Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Love Actually (2003) in Movies
Dec 22, 2018
Heartwarmingly brilliant
Love Actually is one of those films where i never understand how people couldn’t like it. It’s so heartwarming and sweet and romantic, with such a variety of different stories centring around love and relationships. Not only that but it’s also pretty hilarious at times and very witty too, and has a phenomenal cast. The amount of acting talent in this is second to none, and how can you really go wrong with a film that has Bill Nighy, Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman and many many others in the cast? The only real negative to the cast is sadly Keira Knightley, who I’ve never rated and she isn’t very good in this, although fortunately she isn’t in it that much.
This is a Christmas film that doesn’t go too over the top with the Christmas feels (mainly thanks to Billy Mack) and for me I see it more of a rom-com first rather than a Christmas film. But it’s still a brilliant film, although it does get me hoping that an Andrew Lincoln or Colin Firth lookalike will turn up at my door one day...
This is a Christmas film that doesn’t go too over the top with the Christmas feels (mainly thanks to Billy Mack) and for me I see it more of a rom-com first rather than a Christmas film. But it’s still a brilliant film, although it does get me hoping that an Andrew Lincoln or Colin Firth lookalike will turn up at my door one day...
Alan Turing: The Enigma: The Book That Inspired the Film, the Imitation Game
Book
This is the official book that inspired the film The Imitation Game, which stars Benedict...
The Theatre of Martin Crimp
Book
First published in 2006, Alek's Sierz's The Theatre of Martin Crimp provided a groundbreaking study...
Sex versus Survival: The Life and Ideas of Sabina Spielrein
Book
Who was Sabina Spielrein? Her dramatic life story is most famous for her notorious affair with Carl...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) in Movies
Nov 19, 2019 (Updated Nov 20, 2019)
Drunk Johnny Part 2
Yo-Ho, what do you get when you based you movie off of a disney ride, a great movie. Yes you read the correctly, this movie is based off of the ride at disney. So how does a 20-30 minute ride turn into a 2h and 40min movie, well you ride the ride a bunch of times, than evently you get to the 2h and 40min mark. Im kidding, dont do that, instead watch this movie. Plus you get more drunking Johnny Depp or Johnny Depp playing pirate Keith Richards, so thats always good.
This movie is great and is better from the first one, coming off the first one, this one has more action, comedy, adventure and overall a better plot and a excellent villian.
The Plot: When ghostly pirate Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) comes to collect a blood debt, Capt. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) must find a way to avoid his fate lest his soul be damned for all time. Nevertheless, the wily ghost manages to interrupt the wedding plans of Jack's friends Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley).
Bill Nighy is excellent as Davy Jones, i love the charcter and his haterd against Jack Sparrow.
This film was shot back-to-back with the third film of the series, At World's End.
Its a excellent movie and highly reccordmend it.
This movie is great and is better from the first one, coming off the first one, this one has more action, comedy, adventure and overall a better plot and a excellent villian.
The Plot: When ghostly pirate Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) comes to collect a blood debt, Capt. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) must find a way to avoid his fate lest his soul be damned for all time. Nevertheless, the wily ghost manages to interrupt the wedding plans of Jack's friends Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley).
Bill Nighy is excellent as Davy Jones, i love the charcter and his haterd against Jack Sparrow.
This film was shot back-to-back with the third film of the series, At World's End.
Its a excellent movie and highly reccordmend it.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End (2007) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Drunk Johnny Part 3
This one, this one is my favorite out of all of them. Let my explain, this one ends the trilogy, this one continues off from the second movie and does it excellently. This one has the most epic battle out of all the movies, this one you see the chacters at their best, you see them at their peak, you see them battle for their lives. You see Keith Richards in this one, wait what? Yes you read that correctly, Keith Richards is in this one and he plays as Captain Jack Sparrow's Father, of course he does. Cause Johnny Depp is playing a drunk verison of pirate Keith Richard's. Anyways the plot:
Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) join forces with Capt. Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) to free Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from Davy Jones' locker. Meanwhile, the crew of the Flying Dutchman ghost ship wreaks havoc on the Seven Seas. The friends must navigate dangerous waters to confront Chinese pirate Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat) and, ultimately, they must choose sides in a battle where
in the pirate life hangs in the balance.
At World's End is the pefect title for a perfect trilogy and should of ending with this one, but nope had to make two more after this one.
Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) join forces with Capt. Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) to free Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from Davy Jones' locker. Meanwhile, the crew of the Flying Dutchman ghost ship wreaks havoc on the Seven Seas. The friends must navigate dangerous waters to confront Chinese pirate Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat) and, ultimately, they must choose sides in a battle where
in the pirate life hangs in the balance.
At World's End is the pefect title for a perfect trilogy and should of ending with this one, but nope had to make two more after this one.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)
6.9
Rate It
Movie Watch
Johnny Depp returns to the big screen as the iconic, swashbuckling anti-hero Jack Sparrow in the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colette (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“The hand that holds the pen writes history”.
Colette is yet another tale of female empowerment: a woman with real talent trying to break out of the gilded cage she finds herself trapped in.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aftermath (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Is there a period piece that Keira Knightley has ever turned down? After seeing her in Colette I retrieved her from the Nutcracker trash can I'd thrown her into and actually looked forward to whatever I was going to see her in next. I sort of wish it hadn't been this film though.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Dangerous Method (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Dangerous Method starts as Sabine Spielrein (Knightley) is to an asylum where she is treated by Carl Jung (Fassbender) for her irrational reaction to any stimulation. In the search for answers Carl turns to Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) who has been an expert in the sexual disorders people are meant to have.
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Lee (2222 KP) Dec 23, 2018