Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Annihilation (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Lena (Natalie Portman) has spent over a year grieving thinking that her husband has died. Her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), was part of a covert Army team. He would leave on missions and not be able to send any word. But a year was too long. Then as she is painting the bedroom of her house Kane walks up the stairs and into the bedroom. She is overwhelmed by happiness. After the initial flutter of excitement wears off she has so many questions. His responses are short and are not making sense. All of the sudden he starts cough up blood. Lena and Kane are headed to the hospital in the ambulance when government vehicles. Lena is pulled out and drugged and quickly loses consciousness. When she awakes she finds herself in a cell being asked questions by a Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh) about her husband and his sudden appearance. She quickly finds out that her husband and his team were one of several team over the past three years that were sent into a place called The Shimmer. The Shimmer was a growing circle surrounding a light house. Nothing that had gone into this area had returned…until Kane. With Kane on the brink of death Lena is determined to find out what is happening inside. She spent over seven years and in the Army and now was a Biology Professor at Johns Hopkins. This made her uniquely qualified to join Dr. Ventress and her team in the latest expedition into The Shimmer.
The movie is based on a novel of the same name by Jeff VanderMeer. It was written for the screen by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Sunshine), who also directed (also Ex Machina). This film visually very interesting. When they enter The Shimmer you are immediately aware that you are still on Earth but something is definitely different. At times it is gritty and others bright and stunning. The cinematography as a whole make this film worth catching in the theater. The story is definitely original. I thought that the performances were good but at times a little cheesy for how serious of a tone was being set. I thought Natalie Portman had a strong performance. Supporting actors Gina Rodriguez (as Anya Thorensen), Tuva Novotny (as Cass Sheppard) and Tessa Thompson (as Josie Radek) all brought interesting character to life. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s performance felt out of place to me and didn’t gel with the story. I enjoyed the story overall and how the tension built throughout but in the end I was disappointed. The suspense, in my opinion, wound up concluding in an unoriginal way. That is all that I will say to avoid spoilers.
Overall I think this film definitely makes you think about the story after you watch it. I think it is worth watching and coming to your own conclusion. For me it really fell short at the end but up until that point I was definitely interested in where the story was taking me.
The movie is based on a novel of the same name by Jeff VanderMeer. It was written for the screen by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Sunshine), who also directed (also Ex Machina). This film visually very interesting. When they enter The Shimmer you are immediately aware that you are still on Earth but something is definitely different. At times it is gritty and others bright and stunning. The cinematography as a whole make this film worth catching in the theater. The story is definitely original. I thought that the performances were good but at times a little cheesy for how serious of a tone was being set. I thought Natalie Portman had a strong performance. Supporting actors Gina Rodriguez (as Anya Thorensen), Tuva Novotny (as Cass Sheppard) and Tessa Thompson (as Josie Radek) all brought interesting character to life. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s performance felt out of place to me and didn’t gel with the story. I enjoyed the story overall and how the tension built throughout but in the end I was disappointed. The suspense, in my opinion, wound up concluding in an unoriginal way. That is all that I will say to avoid spoilers.
Overall I think this film definitely makes you think about the story after you watch it. I think it is worth watching and coming to your own conclusion. For me it really fell short at the end but up until that point I was definitely interested in where the story was taking me.
Aldis Hodge recommended Léon: The Professional (1994) in Movies (curated)
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Your Highness (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
For all you minotaur lovers out there, the movie Your Highness is the film for you. Not that the movie is about them but it has the most unique minotaur I have ever seen in a movie. Your Highness takes place long ago in a land far away in a kingdom that has two princes. The oldest and heir-to-the-throne is Prince Fabious (the fabulous James Franco). He is a prince’s prince, a knight’s knight, he enjoys protecting the innocent, he slays evil cyclops and other evil things that should be slayed.
The youngest is Prince Thadeous (film co-writer Danny McBride), he is a slacker’s slacker, a player’s player, he enjoys booze and other mind-altering stuff, he lays with easy maidens and…well, you get the point. Even though the two brothers are so very different they still love each other, even if Thadeous won’t admit it. So when Prince Fabious was to be married to the beautiful yet naive Belladonna (the enchanting Zooey Deschanel) he wanted none other than his younger brother to be his best man.
But fate had other plans and what should have been the happiest of wedding days was ruined when the evil wizard Leezar (Justin Theroux) kidnaps Belladonna so he can produce an evil dragon offspring that he would use to rule the world. The two brothers vow to save her and kill Leezar. Ok, technically Thadeous is told by their father the King (Charles Dance) that either he goes with his older brother or he will be kicked out of the kingdom and it is Fabious who does the vowing. So they ride out with their most trusted knights and along the way they meet the Great Wize (not a typo) Wizard (voiced by Mario Torres. Jr.), the highly skilled fighter Isabel (played by a pretty intimidating Natalie Portman), the Minotaur (Brian Steele, a surprisingly fitting name), forest people (I loved the forest people!). Epic adventure and treachery ensue – dun dun dunn! Will they save Belladonna and the world? Will Thadeous become a respectable prince? Will the minotaur live happily ever after?
The movie is funny but the humor is on par with middle-school-aged male humor so approximately 80% of all adult males will probably find the movie funny and a lot of wives will be wondering why they married them. It also had some decent fight scenes sprinkled throughout the movie. I’ll be honest, there were a couple of scenes in the film that I wish I could un-see… the kind of stuff that never happened in any dice role-playing game that I have ever played.
Now I am sure we have all seen movies where one person’s performance was so well done that it made the other people’s performances seem lacking (whether they truly were or not). To me this movie fell victim to that problem. After all with people like Charles Dance, Natalie Portman, James Franco, Zooey Deschanel and Damian Lewis, who plays Boremont, one of the trusted Knights, it was bound to happen. Overall, a very entertaining and funny movie.
The youngest is Prince Thadeous (film co-writer Danny McBride), he is a slacker’s slacker, a player’s player, he enjoys booze and other mind-altering stuff, he lays with easy maidens and…well, you get the point. Even though the two brothers are so very different they still love each other, even if Thadeous won’t admit it. So when Prince Fabious was to be married to the beautiful yet naive Belladonna (the enchanting Zooey Deschanel) he wanted none other than his younger brother to be his best man.
But fate had other plans and what should have been the happiest of wedding days was ruined when the evil wizard Leezar (Justin Theroux) kidnaps Belladonna so he can produce an evil dragon offspring that he would use to rule the world. The two brothers vow to save her and kill Leezar. Ok, technically Thadeous is told by their father the King (Charles Dance) that either he goes with his older brother or he will be kicked out of the kingdom and it is Fabious who does the vowing. So they ride out with their most trusted knights and along the way they meet the Great Wize (not a typo) Wizard (voiced by Mario Torres. Jr.), the highly skilled fighter Isabel (played by a pretty intimidating Natalie Portman), the Minotaur (Brian Steele, a surprisingly fitting name), forest people (I loved the forest people!). Epic adventure and treachery ensue – dun dun dunn! Will they save Belladonna and the world? Will Thadeous become a respectable prince? Will the minotaur live happily ever after?
The movie is funny but the humor is on par with middle-school-aged male humor so approximately 80% of all adult males will probably find the movie funny and a lot of wives will be wondering why they married them. It also had some decent fight scenes sprinkled throughout the movie. I’ll be honest, there were a couple of scenes in the film that I wish I could un-see… the kind of stuff that never happened in any dice role-playing game that I have ever played.
Now I am sure we have all seen movies where one person’s performance was so well done that it made the other people’s performances seem lacking (whether they truly were or not). To me this movie fell victim to that problem. After all with people like Charles Dance, Natalie Portman, James Franco, Zooey Deschanel and Damian Lewis, who plays Boremont, one of the trusted Knights, it was bound to happen. Overall, a very entertaining and funny movie.
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/
Elvis Fox (24 KP) rated Black Swan (2010) in Movies
May 3, 2019
Natalie Portman (2 more)
Mila Kunis
Barbara Hershey
What Does It Mean To Live One's Truth?
At its core, this film is about the physical and mental unraveling of gifted but mentally unbalanced ballerina Nina. She's poised and modest about her abilities but is easily one of (If not the best) dancers in her prestigious ballet company, which has decided to put on a production of 'Swan Lake' in order to save the company from going under financially. Going in for the first time viewing this masterpiece of modern day cinema, I had no idea the sheer scale of cerebral Horror I was about to witness. From the opening credits of Nina in full costume dancing a portion of 'Swan Lake' against a pitch black backdrop as the hauntingly beautiful score warns of something more sinister going on than meets the eye to the explosive end sequence (Which I won't spoil here), its easily apparent the workings of Nina's psyche is all but broken into a malleable mess of inner desires and heartfelt dreams of success. Mila Kunis is absolutely delicious as laid back and wild child Lily, whose mere presence fascinates and bewilders Nina as her longing for self realization begind to blur the lines of her reality in increasingly terrifying ways. Barbara Hershey gives what I believe is one of the most UNDERRATED and UNAPPRECIATIVED performances of all time as Nina's controlling and often times unbalanced Mother. Easily one of my all time favorite films you will either hate or love, I for one will never get tired of viewing this expertly crafted psychologically charged thriller for years to come and believe you will too!
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
May 18, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Thor: The Dark World is one of a few MCU movies that I hadn't seen many times, and never since its' initial release. It has the reputation of been one of the weakest/worst entries in the 'continuity' however my memory of it was that it was okay. Having watched 'Endgame ' (several times!) and seeing that movie revisit a segment of the God of Thunders second solo outing I decided to give it another viewing.
Personally speaking, I still enjoyed it and think the reputation is a bit harsh. I prefer it to the first film but it falls way behind 'Ragnarok'. The visual effects are first rate and surpass some of those that would be seen in later Marvel movies.
Hemsworth is great however I can see why Hemsworth could have grown weary with the part (The Thor of Ragnarok onwards is a delight). Likewise with Hiddleston. The two have great on screen chemistry.
The story is simple enough - the dark Elf Malkeith awakens after a long period of sleep/exile to harness the power of the Aether, with the aim of plunging the Universe into darkness. Natalie Portman returns as Jane Foster in a role key to events, effectively serving as the plot device with which events kick start. This is also the first MCU entry to start referencing the Infinity Stones and tying together the various macguffins seen so far.
The film drags in places, more so during the second act, however the final battle is a visual delight.
Not therefore the worst, but certainly not the best!
Personally speaking, I still enjoyed it and think the reputation is a bit harsh. I prefer it to the first film but it falls way behind 'Ragnarok'. The visual effects are first rate and surpass some of those that would be seen in later Marvel movies.
Hemsworth is great however I can see why Hemsworth could have grown weary with the part (The Thor of Ragnarok onwards is a delight). Likewise with Hiddleston. The two have great on screen chemistry.
The story is simple enough - the dark Elf Malkeith awakens after a long period of sleep/exile to harness the power of the Aether, with the aim of plunging the Universe into darkness. Natalie Portman returns as Jane Foster in a role key to events, effectively serving as the plot device with which events kick start. This is also the first MCU entry to start referencing the Infinity Stones and tying together the various macguffins seen so far.
The film drags in places, more so during the second act, however the final battle is a visual delight.
Not therefore the worst, but certainly not the best!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020
The second Thor movie is a visual representation of the word "meh". It has all the right ingredients, but somehow manages to fall flat.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Black Swan (2010) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan has received a lot of attention since it was released what feels like many moons ago. With countless award nominations on both sides of the Atlantic, it could perhaps be one of the most talked about films of the decade; but is it all style over substance? Let’s find out.
What strikes you immediately is just how beautifully choreographed and styled the film is throughout, with some outstanding cinematography and wonderful set pieces. However, this doesn’t necessarily constitute to a brilliant film and unfortunately, whilst being technically near-perfect; Black Swan falls down in a few key areas for it to be considered flawless.
Natalie Portman stars as troubled ballet dancer (if you hadn’t already guessed) Nina Sayers who dreams of becoming one of the world’s best dancers. This becomes apparent from the off, with a very possessive mother (played very well by Barbara Hershey) who is constantly striving for her to improve on what she has accomplished. The local ballet company, run by a fantastic Vincent Cassel begins a new season with the renowned ballet, Swan Lake. Cue Nina to receive the amazing honour of playing the Swan Queen.
However, it’s not all plain sailing as she tries to throw off the frigid, stiff dancing she has been practicing for years. Whilst this may sound a little dull, on screen it becomes a great treat to watch, thanks partly to Aronofsky’s fantastic cinematography and Portman’s compelling performance. Her acting is so superb that you feel as if you are there with her whilst she is going through the horror of creating the ‘perfect’ dance. What shines through all the doom and gloom is how much soul the film has; many similar movies lose their characters and ultimately the soul because so much attention goes into the finer points of the picture. Thankfully, this is not the case here.
Unfortunately, as with any film, there are a few negative points which detract from the whole experience. Whilst Portman, Cassel and Kunis all have excellent on screen chemistry; it remains difficult for the viewer to differentiate between Nina’s imagination and what is reality; it is definitely a film that needs to be watched, one moment of drifting from its attention will leave you scuppered and lost. This is most annoying, because if it weren’t for this, there would be nothing wrong apart from a very sudden ending.
Overall, Black Swan is a sight to behold because no review can do it justice. Portman’s performance is by far the best part of this very thrilling and exciting film. Yes, it may not be as perfect as all the award nominations make it out to be, but you would be hard pushed to find a more compelling and ultimately more satisfying cinema experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/02/13/black-swan-2011/
What strikes you immediately is just how beautifully choreographed and styled the film is throughout, with some outstanding cinematography and wonderful set pieces. However, this doesn’t necessarily constitute to a brilliant film and unfortunately, whilst being technically near-perfect; Black Swan falls down in a few key areas for it to be considered flawless.
Natalie Portman stars as troubled ballet dancer (if you hadn’t already guessed) Nina Sayers who dreams of becoming one of the world’s best dancers. This becomes apparent from the off, with a very possessive mother (played very well by Barbara Hershey) who is constantly striving for her to improve on what she has accomplished. The local ballet company, run by a fantastic Vincent Cassel begins a new season with the renowned ballet, Swan Lake. Cue Nina to receive the amazing honour of playing the Swan Queen.
However, it’s not all plain sailing as she tries to throw off the frigid, stiff dancing she has been practicing for years. Whilst this may sound a little dull, on screen it becomes a great treat to watch, thanks partly to Aronofsky’s fantastic cinematography and Portman’s compelling performance. Her acting is so superb that you feel as if you are there with her whilst she is going through the horror of creating the ‘perfect’ dance. What shines through all the doom and gloom is how much soul the film has; many similar movies lose their characters and ultimately the soul because so much attention goes into the finer points of the picture. Thankfully, this is not the case here.
Unfortunately, as with any film, there are a few negative points which detract from the whole experience. Whilst Portman, Cassel and Kunis all have excellent on screen chemistry; it remains difficult for the viewer to differentiate between Nina’s imagination and what is reality; it is definitely a film that needs to be watched, one moment of drifting from its attention will leave you scuppered and lost. This is most annoying, because if it weren’t for this, there would be nothing wrong apart from a very sudden ending.
Overall, Black Swan is a sight to behold because no review can do it justice. Portman’s performance is by far the best part of this very thrilling and exciting film. Yes, it may not be as perfect as all the award nominations make it out to be, but you would be hard pushed to find a more compelling and ultimately more satisfying cinema experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/02/13/black-swan-2011/