Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
Solid performances (1 more)
Beautifully shot
An average movie with some great performances
Kenneth Brannagh steals the show on Murder on the Orient Express, which is all the more remarkable when you consider he's pulling double duty here being the star and the director. His rendition of the greatest detective of all time, Poirot, is note perfect and almost always performed with a degre of a nuance that keeps him feeling like a real and grounded individual. He's backed up by a strong supporting cast that all do their best with limited screen time to bring something special to a script that doesn't always give them the most to work with.
It's the script here that I feel is the largest problem. Being a murder mystery, it's integral that all the pieces slot together so that by the time the killer reveal comes along- it feels earned. It's here where the movie really stumbles. Being an adaptation, it doesn't have much wriggle room when it comes to who the killer is, but when the movie draws to a close and we learn who's responsible, it comes across as a quite a weak resolution. The story hadn't built up to a point where it all feels real and instead it comes across as a random resolution that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Still though, its an enjoyable watch. I would however be interested to hear what others who are already familiar with the story feel about it.
It's the script here that I feel is the largest problem. Being a murder mystery, it's integral that all the pieces slot together so that by the time the killer reveal comes along- it feels earned. It's here where the movie really stumbles. Being an adaptation, it doesn't have much wriggle room when it comes to who the killer is, but when the movie draws to a close and we learn who's responsible, it comes across as a quite a weak resolution. The story hadn't built up to a point where it all feels real and instead it comes across as a random resolution that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Still though, its an enjoyable watch. I would however be interested to hear what others who are already familiar with the story feel about it.
Mark Halpern (153 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jan 26, 2018
Exceptional remake
Based on the famous book written by Agatha Christie Novel Murder On The Orient Express. The story of thirteen different strangers and one famous Detective are on one of the most luxurious trains in the eastern hemisphere. One man gets murdered and it is up to famous detective Hercule Poirot to solve the case. The train passengers contain a mixture of classes from a Princess, to countess, a Doctor, a Dancer, The valet, The professor, the gold digger a antiquities dealer and a nurse, a governess, a Count, the Italian fan and the Conductor. They are the suspects in this cold blooded murder. During the murder the an avalanche knocks the train off the tracks and during this is when the body is discovered. It is this stoppage of time that allows our Hero to question the suspects and try to make sense of all the evidence what ever there maybe.
I can't divulge more because there are so many different plot points that it would ruin the chance for you to see the movie and enjoy it.
The Book can never be beat, The first movie was ok but, the remake was fantastic. Stars Melanie Griffith, Judi Dench, William Dafoe, Daisy Ridley, Johnny Deep, Josh Gad, Penople Cruz and Kenneth Branagh. This is an excellent cast for this movie and it is amazing. I do suggest you read the book first but, that is just a suggestion
I can't divulge more because there are so many different plot points that it would ruin the chance for you to see the movie and enjoy it.
The Book can never be beat, The first movie was ok but, the remake was fantastic. Stars Melanie Griffith, Judi Dench, William Dafoe, Daisy Ridley, Johnny Deep, Josh Gad, Penople Cruz and Kenneth Branagh. This is an excellent cast for this movie and it is amazing. I do suggest you read the book first but, that is just a suggestion
Lindsay (1693 KP) rated The Nutcracker Conspiracy in Books
Jan 25, 2020
Are you a fan of Murphy and Jessica? Then do not look much further than that of Lauren Carr. The Thorny Rose Mystery is picked up once again. We find that Murphy and Jessica are in the thick of things once again in “The Nutcracker Conspiracy”.
The plot seems to be interconnected a bit. Is it just that or is it two different things but involvement. This book seems too real like it really as if I am in real-world experience in my time. There seem to be Jessica who seems to in the middle of defending her friend Amy and her friend Kenneth. When her house is blown up and her husband is killed? Is it Amy that plotted it or is it someone else?
Murphy seems to be trying to find out who killed not one person but several different people. I seem to like this what my real-life government might be doing in a fictional tale. I hope not. But the plot seems to involve more than just the murder but also doing something called a spy ring?
What is the PEAA group? Will Murphy and Jessica come out of this okay and survive? This book has it all. It got surprises and twists and turns from beginning to end. We even get Chris Matheson involved to a point. What is going on? What happens with the President's assassination attempt?
The plot seems to be interconnected a bit. Is it just that or is it two different things but involvement. This book seems too real like it really as if I am in real-world experience in my time. There seem to be Jessica who seems to in the middle of defending her friend Amy and her friend Kenneth. When her house is blown up and her husband is killed? Is it Amy that plotted it or is it someone else?
Murphy seems to be trying to find out who killed not one person but several different people. I seem to like this what my real-life government might be doing in a fictional tale. I hope not. But the plot seems to involve more than just the murder but also doing something called a spy ring?
What is the PEAA group? Will Murphy and Jessica come out of this okay and survive? This book has it all. It got surprises and twists and turns from beginning to end. We even get Chris Matheson involved to a point. What is going on? What happens with the President's assassination attempt?
David McK (3207 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express in Books
Dec 27, 2021
As a general rule, I'm not really big into murder mystery whodunnits, generally finding them boring, (sometimes) obvious and just, well, generally a little bit stale.
That may be why I'd never read perhaps Agatha Christie's most famous murder story before, or even had any interest in which any of the (numerous) films, TV series or plays based around the same.
Which is a long way of saying that I came into this 'cold', as it were, knowing little beyond the fact that it was a Hercule Poirot mystery (thanks to the 2017 Kenneth Branagh movie, which I hadn't seen), and that the murder was on a train (d'uh!) just as it ran into snow whilst on a journey.
Now that I've read it, I have to say: I found little to cause me to revise my opinion of murder mysteries in general.
That's not to say that it is bad, per se, just that it never really hooked me all that much: indeed, at times it felt more like a chore to read than something enjoyable. Indeed, I'm sorry to say, the reveal of just who carried out the crime also completely failed to elicit any form of surprise or emotion at all from me: not that I saw it coming but just that, well, it almost felt like a relief when it did.
All I can say is: sorry, any Poirot fans!
That may be why I'd never read perhaps Agatha Christie's most famous murder story before, or even had any interest in which any of the (numerous) films, TV series or plays based around the same.
Which is a long way of saying that I came into this 'cold', as it were, knowing little beyond the fact that it was a Hercule Poirot mystery (thanks to the 2017 Kenneth Branagh movie, which I hadn't seen), and that the murder was on a train (d'uh!) just as it ran into snow whilst on a journey.
Now that I've read it, I have to say: I found little to cause me to revise my opinion of murder mysteries in general.
That's not to say that it is bad, per se, just that it never really hooked me all that much: indeed, at times it felt more like a chore to read than something enjoyable. Indeed, I'm sorry to say, the reveal of just who carried out the crime also completely failed to elicit any form of surprise or emotion at all from me: not that I saw it coming but just that, well, it almost felt like a relief when it did.
All I can say is: sorry, any Poirot fans!
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Die of Death in Books
Oct 2, 2020
The Die of Death is the second book from The Great Devil War Series, written by Kenneth B. Andersen. If you have read my review of the first book, The Devil’s Apprentice, you would be familiar with Philip.
Philip is a good boy, but he ends up in Hell by mistake. And on top of that, he is chosen to be the Devil’s Apprentice. Even though he’s always be good, he is not good at being bad. A danger occurs in Hell and the Devil is dying. When Philip solves the mystery, he returns on Earth to continue his normal life.
But when the future of the underworld is threatened once again, they need Philip’s help. Death’s Die has been stolen, the one that decides when each person is going to die. Because of that, immortality is now spreading. Philip goes back to hell to solve the mystery, but during his adventures he discovers some horrible truths…
I really have no clue why it took me quite a long time to get to the second book, but I am so happy that I finally got to read it, and endeavour this story.
It is so unique and I am in love!
The chapters just flow through – even better than the first book – and within minutes you are captured in this world, full of good and evil, or decisions being made that question your moral time and time again, in a very understandable way for young adults as well.
The story of the Die of Death, and the scenes related to it were my favourite. I love what Kenneth created, and how Death rolls a dice at the beginning of each life, that determines how many years each person gets to live. I loved how everyone had their own hourglasses and the mysterious snake that guards them.
We get to see the Purgatory in this book too. Only for a moment, but it was wonderful to read about it. It reminded me so much of Dante’s inferno, and I loved it! There was also the theory of reincarnation, told by a dog – a scene that was quite powerful! We even got a glimpse of Heavan, a few mentions here and there, that made me want to know more.
I like Philip as a character, but Satina was my hero! She has the best comment on everything, and they make such a good team with Philip. Also – did you know Hell has its own newspaper? It’s called Hell Times! So cool!
I loved this book. I cherish it. And I can’t wait to see what happens next and I highly recommend it to you – especially this month, as it’s Spooky October already!
Philip is a good boy, but he ends up in Hell by mistake. And on top of that, he is chosen to be the Devil’s Apprentice. Even though he’s always be good, he is not good at being bad. A danger occurs in Hell and the Devil is dying. When Philip solves the mystery, he returns on Earth to continue his normal life.
But when the future of the underworld is threatened once again, they need Philip’s help. Death’s Die has been stolen, the one that decides when each person is going to die. Because of that, immortality is now spreading. Philip goes back to hell to solve the mystery, but during his adventures he discovers some horrible truths…
I really have no clue why it took me quite a long time to get to the second book, but I am so happy that I finally got to read it, and endeavour this story.
It is so unique and I am in love!
The chapters just flow through – even better than the first book – and within minutes you are captured in this world, full of good and evil, or decisions being made that question your moral time and time again, in a very understandable way for young adults as well.
The story of the Die of Death, and the scenes related to it were my favourite. I love what Kenneth created, and how Death rolls a dice at the beginning of each life, that determines how many years each person gets to live. I loved how everyone had their own hourglasses and the mysterious snake that guards them.
We get to see the Purgatory in this book too. Only for a moment, but it was wonderful to read about it. It reminded me so much of Dante’s inferno, and I loved it! There was also the theory of reincarnation, told by a dog – a scene that was quite powerful! We even got a glimpse of Heavan, a few mentions here and there, that made me want to know more.
I like Philip as a character, but Satina was my hero! She has the best comment on everything, and they make such a good team with Philip. Also – did you know Hell has its own newspaper? It’s called Hell Times! So cool!
I loved this book. I cherish it. And I can’t wait to see what happens next and I highly recommend it to you – especially this month, as it’s Spooky October already!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Marvel films have become a staple for any movie fan’s diet over the past few years. We’ve had some bloody fantastic ones; Spiderman 2, Iron Man and the second X-Men to name a few; and we’ve had some pretty rubbish ones, Hulk, The Fantastic Four and Spiderman 3 are ones that spring to mind.
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Patricia Heaton recommended Romeo and Juliet (1968) in Movies (curated)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Most of the female cast. (2 more)
Poirot's backstory.
Kenneth Branagh's mustache.
Slow-moving with little payoff. (2 more)
Nothing substantial happens for the first hour.
Not entertaining. Perfect example of first world problems.
A Drowzy Whodunit Loaded with Mediocrity
Death on the Nile is the sequel to 2017’s Murder on the Orient Express with director and lead actor Kenneth Branagh returning. The mystery thriller is based on the 1937 novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. Death on the Nile has been adapted before as a 1978 film and as a 2004 episode of the Poirot television series starring David Suchet.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
May 9, 2019
Two worlds, One hero
Thor is presented with a difficult challenge - believably incorporating a god into the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has already been established. This task falls to director Kenneth Branagh, who devotes sufficient time to both Asgard, Thor's (Chris Hemsworth) home realm, and Earth, where he is exiled to. Asgard is depicted through a heavy use of special effects which creates a sense of wonder, but the story is steeped in relatable familial issues. When Thor disobeys his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), he is cast to Earth as a mortal. His hammer, Mjolnir, is the source of his powers, and it is also sent to Earth to await someone worthy enough to wield such power.
Most superhero movies spend a large amount of time introducing their hero to their superpower, and then invest yet more time discovering the full potential of this power. In the case of Thor, this is reversed. He begins the film a powerful god and is then stripped of such a gift, forced to learn to live without such capabilities. It is here that the film really shines, as Thor attempts to adapt to life on Earth. He is not accustomed to human ways, and this fish out of water scenario is wisely played for laughs.
Of course, this being a superhero movie means a love interest is required to be drafted in. Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist who discovers Thor. She is accompanied by her mentor, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). They all become entangled with S.H.I.E.L.D, who have previously been glimpsed in Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), and Iron Man 2 (2010). Throughout this series of films it has been evident that there is something larger at play, and with Thor this bigger picture begins to come into sharper focus.
Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is presented as the villain, but he mostly stays in the shadows and pulls the strings of others to do his fighting. This results in less CGI-laden battles but a stronger character-based story. Thor strikes a pleasing balance between plot and spectacle, effectively setting up a likeable hero and an interesting big bad. However, with most of the Earth-based action set in a small town in New Mexico, the threat never feels particularly palpable.
I was skeptical but intrigued by Thor, and Branagh does do a marvellous job of incorporating myth and legend into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I would have liked to see Kat Dennings given a meatier role to play, but that minor quibble aside Thor is a highly enjoyable superhero movie. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, delivering in both the heroics and comedy and Loki played by Tom Hiddelston is a fantastic villian. Sadly, the film doesn't quite rise to the bar set by Iron Man, but it does come impressively close.
Most superhero movies spend a large amount of time introducing their hero to their superpower, and then invest yet more time discovering the full potential of this power. In the case of Thor, this is reversed. He begins the film a powerful god and is then stripped of such a gift, forced to learn to live without such capabilities. It is here that the film really shines, as Thor attempts to adapt to life on Earth. He is not accustomed to human ways, and this fish out of water scenario is wisely played for laughs.
Of course, this being a superhero movie means a love interest is required to be drafted in. Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist who discovers Thor. She is accompanied by her mentor, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). They all become entangled with S.H.I.E.L.D, who have previously been glimpsed in Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), and Iron Man 2 (2010). Throughout this series of films it has been evident that there is something larger at play, and with Thor this bigger picture begins to come into sharper focus.
Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is presented as the villain, but he mostly stays in the shadows and pulls the strings of others to do his fighting. This results in less CGI-laden battles but a stronger character-based story. Thor strikes a pleasing balance between plot and spectacle, effectively setting up a likeable hero and an interesting big bad. However, with most of the Earth-based action set in a small town in New Mexico, the threat never feels particularly palpable.
I was skeptical but intrigued by Thor, and Branagh does do a marvellous job of incorporating myth and legend into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I would have liked to see Kat Dennings given a meatier role to play, but that minor quibble aside Thor is a highly enjoyable superhero movie. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, delivering in both the heroics and comedy and Loki played by Tom Hiddelston is a fantastic villian. Sadly, the film doesn't quite rise to the bar set by Iron Man, but it does come impressively close.