Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (9897 KP) rated Bring It On (2000) in Movies
Jun 13, 2018
Bird (1700 KP) rated Mona Lisa Smile (2003) in Movies
May 29, 2017
Kirsten Dunst plays the brattish antagonist extremely well (2 more)
Julia Roberts performance is sufficiently delivered
Decently written, albeit a bit melodramatic
Seems to be built on a foundation of stereotypes (1 more)
No big ending or real 'win'. More of a silent victory!
Dead Poet's Smile
Kevin Phillipson (9897 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Aug 19, 2018
Tobey maguire (2 more)
Kirsten dunst
Willem dafoe
With great power comes great responsbity
Just rewatched and i still love this film tobey maguire is spider - man u totally believe in him the rest of the cast are just as brillant including j. k. simmons as j jonah jameson the one thing i didnt like the green goblin costume everything else perfect great soundtrack
David McK (3162 KP) rated Jumanji (1995) in Movies
Jan 15, 2023
1995 heavily dependant on CGI movie starring am (extremely young) Kirsten Dunst and the late Robin Williams, with Williams doing his usual man-child stichk as a young boy who got trapped in the mystical game Jumanji before being accidentally released nearer 30 years later, and who must finish the game to undo the events it has caused.
Surprised this got a PG rating; not even a PG-13 or 12A!
Surprised this got a PG rating; not even a PG-13 or 12A!
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Melancholia (2011) in Movies
Dec 3, 2017
Kirsten Dunst (1 more)
Cinematography
Director Lars von Trier never pulls any punches in his films. This one is more subdued and less extreme than some of his other work, but that does not mean less enjoyable. The stunning visuals and ideas set forth in this visual painting will leave you thinking long after the film ends. I suspect you can see different meanings and details every time you watch it. Not for those who like their plots tied up nicely or woven to completion; however, a must watch for any true cinephile.
Barry Newman (204 KP) rated Melancholia (2011) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020
Essentially the Lars Von Trier version of ‘Armageddon’ and probably about as accessible as his films get. Undoubtedly an impressive and well constructed film on a technical level, it’s gorgeous to look at and has a decent performance from Kirsten Dunst who convincingly portrays a manic depressive. Unfortunately It’s also painfully slow, ponderous and quite dull at times with incredibly long drawn out scenes of conversation that could have been more effective if they were half as long . I would have certainly preferred a snappier cut especially as there isn’t really that much in the way of story. So in artistic terms it’s quite impressive but it’s certainly a slog to get through and isn’t something I would watch again.
Rodney Barnes (472 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020 (Updated Feb 23, 2020)
Best Spiderman in the McGuire era
I didn't think that they could do better than the first Tobey Spider-Man movie. I was proven wrong. Spider-Man 2 was my favorite one in this trilogy. The battle sequences were better and the story was good too. Peter struggling with his feelings for Mary Jane and his responsibility as Spider-Man. The only scene I thought was silly is when Aunt May was taken hostage by Doc Ock and after a battle with Spider-Man he drops her and Spider-Man saves her by throwing her up and she hooks her umbrella on a statue saving herself. Very silly. The best scene however, is when Spider-Man stops a runaway train from crashing saving everyone aboard. Overall this is a great movie. I still don't care for Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane but that's just me
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Sep 23, 2020
The second of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films is a shining example of a comic book sequel outshining it's predecessor. Everything is better, the set pieces, the characters, the effects, and the stakes are higher.
Spider-Man 2 owes a lot to Alfred Molina. His performance as Otto Octavius, and later, Doctor Octopus is pure villainous perfection, whilst lending the character a sympathetic undertone. Spider-Man has a fantastic rogues gallery to chooses from, and Doc Ock is one of the more complicated ones. This movie does the character justice.
Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, J.K. Simmons and Rosemary Harris all return from the first film and all cement their positions in movie history as these beloved comic characters.
The effects look a little dated by today's standards, but they're still more than passable, and another great score by Danny Elfman is the cherry on top.
Spider-Man 2 is both a strong sequel, and a strong comic book adaption.
Spider-Man 2 owes a lot to Alfred Molina. His performance as Otto Octavius, and later, Doctor Octopus is pure villainous perfection, whilst lending the character a sympathetic undertone. Spider-Man has a fantastic rogues gallery to chooses from, and Doc Ock is one of the more complicated ones. This movie does the character justice.
Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, J.K. Simmons and Rosemary Harris all return from the first film and all cement their positions in movie history as these beloved comic characters.
The effects look a little dated by today's standards, but they're still more than passable, and another great score by Danny Elfman is the cherry on top.
Spider-Man 2 is both a strong sequel, and a strong comic book adaption.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Sep 19, 2020
The first major blockbuster Spider-Man movie hasn't aged particularly well, but it's overflowing with charm and a great cast.
Watching this as an adult is still as much fun as it was back in 2002 (when I was a fresh faced 13 year old). Tobey Maguire, Willem Defoe, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons - all of them are really well cast and bring their comic book counterparts to life in a way that captured the imaginations of comic fans everywhere, all backed up by a fantastic score by Danny Elfman.
It's faults are few, but mainly in line with the first X-Men film - it's just doesn't quite stand up compared to comic films today and suffers from sub standard CGI and an early 2000s time stamp - I must say though - I have a special kind of love for the borderline Power Rangers villain costume that Green Goblin gets to wear...
Spider-Man is an important milestone in bringing comic books to the big screen, and will surely be enjoyed for years to come.
Watching this as an adult is still as much fun as it was back in 2002 (when I was a fresh faced 13 year old). Tobey Maguire, Willem Defoe, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons - all of them are really well cast and bring their comic book counterparts to life in a way that captured the imaginations of comic fans everywhere, all backed up by a fantastic score by Danny Elfman.
It's faults are few, but mainly in line with the first X-Men film - it's just doesn't quite stand up compared to comic films today and suffers from sub standard CGI and an early 2000s time stamp - I must say though - I have a special kind of love for the borderline Power Rangers villain costume that Green Goblin gets to wear...
Spider-Man is an important milestone in bringing comic books to the big screen, and will surely be enjoyed for years to come.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Beguiled in Books
Jun 5, 2019
“A classic slice of Southern Gothic, shot through with psychological suspense, which is the basis for Sofia Coppola’s (winner of Best Director at Cannes) 2017 film of the same name starring Nicola Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst”. Source: wiki/The_Beguiled_(2017_film).
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!