin as Thanos... It's another undeniably impressive ensemble cast for the MCU.
The special effects on display here are incredible. The whole film looks amazing and the big set pieces are hugely entertaining, and emotionally charged...These characters make a quick impression!
The only real criticism I have is that Ronan the Accuser, this films main antagonist, feels a little wasted. He looks great, and Lee Pace does the best with what he's given, but by the time the credits roll, he unfortunately joins the big pile of disposable MCU villains.
It's a small gripe when compared to all the good in this movie - that includes it's fantastic soundtrack by the way.
Guardians of the Galaxy is wonderful. It's proof that studios no longer have to rely on the big A-list names to make a great film, and as a result, this opened the doors for even more weird and wonderful characters to make their way into this behemoth of a series. One of my personal favourite MCU entries.
GOTG was a very niche property before hand. A bunch of little know Marvel characters galavanting around space, with revolving line ups involving inconsistent degrees of absurdity. The fact that batshit crazy characters such as Groot and Rocket Raccoon are now household names is an indication of just how effective this movie was.
James Gunn proves that he is the man for the job by melding together his own signature style (alongside his regular collaborator Michael Rooker of course) with the tried and tested Marvel formula of big action, and frequent humour. It's a toss up between this and Thor Ragnarok for funniest MCU movie for sure. Nearly every joke lands well, and unlike the sequel, the humour is never overdone. The balance is near perfect.
The cast are mainly to thank for that of course. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, and the voice talents of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel make up the titular Guardians, and they are all unique and have intriguing back stories. They are well developed as the film plays out, and together make for an irreplaceable band of misfits.
The supporting cast include the aformentioned Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, John C. Reilly, Lee Pace, Glenn Close, Peter Serafinowicz, Sean Gunn, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro, and a first appearance by Josh Brolin as Thanos... It's another undeniably impressive ensemble cast for the MCU.
The special effects on display here are incredible. The whole film looks amazing and the big set pieces are hugely entertaining, and emotionally charged...These characters make a quick impression!
The only real criticism I have is that Ronan the Accuser, this films main antagonist, feels a little wasted. He looks great, and Lee Pace does the best with what he's given, but by the time the credits roll, he unfortunately joins the big pile of disposable MCU villains.
It's a small gripe when compared to all the good in this movie - that includes it's fantastic soundtrack by the way.
Guardians of the Galaxy is wonderful. It's proof that studios no longer have to rely on the big A-list names to make a great film, and as a result, this opened the doors for even more weird and wonderful characters to make their way into this behemoth of a series. One of my personal favourite MCU entries.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) in Movies
Oct 15, 2019
In “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil”; Angelina Jolie returns as the title character to the smash Live-Action film based on the classic Fairy Tale and Animated film.
In the years since the last film ended; Aurora (Elle Fanning) has relished in her role as Princess over the Moors and all of the enchanted creatures that live within it. When she accepts a proposal from Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson), this sets off a chain of celebratory events as they all prepare for the big day which will unite the two lands.
Phillip’s parents King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) are eager for the union while Maleficent strongly opposes it and tells Aurora that there will be no wedding. When Aurora persists; Maleficent reluctantly accepts an invitation to dinner at the Castle where things soon go horribly wrong and Maleficent is accused of putting a curse on the King.
Injured while fleeing, Maleficent is wounded and takin in by others of her kind who are preparing for war against the humans as a dark and dangerous plan is underway and the survival of the enchanted creatures is threatened.
The film then becomes a tense adventure with plenty of action, magic, and fantasy which is a nice framework for the great visual effects of the film.
I had been concerned that the film might be too dark for the usual audience for this type of film and there are moments where my concerns are validated. However there is much more charm, fantasy and wonder in the film and if anyone has ever read the original Grimm Fairy Tales; they will know that this is considerably toned down compared to what they offered.
The film has some great visuals to it but they never overshadow the characters in the film as Jolie seems to be taking gleeful delight in playing the title character but allows herself to have some fun with the character at times which helps her emerge as a well-rounded character versus being a staple Fairy Tale Villain.
The film may take a bit of time getting up to the main events but it does so to give more time for the characters to develop which helps them stand out from the usual good/bad monikers given to many fantasy characters.
The supporting cast is solid especially the performances by Pfeiffer and Chiwetel Ejiofor who add much to the complexity of the film and also invoke many themes of discussion that mirrors what is happening in much of society today.
In the end the film delivers a strong performance by Jolie and plenty of magic to make this a modern Fairy Tale Disney classic in the making.
3.5 stars out of 5.
In the years since the last film ended; Aurora (Elle Fanning) has relished in her role as Princess over the Moors and all of the enchanted creatures that live within it. When she accepts a proposal from Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson), this sets off a chain of celebratory events as they all prepare for the big day which will unite the two lands.
Phillip’s parents King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) are eager for the union while Maleficent strongly opposes it and tells Aurora that there will be no wedding. When Aurora persists; Maleficent reluctantly accepts an invitation to dinner at the Castle where things soon go horribly wrong and Maleficent is accused of putting a curse on the King.
Injured while fleeing, Maleficent is wounded and takin in by others of her kind who are preparing for war against the humans as a dark and dangerous plan is underway and the survival of the enchanted creatures is threatened.
The film then becomes a tense adventure with plenty of action, magic, and fantasy which is a nice framework for the great visual effects of the film.
I had been concerned that the film might be too dark for the usual audience for this type of film and there are moments where my concerns are validated. However there is much more charm, fantasy and wonder in the film and if anyone has ever read the original Grimm Fairy Tales; they will know that this is considerably toned down compared to what they offered.
The film has some great visuals to it but they never overshadow the characters in the film as Jolie seems to be taking gleeful delight in playing the title character but allows herself to have some fun with the character at times which helps her emerge as a well-rounded character versus being a staple Fairy Tale Villain.
The film may take a bit of time getting up to the main events but it does so to give more time for the characters to develop which helps them stand out from the usual good/bad monikers given to many fantasy characters.
The supporting cast is solid especially the performances by Pfeiffer and Chiwetel Ejiofor who add much to the complexity of the film and also invoke many themes of discussion that mirrors what is happening in much of society today.
In the end the film delivers a strong performance by Jolie and plenty of magic to make this a modern Fairy Tale Disney classic in the making.
3.5 stars out of 5.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Horror Twist On A Classic Comic Book Icon
Brightburn is a 2019 superhero/horror movie produced by James Gunn and Kenneth Huang. It was directed by David Yarovesky with screenplay written by Mark and Brian Gunn. The film was produced by Screen Gems, Stage 6 Films, Troll Court Entertainment, and the H Collective. The movie stars Elizabeth Banks, David Denman, Jackson A. Dunn, Matt Jones and Meredith Hagnar.
Living in Brightburn, Kansas, Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Breyer (David Denman), a young farm couple, struggle with conceiving a child due to fertility issues. One night, a spaceship falls from the sky near their farm. A baby boy is found inside and the couple decide to adopt him and name him Brandon. Years later, it seems Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) is a typical young boy as he has been raised without the knowledge of his true origin. However this begins to change in very dramatic ways as the spaceship that he arrived in, hidden in a trapdoor in the barn, begins to glow and affect him disturbingly.
This movie was very much horror and with the R-rating it did not disappoint in that category. However for a superhero movie, I definitely felt it could have been better, especially when it came to the storytelling. I felt like the plot wasn't structured enough and it didn't always feel like it was going somewhere except for what it had shown through the trailers. You know, like it showed in the trailers the outcome and the journey to that outcome wasn't as fun or surprising as I thought it was going to be. The kill scenes though were very brutal, which for some reason I wasn't expecting as much, I guess because the one doing them is this super-powered 12 year old. But this was an awesome concept on a very familiar story that everyone has grown up with or heard, which is basically Superman. There are comics from DC and of Superman like Red Son Superman; where it's a "what if" Superman had landed in Russia instead of United States, and there is a Justice League animated film where instead of Superman, Kal-El, the baby that escapes Krypton is Generel Zod's child and instead of landing in Kansas he lands in New Mexico and is raised by Mexican migrant farmers. But I don't think there has been a story to explore this type of different way Superman could have grown up and it was shockingly entertaining to say the least. The mid-credits scene was really cool to see as well and know that the cinematic universe for Brightburn could expand if it does well financially. I'm thinking that it won't with stiff competition such as Aladdin and John Wick 3 but who knows. I give this film a 6/10.
Living in Brightburn, Kansas, Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Breyer (David Denman), a young farm couple, struggle with conceiving a child due to fertility issues. One night, a spaceship falls from the sky near their farm. A baby boy is found inside and the couple decide to adopt him and name him Brandon. Years later, it seems Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) is a typical young boy as he has been raised without the knowledge of his true origin. However this begins to change in very dramatic ways as the spaceship that he arrived in, hidden in a trapdoor in the barn, begins to glow and affect him disturbingly.
This movie was very much horror and with the R-rating it did not disappoint in that category. However for a superhero movie, I definitely felt it could have been better, especially when it came to the storytelling. I felt like the plot wasn't structured enough and it didn't always feel like it was going somewhere except for what it had shown through the trailers. You know, like it showed in the trailers the outcome and the journey to that outcome wasn't as fun or surprising as I thought it was going to be. The kill scenes though were very brutal, which for some reason I wasn't expecting as much, I guess because the one doing them is this super-powered 12 year old. But this was an awesome concept on a very familiar story that everyone has grown up with or heard, which is basically Superman. There are comics from DC and of Superman like Red Son Superman; where it's a "what if" Superman had landed in Russia instead of United States, and there is a Justice League animated film where instead of Superman, Kal-El, the baby that escapes Krypton is Generel Zod's child and instead of landing in Kansas he lands in New Mexico and is raised by Mexican migrant farmers. But I don't think there has been a story to explore this type of different way Superman could have grown up and it was shockingly entertaining to say the least. The mid-credits scene was really cool to see as well and know that the cinematic universe for Brightburn could expand if it does well financially. I'm thinking that it won't with stiff competition such as Aladdin and John Wick 3 but who knows. I give this film a 6/10.