Search
Search results
156Reviews (7 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
May 1, 2020
Have you ever been at a dinner party that has gone on little too long? You were greeted warmly, settled quickly and comfortably, it's been fun, the company has been in fine form, spinning anecdotes that have entertained. But towards the end, you've all run out of things to say, no one quite knows if it's time to leave or not and it's all got a bit awkward.
I could end my review there, I think you get the point I'm trying to make, but almost the entire cast of this film deserve more, each of them pulling up what would be quite a laborious and dull film into something better, something unworthy of such a cold explanation.
The film starts with Emma (Ana Taylor-Joy) having recently played matchmaker and having had everything very much her way, as the title screen puts it, “Having lived twenty-one years in the world with very little to vex her”, she sees the people around her as entertainment, in the way a child plays with their dolls, marrying them off and assuming that they will live happily ever after. Taylor-Joy is does magnificently in this role, portraying Emma with child-like innocence, while still showing us a character that is all scheming and intelligence, but without any malice, it's a fine line to walk and she does it excellently.
With this in mind she picks up a new friend in Harriet Smith, a young and naive woman played by Mia Goth, a very different role than we've seen her in before, Mia attacks this with a level of enthusiasm and energy that only a few could get away with. Emma intends to marry her friend to Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor), the leader of the local church, whose awkward nature and odd gestures are one of many comedic points of the film, but not all goes to plan.
Director Autumn de Wilde does a wonderful job immersing you into a world of bright pastel colours, handsome characters and sweet lavish deserts, showing you not a period accurate representation, but a view into the way Emma sees the world. This is what the film does best, immersing you into 1800's social networking. Status and decorum is what matters, so that when the minor insults and social faux pas' start coming we understand the gravity of each action, however slight they are.
The film has great talent throughout, their roles could easily come across cliché or bit-part, but are elevated by the skill and subtlety of the people playing them. Johnny Flynn is Mr Knightly, the misunderstood good-guy, but makes it sincere and caring, though we are left to guess why he seems to live with Emma. Bill Nighy is the cranky old father with barely anything to do, but manages to steal entire scenes with just a withering look, and Miranda Hart playing, well, Miranda Hart.
Unfortunately, this all gets dragged down by its excessive length and lack of surprise. At just over two hours run-time even the sharp wit of the earlier scenes start to seem like a distant memory, and as the ending you saw coming from around the hour mark unfolds, you'll start to wonder why it took such a long journey to get there.
I could end my review there, I think you get the point I'm trying to make, but almost the entire cast of this film deserve more, each of them pulling up what would be quite a laborious and dull film into something better, something unworthy of such a cold explanation.
The film starts with Emma (Ana Taylor-Joy) having recently played matchmaker and having had everything very much her way, as the title screen puts it, “Having lived twenty-one years in the world with very little to vex her”, she sees the people around her as entertainment, in the way a child plays with their dolls, marrying them off and assuming that they will live happily ever after. Taylor-Joy is does magnificently in this role, portraying Emma with child-like innocence, while still showing us a character that is all scheming and intelligence, but without any malice, it's a fine line to walk and she does it excellently.
With this in mind she picks up a new friend in Harriet Smith, a young and naive woman played by Mia Goth, a very different role than we've seen her in before, Mia attacks this with a level of enthusiasm and energy that only a few could get away with. Emma intends to marry her friend to Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor), the leader of the local church, whose awkward nature and odd gestures are one of many comedic points of the film, but not all goes to plan.
Director Autumn de Wilde does a wonderful job immersing you into a world of bright pastel colours, handsome characters and sweet lavish deserts, showing you not a period accurate representation, but a view into the way Emma sees the world. This is what the film does best, immersing you into 1800's social networking. Status and decorum is what matters, so that when the minor insults and social faux pas' start coming we understand the gravity of each action, however slight they are.
The film has great talent throughout, their roles could easily come across cliché or bit-part, but are elevated by the skill and subtlety of the people playing them. Johnny Flynn is Mr Knightly, the misunderstood good-guy, but makes it sincere and caring, though we are left to guess why he seems to live with Emma. Bill Nighy is the cranky old father with barely anything to do, but manages to steal entire scenes with just a withering look, and Miranda Hart playing, well, Miranda Hart.
Unfortunately, this all gets dragged down by its excessive length and lack of surprise. At just over two hours run-time even the sharp wit of the earlier scenes start to seem like a distant memory, and as the ending you saw coming from around the hour mark unfolds, you'll start to wonder why it took such a long journey to get there.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Peter is an orphan during World War II, stuck in a boys home, he believes something is happening and wants to be reunited with his mother, taken to Neverland, he learns that he has an ability unlike anyone else, he just needs to learn to believe in himself. Blackbeard has been taking orphans to help him mine for fairy dust in Neverland, he runs a strict ship which Peter upsets, however this will put Blackbeard closer than ever to getting what he wants. Hook is one of the miners that helps Peter escape, he wants to be free with his own tragic backstory. Tiger Lily has been leading the war against Blackbeard for years now, she knows the secrets to the fairies and now must protect them at all costs.
Performances – Levi Miller as the young Peter is good because he shows us the innocence needed for this film while dealing with the emotional impact his life is having. Hugh Jackman does seem to be having a lot of fun in this role even if he is overacting at times. Garrett Hedlund just can’t catch a break, his performance is solid enough, though it does feel like he just wanted to be the next Han Solo. Rooney Mara again is solid, it looks like a role which meant something to her and will help her take on the bigger roles.
Story – The story is an origin story for Peter Pan and Hook, well it seems to be, Peter is in the human world where he is an orphan taken to Neverland to help fight in a war between the two sides who want control of the fairy dust, he works with Hook which is strange because he is a good guy. The film shows us why Peter never wanted to leave Neverland and just what is meant to him once he learns about his parent’s identity. When we look deeper at the story it does feel like a pretty safe story and by having Peter needing to learn his own identity before going on to be the character we know now. The problem comes from any moment of peril he is in or Hook we know they will make it out of there because we know their story is only just beginning. The additional problem comes from just how Hook is a good guy and doesn’t get given any moments to tease his villainous ways.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film is good because it shows a new life Peter could have away from the war his own reality is involved in, this does take us to the fantasy world of Neverland which only seems to have one unique animal in, but it has magic.
Settings – The film uses the colour tones well, we see the darkness which shows us how bleak Peter’s real-life is, while giving us the bright open world of Neverland to show the hope of a future.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are solid enough without looking as flawless as they should, though the overly ambitious nature to it all doesn’t help.
Scene of the Movie – Hook’s escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not filling enough of the blanks between the time period.
Final Thoughts – This is another cash-in on a franchise which feels overly done, it doesn’t capture the rue magic and only ends up confusing the time between the movies.
Overall: Magicless fantasy film.
Performances – Levi Miller as the young Peter is good because he shows us the innocence needed for this film while dealing with the emotional impact his life is having. Hugh Jackman does seem to be having a lot of fun in this role even if he is overacting at times. Garrett Hedlund just can’t catch a break, his performance is solid enough, though it does feel like he just wanted to be the next Han Solo. Rooney Mara again is solid, it looks like a role which meant something to her and will help her take on the bigger roles.
Story – The story is an origin story for Peter Pan and Hook, well it seems to be, Peter is in the human world where he is an orphan taken to Neverland to help fight in a war between the two sides who want control of the fairy dust, he works with Hook which is strange because he is a good guy. The film shows us why Peter never wanted to leave Neverland and just what is meant to him once he learns about his parent’s identity. When we look deeper at the story it does feel like a pretty safe story and by having Peter needing to learn his own identity before going on to be the character we know now. The problem comes from any moment of peril he is in or Hook we know they will make it out of there because we know their story is only just beginning. The additional problem comes from just how Hook is a good guy and doesn’t get given any moments to tease his villainous ways.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film is good because it shows a new life Peter could have away from the war his own reality is involved in, this does take us to the fantasy world of Neverland which only seems to have one unique animal in, but it has magic.
Settings – The film uses the colour tones well, we see the darkness which shows us how bleak Peter’s real-life is, while giving us the bright open world of Neverland to show the hope of a future.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are solid enough without looking as flawless as they should, though the overly ambitious nature to it all doesn’t help.
Scene of the Movie – Hook’s escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not filling enough of the blanks between the time period.
Final Thoughts – This is another cash-in on a franchise which feels overly done, it doesn’t capture the rue magic and only ends up confusing the time between the movies.
Overall: Magicless fantasy film.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla Vs King Ghidorah (1991) in Movies
Mar 7, 2018
Eighteenth Godzilla movie (fifth Ghidorah movie, if anyone cares) goes back to campy basics following the relative underperformance of Godzilla Vs Biollante. Owes a lot to 60s and 70s Godzilla movies, but also to American SF movies of the 80s - Back to the Future and Terminator have clearly been an influence. Despite all this the film has an undeniably anti-American subtext (in the future, Japan will become the world's biggest superpower, causing jealous Americans to hatch evil plot to stop this) which is actually quite amusing (possibly less so if you're actually from the USA).
Interesting story, some of the special effects are a little variable but the monster battles are undeniably good fun. Given that Godzilla was a bad guy monster in all the films from this period, and Ghidorah is nearly always the bad guy monster, the question of how to resolve the plot without the bad guy monster winning is reasonably elegant. Some surprisingly edgy moments for a Godzilla movie, too - looks, albeit obliquely, at events connected to the Second World War in a way which previous films would never have dreamt of. Definitely from close to the top of the Godzilla stack.
Interesting story, some of the special effects are a little variable but the monster battles are undeniably good fun. Given that Godzilla was a bad guy monster in all the films from this period, and Ghidorah is nearly always the bad guy monster, the question of how to resolve the plot without the bad guy monster winning is reasonably elegant. Some surprisingly edgy moments for a Godzilla movie, too - looks, albeit obliquely, at events connected to the Second World War in a way which previous films would never have dreamt of. Definitely from close to the top of the Godzilla stack.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Fury (1978) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 5, 2020)
In the last of this list we skip forward 16 years and some 25 film credits. Not that there wasn’t any work of quality in that period, but because the edge that existed in the younger man had undoubtedly waned, with Douglas often miscast or out of his depth. Aged 62 he stumbles upon a role in a psychological horror movie that is quintessentially 70s. The reason I believe this is the last movie of real note he made is that it was a committed performance that returned him to the idea of being an angry underdog. Essentially a thriller, Douglas revels in the fear and anguish of a father pushed to the edge of his abilities to save his son. Even though he would go on to make many more films, you feel the last of his real fire was given to this role. It also proves to me that despite a lifetime of activity the real grist of his career lasted only 16 years: 1946 – 1962. The rest was a man who knew cinema better than anyone, but couldn’t always outrun his own type-casting.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Viy (Spirit of Evil) (1967) in Movies
Sep 21, 2021
Soviet horror movie from the 1960s rather unexpectedly turns out to be a close spiritual cousin of the kind of films that Hammer et al were making in the west at the same time. A trainee priest finds himself compelled to spend three nights reading prayers over the body of (supposedly) a wealthy landowner's daughter - but the corpse bears a striking resemblance to that of a witch he earlier killed...
Not the longest of films, which is just as well as the pacing may require patience on the part of the viewer; after a very eerie sequence early on, there's a long wait until the stuff with the protagonist's vigil in the second half. Nevertheless, it's worth it, mainly because the special effects are remarkably good, well up to the standard of equivalent western films of the same period (and probably better). Not particularly scary or graphic by modern standards, but the climax has a creepy sort of power to it and the overall impression is of a classy and well-made film; if there's a political subtext to it, it's very well-hidden.
Not the longest of films, which is just as well as the pacing may require patience on the part of the viewer; after a very eerie sequence early on, there's a long wait until the stuff with the protagonist's vigil in the second half. Nevertheless, it's worth it, mainly because the special effects are remarkably good, well up to the standard of equivalent western films of the same period (and probably better). Not particularly scary or graphic by modern standards, but the climax has a creepy sort of power to it and the overall impression is of a classy and well-made film; if there's a political subtext to it, it's very well-hidden.
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!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Little Stranger (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I can't say that this is a horror. It's a little bit creepy. It's also somehow engaging, despite it not having that horror aspect you're expecting.
Domhnall Gleeson is an interesting leading actor. He plays the roll well and it feels fitting for the period. But for me Will Poulter really was the best performance. Entirely believable and quite possibly the best thing I've seen him do. I can't say that I was particularly excited about anyone else in this.
The music, or the lack thereof, is very atmospheric. It's really noticable and brings that creepy sense just when it's needed. The visuals get the atmosphere just right too. There's a fantastic slightly out of focus (lets call it squiggly feeling) shot that was used when the supernatural was in the air and it worked intriguingly well.
At the time of writing this I have been out of the screening for six hours... and for six hours I've been annoyed with how the film ended. I've been scouring the internet for a full synopsis of the novel, and while the whole thing seems to match up well, the ending does have a slightly different spin... or it is just handled really weirdly in the film... I really don't know but what I can say is that I came out feeling incredibly unsatisfied.
Based on the book The Little Stranger by Sarah Walters.
What should you do?
I'm tempted to say read the book instead of going to see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Can I take home Will Poulter?
Domhnall Gleeson is an interesting leading actor. He plays the roll well and it feels fitting for the period. But for me Will Poulter really was the best performance. Entirely believable and quite possibly the best thing I've seen him do. I can't say that I was particularly excited about anyone else in this.
The music, or the lack thereof, is very atmospheric. It's really noticable and brings that creepy sense just when it's needed. The visuals get the atmosphere just right too. There's a fantastic slightly out of focus (lets call it squiggly feeling) shot that was used when the supernatural was in the air and it worked intriguingly well.
At the time of writing this I have been out of the screening for six hours... and for six hours I've been annoyed with how the film ended. I've been scouring the internet for a full synopsis of the novel, and while the whole thing seems to match up well, the ending does have a slightly different spin... or it is just handled really weirdly in the film... I really don't know but what I can say is that I came out feeling incredibly unsatisfied.
Based on the book The Little Stranger by Sarah Walters.
What should you do?
I'm tempted to say read the book instead of going to see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Can I take home Will Poulter?
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Apr 15, 2018
Stellar
A group of four armed with special proton packs come together to protect Manhattan from crazy supernatural forces that have taken hold of the city.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the opening scene, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is doing an ESP exercise with a couple. He's having them use their brain power to identify something from a card they can't see. He's clearly sweet on the girlfriend because he keeps giving her soft-lob answers while taking the boyfriend through hell. The scene is one of the best openers I've seen in a movie and is a clever, hilarious way to kick things off. It doesn't take long for you to fall in love with Murray's character.
Characters: 10
Without Venkman, the film doesn't exist period. He carries a lax, dry attitude while everyone else around him is freaking out and for good reason. He's not even close to being a scientist like his counterparts, but that's a strong reason for what makes the film so great. All four of the characters are unique and bring something different to the table. The supporting roles are also awesome, each providing their own quirky, unique flare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Considering the film was made in 1984 (and special effects have greatly increased since then), I was pretty happy with the visuals throughout Ghostbusters. The ghosts are creative and original providing enough variety without being overly repetitive. This film put Slimer on the map, a disgusting green blob of a ghost that tries to devour everything in his path. Watching food pass from his mouth and through his body before exiting out the other end was a hilarious touch.
Oh, and can't forget about Stay Puft. Fun times watching that scene unfold.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Consistent blending of comedy and the paranormal helps maintain a healthy pace. The dialogue is so crisp and on point, it's hard to get bored as there is always something happening or something hilarious being said. Director Ivan Reitman even managed to take advantage of moments that would have otherwise been bland. The best example that comes to mind is the scene where they are riding up an elevator. Instead of just sitting around aimlessly, the group takes turns firing up their proton packs for the first time. One memorable scene among many.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Ghostbusters is an unforgettable ride from start to finish. It's one of those films you can watch over and over and it never gets old. A definite classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the opening scene, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is doing an ESP exercise with a couple. He's having them use their brain power to identify something from a card they can't see. He's clearly sweet on the girlfriend because he keeps giving her soft-lob answers while taking the boyfriend through hell. The scene is one of the best openers I've seen in a movie and is a clever, hilarious way to kick things off. It doesn't take long for you to fall in love with Murray's character.
Characters: 10
Without Venkman, the film doesn't exist period. He carries a lax, dry attitude while everyone else around him is freaking out and for good reason. He's not even close to being a scientist like his counterparts, but that's a strong reason for what makes the film so great. All four of the characters are unique and bring something different to the table. The supporting roles are also awesome, each providing their own quirky, unique flare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Considering the film was made in 1984 (and special effects have greatly increased since then), I was pretty happy with the visuals throughout Ghostbusters. The ghosts are creative and original providing enough variety without being overly repetitive. This film put Slimer on the map, a disgusting green blob of a ghost that tries to devour everything in his path. Watching food pass from his mouth and through his body before exiting out the other end was a hilarious touch.
Oh, and can't forget about Stay Puft. Fun times watching that scene unfold.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Consistent blending of comedy and the paranormal helps maintain a healthy pace. The dialogue is so crisp and on point, it's hard to get bored as there is always something happening or something hilarious being said. Director Ivan Reitman even managed to take advantage of moments that would have otherwise been bland. The best example that comes to mind is the scene where they are riding up an elevator. Instead of just sitting around aimlessly, the group takes turns firing up their proton packs for the first time. One memorable scene among many.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Ghostbusters is an unforgettable ride from start to finish. It's one of those films you can watch over and over and it never gets old. A definite classic.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Mountain Between Us (2017) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Ben Bass is a surgeon, he needs to get back to New York to perform an operation, when the crash happens, he focuses on aiming to stay at the crash site believing he will get rescued, reluctant to follow Alex’s idea to find their own way out. His skills as a doctor are key to survive this one. Alex is a photographer heading home for her wedding, she does get hurt in the crash and wants to go in search of help rather than wait. These two are professionals that make decisions based on logic over panic which is why even if they are opposite, their discussions make sense.
Performances – Idris Elba and Kate Winslet are the only ones that get any major screen time, they are both great in this film as we see them both playing to their strengths.
Story – The story here follows two strangers who are involved in a plane crash in a mountain range and must put their differences a side to survive while searching and hoping for rescue. This is a survival movie at heart with a weak romance movie on the side, we go through the normal can they survive situations, each one becoming deadlier as they go along and leaving us guessing how rather than if they will get rescued, it seems to clear to say that they won’t make it because of it only being a two person. The fact that the dog is the most interesting character doesn’t help us out here and the timing we go through just seems weak when it comes to telling us how long they have been there, we get the odd scene, but learn nothing about moments inbetween.
Action/Adventure/Romance – The action comes from the scene in which the plane crashed, it is shot well but is the only one we see. The adventure side of the film shows us just what the two must go through to survive their ordeal. The romance between them seems to just get tagged in for no particular reasons.
Settings – The film puts us in the middle of nowhere in a mountain range, it looks stunning with views from the top, the biggest problem with the setting is we just don’t get the full scale of the situation.
Scene of the Movie – The crash scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not explaining the time period there are lost for.
Final Thoughts – This is a standard movie with a simple story that gets everything it needs to in the film without being anything overly memorable.
Overall: Standard and safe.
Performances – Idris Elba and Kate Winslet are the only ones that get any major screen time, they are both great in this film as we see them both playing to their strengths.
Story – The story here follows two strangers who are involved in a plane crash in a mountain range and must put their differences a side to survive while searching and hoping for rescue. This is a survival movie at heart with a weak romance movie on the side, we go through the normal can they survive situations, each one becoming deadlier as they go along and leaving us guessing how rather than if they will get rescued, it seems to clear to say that they won’t make it because of it only being a two person. The fact that the dog is the most interesting character doesn’t help us out here and the timing we go through just seems weak when it comes to telling us how long they have been there, we get the odd scene, but learn nothing about moments inbetween.
Action/Adventure/Romance – The action comes from the scene in which the plane crashed, it is shot well but is the only one we see. The adventure side of the film shows us just what the two must go through to survive their ordeal. The romance between them seems to just get tagged in for no particular reasons.
Settings – The film puts us in the middle of nowhere in a mountain range, it looks stunning with views from the top, the biggest problem with the setting is we just don’t get the full scale of the situation.
Scene of the Movie – The crash scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not explaining the time period there are lost for.
Final Thoughts – This is a standard movie with a simple story that gets everything it needs to in the film without being anything overly memorable.
Overall: Standard and safe.