Search
Search results
Rickey A. Mossow Jr. (689 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
May 21, 2019
Tough watch...
Let me preface by saying I'm a fan and thoroughly enjoyed the Harry Potter franchise. The first of the Fantastic Beast series was passable at best so my expectations were low, to say the least heading into the sequel. And this film hit that low spot like a dart to a bullseye. I enjoy many of the actors and actresses in the movie, too. Redmayne does a great job and I really don't mind Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. But this movie is just a dark and confusing slog from start to finish. Every time you get to the point where you think you're about to give up on caring, they are like "Look, we have a cute creature." These little cute distractions are the highlight and lone fun part of the film. My ending thought with the closing credits was the same as it was for its predecessor: I wish Deathly Hallows would have been the end of this franchise. This is just blasphemy to Potterheads everywhere.
Elli H Burton (1288 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Oct 28, 2019
Gives a fresh glimpse into the world the AMAZING JK Rowling created (1 more)
Definitely feel the casting was done well.
Dumbledamn.
Lets start with the fact that this film has Johnny Deep in it, yet it's not another Depp film. He fits in the role well I think, I mean, I know it's Johnny Depp and the man is fantastic but sometimes an actor of his caliber can stick out like a sore thumb but he slots in nicely.
Eddie Redmayne is just one of the best actors England, NO the world has ever seen and he plays Newt FLAWLESSLY.
The story is fascinating, not just this film but the first as well, we all thought we knew so much about the Harry Potter universe but FB lets us explore the world even more which as a huge fan, I craved.
I love how dark the film is yet the lighter parts don't seem out of place. The choices the producers made in the way it is shot is magical in itself (I don't like spoilers so I hope if you have seen it or will be seeing it you will see what I mean).
As it has been confirmed there will be a 3rd installment of the FB franchise, I feel I can say without spoiling it that the ending was great. It had that "What???! I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?!" feeling.
Another thing I like is that theres not a majorly star studded cast. I feel when films have big names left right and center it can sort of, over shadow the actual brilliance of the writing/ acting/ storyline /production. It just has good actors.
Eddie Redmayne is just one of the best actors England, NO the world has ever seen and he plays Newt FLAWLESSLY.
The story is fascinating, not just this film but the first as well, we all thought we knew so much about the Harry Potter universe but FB lets us explore the world even more which as a huge fan, I craved.
I love how dark the film is yet the lighter parts don't seem out of place. The choices the producers made in the way it is shot is magical in itself (I don't like spoilers so I hope if you have seen it or will be seeing it you will see what I mean).
As it has been confirmed there will be a 3rd installment of the FB franchise, I feel I can say without spoiling it that the ending was great. It had that "What???! I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?!" feeling.
Another thing I like is that theres not a majorly star studded cast. I feel when films have big names left right and center it can sort of, over shadow the actual brilliance of the writing/ acting/ storyline /production. It just has good actors.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Edward Scissorhands (1990) in Movies
Apr 23, 2020
Has more heart than later Burton/Depp collaborations
There have been many actor/director long term collaborations through the years - John Ford/John Wayne, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro and Alfred Hitchock/Jimmy Stewart all come to mind. Another interesting collaboration is the unique one between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. The films these 2 have made have shown an "outsider" being introduced into an environment - usually in a quirky and gothic dark manner. So it was interesting to go back to the film that started it all - 1990's EDWARD SCISSORHANDS.
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Yoga Hosers (2016) in Movies
Jan 31, 2018
Not too much to laugh aboot
When I sit down to watch a comedy/horror film, i usually laugh a little at some of the jokes. But being Canadian... I found this movie offensive as hell......
Not really. I found it subpar and slightly stupid.
Kevin Smith is and always will be one of my favorite writer/directors. His earlier films, Clerks, Mallrats and Chasing Amy are right up there with some of my favorite flicks. Amd his attempt at horror, Red State, was a really good try at entering a genre that he doesn't have much business being in.
Don't even get me started on Tusk... What the fuck?!?!
This is kind of a sequel to the aforementioned walrus horror flick. A few characters from Tusk are in it. Including the Colleens, the pair of Zed Convenience store employees, who are now thrust into the main character roles.
The only light in this dark tunnel is Justin Long who plays Yoga Guru, Yogi Bayer... His portrayalof him is pretty awesome... right down to arguing on the phone with a lawyer from Warner Brothers about violating copyright infringement for his name... it's pretty sweet.
Johnny Depp returns to the sequel as Guy Lapointe French Canadian manhunter... and he is horrid...
Didn't think it was possible for that to happen.
So watch at your own risk.
Not really. I found it subpar and slightly stupid.
Kevin Smith is and always will be one of my favorite writer/directors. His earlier films, Clerks, Mallrats and Chasing Amy are right up there with some of my favorite flicks. Amd his attempt at horror, Red State, was a really good try at entering a genre that he doesn't have much business being in.
Don't even get me started on Tusk... What the fuck?!?!
This is kind of a sequel to the aforementioned walrus horror flick. A few characters from Tusk are in it. Including the Colleens, the pair of Zed Convenience store employees, who are now thrust into the main character roles.
The only light in this dark tunnel is Justin Long who plays Yoga Guru, Yogi Bayer... His portrayalof him is pretty awesome... right down to arguing on the phone with a lawyer from Warner Brothers about violating copyright infringement for his name... it's pretty sweet.
Johnny Depp returns to the sequel as Guy Lapointe French Canadian manhunter... and he is horrid...
Didn't think it was possible for that to happen.
So watch at your own risk.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Rings (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Going in I have to admit I had the lowest expectations for this movie. And indeed it starts off seeming like a complete joke with a scene on a plane that is reminiscent of “Snakes on Plane” but with an evil spirit, flies, and black sludge instead of snakes. The theater filled with laughter for the first five minutes.
A plot about a film that kills people who watch it is in itself offputtingly hokey. Previously I was never a fan of “The Ring” or “The Ring 2,” and I did not find either of them memorable to say the least. But, this sequel starts off in such a comedic fashion that most people will no longer have expectations to be scared. But this may not be a bad thing at all.
After the first few scenes something happens, and the film begins to be more artsy rather than hokey. Trippy effects like rain flowing upward or weird black liquid that almost looks like melted latex flowing out each time the evil spirit is coming, make this a surreal piece of entertainment. This film is actually best described as a modern day dark fairy tale and not a horror film.
Parts of the plot are very dark as you learn the complete story of Samara. Themes of captivity, murder, infanticide, and child molestation subtly peak into the plot. But it does not delve too far into these aspects which could have been truly twisted, instead it veers off into a more modern theme.
A college professor, Gabriel (Johnny Galecki), who teaches an experimental biology course and studies the afterlife, discovers the deadly film when he buys an old VCR. After watching it himself he comes up with a creative way of keeping himself and others who watch it alive. Hint – it involves a selfish pattern of sacrifice, which is a bit darkly comedic but also a realistic and shadowy reflection of human nature.
“Rings” is no horror masterpiece, but it is entertaining, unique, and a tad bit creepy.
A plot about a film that kills people who watch it is in itself offputtingly hokey. Previously I was never a fan of “The Ring” or “The Ring 2,” and I did not find either of them memorable to say the least. But, this sequel starts off in such a comedic fashion that most people will no longer have expectations to be scared. But this may not be a bad thing at all.
After the first few scenes something happens, and the film begins to be more artsy rather than hokey. Trippy effects like rain flowing upward or weird black liquid that almost looks like melted latex flowing out each time the evil spirit is coming, make this a surreal piece of entertainment. This film is actually best described as a modern day dark fairy tale and not a horror film.
Parts of the plot are very dark as you learn the complete story of Samara. Themes of captivity, murder, infanticide, and child molestation subtly peak into the plot. But it does not delve too far into these aspects which could have been truly twisted, instead it veers off into a more modern theme.
A college professor, Gabriel (Johnny Galecki), who teaches an experimental biology course and studies the afterlife, discovers the deadly film when he buys an old VCR. After watching it himself he comes up with a creative way of keeping himself and others who watch it alive. Hint – it involves a selfish pattern of sacrifice, which is a bit darkly comedic but also a realistic and shadowy reflection of human nature.
“Rings” is no horror masterpiece, but it is entertaining, unique, and a tad bit creepy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dark Shadows (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Tim Burton has always been one of my all time favorite directors because of his strange-yet-humorous nature and the frequent use of my favorite actor, Johnny Depp. For the last decade or so we have been plagued with remakes of stories that we are all familiar with and the only thing that makes them different is the addition of the iconic Tim Burton style. Once again Tim Burton brings us yet another remake, only this time of the 70’s cult classic soap opera Dark Shadows.
Frequent collaborator, Johnny Depp, stars as Barnabas Collins in a role previously made famous by Jonathan Frid. Barnabas Collins and his parents leave Liverpool in 1760 for New Hampshire, in an attempt to expand their family business. They succeed and become the wealthiest family in the area, resulting in the town getting named after the family. Barnabas was a ladies’ man and scorned the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green) by falling in love with Josette DuPres (Bella Heathcote). Unbeknownst to him, Angelique is a witch and out of pure jealousy, she kills his one true love and has cursed Barnabas to be a vampire so that his suffering would be endless. Angelique rallies the townspeople to bury Barnabas alive.
After nearly 200 years, Barnabas is accidently unearthed in the year 1972. He heads to the one place that he can call home and encounters the remaining four dysfunctional members of his family and discovers that his family estate is in jeopardy. Barnabas soon learns that the evil person behind all his families turmoil is none other than Angelique herself.
Though this film does have the quirky Burton-esque feel that we are all familiar with, it lacks his signature energy. The plot itself is long and drawn out and makes the first half of the movie extremely slow and boring. Now don’t get me wrong, Depp did manage to slip in more than a few funny lines but even his best work was a strained attempt at humor. I do, on the other hand, appreciate that Burton brought back the original vampire myths, with all the burning in the sunlight and not being able to see a reflection. Though the script and story itself leaves much to be desired, Johnny Depp is as funny as the story and/or script allows him to be and as Barnabas, he carries the movie. Even Michelle Pfeiffer and Helena Bonham Carter couldn’t help save this movie from the pedantic pace of a very uneven but predictable story. Equally disappointing was the waste of the perfect casting of Chloe Moretz as Michelle’s daughter. Even though she looked and sounded a lot like her movie mom, she wasn’t given much to do but sulk and glare.
Even though you will experience an entertaining blast from the past with the characters, soundtrack and fashions, it is best to say that this film should be left as a rental. Being such a huge fan of Burton’s kooky and imaginative world, it sure pains me to say that this movie is a bit of a train wreck and lacks the enchanting storytelling that we’ve come to expect from him.
Frequent collaborator, Johnny Depp, stars as Barnabas Collins in a role previously made famous by Jonathan Frid. Barnabas Collins and his parents leave Liverpool in 1760 for New Hampshire, in an attempt to expand their family business. They succeed and become the wealthiest family in the area, resulting in the town getting named after the family. Barnabas was a ladies’ man and scorned the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green) by falling in love with Josette DuPres (Bella Heathcote). Unbeknownst to him, Angelique is a witch and out of pure jealousy, she kills his one true love and has cursed Barnabas to be a vampire so that his suffering would be endless. Angelique rallies the townspeople to bury Barnabas alive.
After nearly 200 years, Barnabas is accidently unearthed in the year 1972. He heads to the one place that he can call home and encounters the remaining four dysfunctional members of his family and discovers that his family estate is in jeopardy. Barnabas soon learns that the evil person behind all his families turmoil is none other than Angelique herself.
Though this film does have the quirky Burton-esque feel that we are all familiar with, it lacks his signature energy. The plot itself is long and drawn out and makes the first half of the movie extremely slow and boring. Now don’t get me wrong, Depp did manage to slip in more than a few funny lines but even his best work was a strained attempt at humor. I do, on the other hand, appreciate that Burton brought back the original vampire myths, with all the burning in the sunlight and not being able to see a reflection. Though the script and story itself leaves much to be desired, Johnny Depp is as funny as the story and/or script allows him to be and as Barnabas, he carries the movie. Even Michelle Pfeiffer and Helena Bonham Carter couldn’t help save this movie from the pedantic pace of a very uneven but predictable story. Equally disappointing was the waste of the perfect casting of Chloe Moretz as Michelle’s daughter. Even though she looked and sounded a lot like her movie mom, she wasn’t given much to do but sulk and glare.
Even though you will experience an entertaining blast from the past with the characters, soundtrack and fashions, it is best to say that this film should be left as a rental. Being such a huge fan of Burton’s kooky and imaginative world, it sure pains me to say that this movie is a bit of a train wreck and lacks the enchanting storytelling that we’ve come to expect from him.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Some of the lighting is well implemented (1 more)
Colin Farrell
Bad CGI (2 more)
The movies 3 leads are extremely annoying
Johnny 'oooh' Depp
Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them - Or JK Rowling and the Never Ending Quest for More Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, full disclosure, I have never been a fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I’ve read a few of the books and seen a few of the movies and it just isn’t my thing. Honestly, I’m not even a fan of fantasy in general, I think Lord Of The Rings is nonsense and Game Of Thrones is vastly overrated and the last Harry Potter movie I saw was the fourth one. However, I was willing to go into this movie with a clean slate and hopefully have it win me over and unfortunately it didn’t. Also this review will contain spoilers if you care about that sort of thing.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-79.png"/>;
I don’t always read poetry, but I won "It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" by Casey Renee Kiser and Johnny Scarlotti through a giveaway on LibraryThing.
And if you are already familiar with my “reading rules”, you know I try and read every single book I have ever received, because it’s only fair. And sometimes, the most unexpected books and the ones we don’t actively search for tend to surprise us the most. That happened with this book as well!
"It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" is written by two authors - two amazing writers of poetry, who have a very similar style of horror and suspense, but also very distinctive differences in their writing style too. The book is split in two parts, and we get the chance to explore both worlds.
<b>Part 1 - Casey Renee Kiser</b>
The first part of the book was written by Casey Renee Kiser, and my favorite poem was “I am not a ghost yet”. It is morbid and powerful, and I loved the way the feelings and scenes were amplified in a morbid sense. I love the brutality of the writing.
<b><i>“Everything was beautiful the day you died”,
You said as you touched my cold hand. </i></b>
<b>Part 2 - Johnny Scarlotti</b>
I could instantly see the difference in the poems between the two poets, but at the same time, also admire how similar their styles and themes are. I find Johnny’s writing very creepy, much creepier than Casey’s. Especially when the mood suddenly changes and the random “haha’s” and “woahh’s” in the poems appear.
<b><i>Now I’m dashing through the park clipping
Children’s kite strings
Ha ha, that’s what you get, you little freaks!</i></b>
It felt like I was reading the secret diary of the Joker. Either him, or Pennywise. It was so fucked up, but it read as the new normal, which is what a psycho would think and feel. It was creepy, it was wrong, but at the same time it satisfied my curiosity. I think that may be the same curiosity that makes me watch true crime shows, crime confessions and old interview with Ted Bundy. And I really enjoyed it.
If I could change anything about my experience with this book, I would have read this for Halloween. I think it would have been the perfect experience, next to a lot of red candles and dim lighting, alongside some quiet creepy music.
I would recommend "It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" to all fans of horror poetry - it is dark and twisty, brutally honest and creepy, and it will pull you over to the dark side, even for a day.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-79.png"/>;
I don’t always read poetry, but I won "It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" by Casey Renee Kiser and Johnny Scarlotti through a giveaway on LibraryThing.
And if you are already familiar with my “reading rules”, you know I try and read every single book I have ever received, because it’s only fair. And sometimes, the most unexpected books and the ones we don’t actively search for tend to surprise us the most. That happened with this book as well!
"It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" is written by two authors - two amazing writers of poetry, who have a very similar style of horror and suspense, but also very distinctive differences in their writing style too. The book is split in two parts, and we get the chance to explore both worlds.
<b>Part 1 - Casey Renee Kiser</b>
The first part of the book was written by Casey Renee Kiser, and my favorite poem was “I am not a ghost yet”. It is morbid and powerful, and I loved the way the feelings and scenes were amplified in a morbid sense. I love the brutality of the writing.
<b><i>“Everything was beautiful the day you died”,
You said as you touched my cold hand. </i></b>
<b>Part 2 - Johnny Scarlotti</b>
I could instantly see the difference in the poems between the two poets, but at the same time, also admire how similar their styles and themes are. I find Johnny’s writing very creepy, much creepier than Casey’s. Especially when the mood suddenly changes and the random “haha’s” and “woahh’s” in the poems appear.
<b><i>Now I’m dashing through the park clipping
Children’s kite strings
Ha ha, that’s what you get, you little freaks!</i></b>
It felt like I was reading the secret diary of the Joker. Either him, or Pennywise. It was so fucked up, but it read as the new normal, which is what a psycho would think and feel. It was creepy, it was wrong, but at the same time it satisfied my curiosity. I think that may be the same curiosity that makes me watch true crime shows, crime confessions and old interview with Ted Bundy. And I really enjoyed it.
If I could change anything about my experience with this book, I would have read this for Halloween. I think it would have been the perfect experience, next to a lot of red candles and dim lighting, alongside some quiet creepy music.
I would recommend "It's Getting Harder and Harder To Tell the Two of You Apart" to all fans of horror poetry - it is dark and twisty, brutally honest and creepy, and it will pull you over to the dark side, even for a day.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Brilliant
Director Matthew Vaughn has brought some visually striking films to the big screen in his fairly short career, from the brilliant Layer Cake, to the movie which many credit as saving the X-Men franchise, First Class, he certainly knows his way around a camera.
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
It is an inevitability in life that eventually you will watch all the films in the Harry Potter world, whether you want to or not. Mostly, I want to, but do find them a little difficult to hold in my mind as separate entities. I remember that I saw each one and generally enjoyed the magic and inventiveness of them, but pushed to identify which set piece happens in which film would probably stump me.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the first of the extended world of J. K. Rowling’s wizarding wonderland, is no exception. Couldn’t tell you a single thing that happened, having seen it once over a year ago. But I can tell you I thought it was slightly better than I thought it would be. And the same goes for the sequel, which I thought had a nice balance of the dark and light elements, and some really entertaining sequences.
Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander particularly impresses me in this context, being such a mild mannered hero, with a twinkle in his eye and hidden depths: an interesting character to observe. As do Johnny Depp, as the titular Grindelwald, and Jude Law as a younger Dumbledore – two ageing actors it is becoming increasingly hard to cast these days, but who are very well placed here. There is also some nice support from Ezra Miller and Katherine Waterston, both of who I wish would do more high profile stuff and Zoë Kravitz, who keeps popping up on my radar.
Of course, the effects are pretty good: this franchise has a few quid. And David Yates knows his way around this stuff competently enough by now, it being his 6th film in the Potter universe. He is also already signed on for a further 3 of these, making it a very lively franchise, with one film a year scheduled for the foreseeable future. I have no argument with them. They don’t change the world, but as distracting entertainment they are perfectly fine. I know I’d be chuffed as a parent of a youngish child that at least something semi intelligent and magical was out there.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the first of the extended world of J. K. Rowling’s wizarding wonderland, is no exception. Couldn’t tell you a single thing that happened, having seen it once over a year ago. But I can tell you I thought it was slightly better than I thought it would be. And the same goes for the sequel, which I thought had a nice balance of the dark and light elements, and some really entertaining sequences.
Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander particularly impresses me in this context, being such a mild mannered hero, with a twinkle in his eye and hidden depths: an interesting character to observe. As do Johnny Depp, as the titular Grindelwald, and Jude Law as a younger Dumbledore – two ageing actors it is becoming increasingly hard to cast these days, but who are very well placed here. There is also some nice support from Ezra Miller and Katherine Waterston, both of who I wish would do more high profile stuff and Zoë Kravitz, who keeps popping up on my radar.
Of course, the effects are pretty good: this franchise has a few quid. And David Yates knows his way around this stuff competently enough by now, it being his 6th film in the Potter universe. He is also already signed on for a further 3 of these, making it a very lively franchise, with one film a year scheduled for the foreseeable future. I have no argument with them. They don’t change the world, but as distracting entertainment they are perfectly fine. I know I’d be chuffed as a parent of a youngish child that at least something semi intelligent and magical was out there.