Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Disaster films and Hollywood have enjoyed a long and successful partnership over the years as box office gold has been found in fictional disasters. Irwin Allen had a string of hits such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure” which in turn lead to the films such as “Dante’s Peak”, “Volcano”, “Deep Impact”, and “Armageddon” who kept the tried and true formula of relatable, regular people forced to cope with extraordinary situations where they must battle against all odds to survive.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The Dark Knight picks up not too long after Batman Begins left off. The way the citizens of Gotham look at Batman is still pretty divided. Some see him as a vigilante in a mask who takes the law into his own hands and others see him as a caped crusader who helps keep scum off the streets. A hero to some and a villain to others. Harvey Dent, the man running for DA, enters the picture and could be the face Gotham is looking for to be its new hero. A man who's not only capable of getting rid of the filth on the streets of Gotham in a more efficient manner, but could be the reason Batman hangs up his cape for good. It seems as though Gotham has found itself with a new criminal psychopath though that's keeping Batman, Harvey Dent, and the Gotham PD busy these days. The Joker is, without a doubt, Batman's most dangerous adversary. A madman whose only desire is to give Gotham a better class of criminal. Bruce Wayne goes beyond his limits as Batman to try and take him down and all The Joker wants is for Gotham to be filled with pure chaos. Can Batman bring The Joker to justice? Will Harvey Dent become Gotham's new white knight? How does Rachel Dawes fit into the picture?
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
Solid Bounceback for the DCEU
After the safety of her homeland Themyscira is threatened, Diana (Gal Gadot), strongest of the Amazon warriors, hurls herself into the middle of World War I to find the source of the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning; 2
The movie starts off a bit slow, but does pick up rather quickly after the first ten minutes. I wasn’t in love in how they tried to establish the land of the Amazonians. Felt too factual and not very story driven. I know it’s one of those things that has to be done, but I’ve seen it done way better a number of times before so I can’t excuse it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The beautiful shots of Themyscira and the Amazonian training rituals borders on poetic at times, something you might read about in a famous ballad. Director Patty Jenkins does an amazing job of capturing the sanctity of this place, a place you don’t want to see get violated. Themyscira is pictured perfectly, it’s not just a Hawaii with women warriors. You can feel the change when Diana hits the real world and things become darker.
I thought it might be hard to capture Wonder Woman’s true strength on the big screen, but it is done almost effortlessly here with gritty scenes and slow-motion shots on impact blows. While I thought BVS overdid things with its slow-motion efforts, Jenkins has a way of capturing the perfect mood when she slows the camera down rather than it being just a mere effect. She really captures the heart of the story in every shot.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Story was great except…Did we really need that one scene between Diana and Steve (Chris Pine)? I thought, not only did it betray the overall message of the film, but it felt forced and unnecessary. I would much rather have watched Wonder Woman just kick ass and take names and remain true to who her character was.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 89
After a couple crappy movies, DC finally began to right the ship with Wonder Woman. I am hoping the future will bring more movies like this and less movies like Suicide Squad. Not only is it a great film for women superheroes, but it’s just a great film period.
Acting: 10
Beginning; 2
The movie starts off a bit slow, but does pick up rather quickly after the first ten minutes. I wasn’t in love in how they tried to establish the land of the Amazonians. Felt too factual and not very story driven. I know it’s one of those things that has to be done, but I’ve seen it done way better a number of times before so I can’t excuse it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The beautiful shots of Themyscira and the Amazonian training rituals borders on poetic at times, something you might read about in a famous ballad. Director Patty Jenkins does an amazing job of capturing the sanctity of this place, a place you don’t want to see get violated. Themyscira is pictured perfectly, it’s not just a Hawaii with women warriors. You can feel the change when Diana hits the real world and things become darker.
I thought it might be hard to capture Wonder Woman’s true strength on the big screen, but it is done almost effortlessly here with gritty scenes and slow-motion shots on impact blows. While I thought BVS overdid things with its slow-motion efforts, Jenkins has a way of capturing the perfect mood when she slows the camera down rather than it being just a mere effect. She really captures the heart of the story in every shot.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Story was great except…Did we really need that one scene between Diana and Steve (Chris Pine)? I thought, not only did it betray the overall message of the film, but it felt forced and unnecessary. I would much rather have watched Wonder Woman just kick ass and take names and remain true to who her character was.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 89
After a couple crappy movies, DC finally began to right the ship with Wonder Woman. I am hoping the future will bring more movies like this and less movies like Suicide Squad. Not only is it a great film for women superheroes, but it’s just a great film period.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tolkien (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
An Unexpectedly Dull Journey
Tolkien is a 2019 biographical/drama movie directed by Dome Karukoski and written by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford. It's produced by Fox Searchlight Pictures and Chernin Entertainment and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Nicholas Hoult, Lily Collins, Colm Meaney, and Derek Jacobi.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
Another classic novel that I have no knowledge of, I even own the BBC version on DVD, I'm really not sure how I haven't watched it.
In old English society what was a girl to do with her spare time to stay entertained? Read, learn the piano, paint... act as matchmaker to her friends. When Emma Woodhouse sees a flicker of promise or flirtation she jumps at the chance to fan the flames of romance between her friends and acquaintances, but when wires get crossed and misunderstandings occur, things begin to crack.
I always had the impression that Emma was a light comedy drama from hearing people talk about it, and while that did come across, I was surprised to come out feeling negatively towards my namesake. I had assumed that Emma was a delightful and whimsical character [as most Emmas are] and when I spent a lot of the film feeling like she was, frankly, a bit of a bitch, I wanted to banish her from the exclusive "Emma Club". Apart from besmirching the good name the attitude didn't seem to fit with the humour of the film.
Emma. is charming, but it didn't quite get me over the line. There seemed little reason for it to be over 2 hours long, while most of the film was engaging you could have taken out 15 minutes or so and tightened it up, I genuinely think that would have added a star to my rating.
Actually, hold off on that star for a moment, let's talk about the casting first.
Rupert Graves, yeeeeeeeeeeees. That's it for him, he's a delight, put him in everything.
Bill Night and Miranda Hart both gave great comedic performances, with Hart also getting an agonising scene that got me right in the feels. Their talent for humour added a great lightness to the film and was perfectly aligned to the period setting.
Johnny Flynn, or Mr Tasty Debrief for the Cineworld-goers out there. He was tastefully de-briefed, and the reason for the card warning: "Brief natural nudity". Flynn had some good moments, particularly around the picnic scene but for me this strong character becomes too sappy as we roll downhill to the ending.
Emma herself, Anya Taylor-Joy... I have already said that I found Emma to be a bit of a bitch, for the light-hearted nature of the film I really felt the time was off. I know there isn't a lot that would be different in this setting to modern day but I found the sly nature to feel far more modern than everything else. I think that is mainly down to the casting, Taylor-Joy's acting frequently has that vibe too it and it doesn't always endear me to her films, this makes me slightly nervous to see her in Radioactive and The New Mutants over the next couple of months.
The setting is of course as delightful as you would expect, grand houses and rolling hills. Paired with the costumes you have a wonderful overall feel of the era, though I would say that the costumes do have an almost modern touch to them that makes them very noticeable.
The charming base for Austen's novel has to battle with Emma's Mean Girl performance and the slightly overlong runtime, while it does give a mildly entertaining watch it's cowering in the shadow of Little Women and I don't think I'd need to see it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/emma-movie-review.html
In old English society what was a girl to do with her spare time to stay entertained? Read, learn the piano, paint... act as matchmaker to her friends. When Emma Woodhouse sees a flicker of promise or flirtation she jumps at the chance to fan the flames of romance between her friends and acquaintances, but when wires get crossed and misunderstandings occur, things begin to crack.
I always had the impression that Emma was a light comedy drama from hearing people talk about it, and while that did come across, I was surprised to come out feeling negatively towards my namesake. I had assumed that Emma was a delightful and whimsical character [as most Emmas are] and when I spent a lot of the film feeling like she was, frankly, a bit of a bitch, I wanted to banish her from the exclusive "Emma Club". Apart from besmirching the good name the attitude didn't seem to fit with the humour of the film.
Emma. is charming, but it didn't quite get me over the line. There seemed little reason for it to be over 2 hours long, while most of the film was engaging you could have taken out 15 minutes or so and tightened it up, I genuinely think that would have added a star to my rating.
Actually, hold off on that star for a moment, let's talk about the casting first.
Rupert Graves, yeeeeeeeeeeees. That's it for him, he's a delight, put him in everything.
Bill Night and Miranda Hart both gave great comedic performances, with Hart also getting an agonising scene that got me right in the feels. Their talent for humour added a great lightness to the film and was perfectly aligned to the period setting.
Johnny Flynn, or Mr Tasty Debrief for the Cineworld-goers out there. He was tastefully de-briefed, and the reason for the card warning: "Brief natural nudity". Flynn had some good moments, particularly around the picnic scene but for me this strong character becomes too sappy as we roll downhill to the ending.
Emma herself, Anya Taylor-Joy... I have already said that I found Emma to be a bit of a bitch, for the light-hearted nature of the film I really felt the time was off. I know there isn't a lot that would be different in this setting to modern day but I found the sly nature to feel far more modern than everything else. I think that is mainly down to the casting, Taylor-Joy's acting frequently has that vibe too it and it doesn't always endear me to her films, this makes me slightly nervous to see her in Radioactive and The New Mutants over the next couple of months.
The setting is of course as delightful as you would expect, grand houses and rolling hills. Paired with the costumes you have a wonderful overall feel of the era, though I would say that the costumes do have an almost modern touch to them that makes them very noticeable.
The charming base for Austen's novel has to battle with Emma's Mean Girl performance and the slightly overlong runtime, while it does give a mildly entertaining watch it's cowering in the shadow of Little Women and I don't think I'd need to see it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/emma-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
More classic literature retold for the modern audience, this time with a very distinctive and chaotic style.
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Promise (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Roughly a year ago, I found myself in a heated exchange with a friend about full and appropriate representation of people and history in films. I discussed the merits of expanding the scope beyond films about slavery and segregation with respect to African-Americans and stories of despair for other marginalized groups. It is, for me, demeaning to a people’s contributions in society and trivializes experiences. After engaging in what seemed to be an hour, my friend focused more on what she had to say that considering what I was addressing. It proved true when she stated “Well… at least black people have movies about slavery! You should be happy. We don’t even have a movie about the Armenian Genocide!” I was shocked, momentarily. I had never stated that one group deserved more of the spotlight or one’s history is more important that another, just that we need to have appropriate representation and inclusion of stories. All of our stories should be told and shared, especially the ones that are not widely known, understood, or even having a place within social studies courses in our public schools.
I knew of the Armenian Genocide and had a general understanding about the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire. There are several international films that address what took place or have the Genocide as part of the story. Even My Big Fat Greek Wedding makes reference to how Greeks were brutalized by the Turks during the period. What we were missing, at least in the realm of American Cinema, was a representation for US audiences to witness the horrors that these people fell victim to and, for some, were able to survive. In The Promise, audiences will get a history lesson about man’s inhumanity to man.
When I first heard that this film was in production, I was interesting in how it would pan out. Would it be truthful, as painful as it may be? Would they overdo certain aspects? How much would they play with the truth? The filmmakers faced the same problems as those who brought forth Schindler’s List, The Pianist, and Life is Beautiful: How do you approach telling the story of genocide? How do you draw people in to a story that they may not be familiar with? Are people ready?
Summaries of the film that I read online made it seem as though this would be an Armenian version of Pearl Harbor in that this was a love story in the foreground of a film that features violence in the background. The summaries were misleading, maybe by design or maybe by mistake. The Promise, stars Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) as a young Armenia medical student, and Christian Bale (The Dark Knight) as a journalist for the associated press reporting on developments in the Ottoman Empire as war breaks out. The film whose description touts a love triangle in the midst of the Great War is far from what this films discusses and presents. There is a love story, however, it is not what the film is about or what is able to get the attention of the viewers.
The film reveals the deep held animosity of Armenians and other minority groups in the Ottoman Empire. It demonstrates the depth of mistrust and mistreatment of people who cast as “the other.” It is not simplistic in approach nor relying on over-the-top examples of violence in order for those watching to feel something. The development of events and characters permits the audience to connect with each of the characters, their families, their circumstances, and look for any moment in which they can escape the violence that is being committed to them. In no way does this film minimize what the victims went through. It doesn’t trivialize their experience in order to gain one’s attention.
The Promise satisfies the need for a discussion to emerge allowing for a truer examination of the genocide’s place in world history and within the framing of World War I. It presents a more representative picture of what people bore witness to or experienced themselves. With history, we are continuously searching for the truth and ensuring that history itself does not remained buried or ignored. This films serves the purpose in ensuring that more people are aware of not only the Armenian genocide, but all of the moving pieces that come with people fighting against an injustice or violence that is committed upon them because they are seen as less than or undesirable. It is my hope that with this film, studios see the necessity of bringing more stories of struggle, survival, and the will of humanity to overcome hardship and violence to audiences. The Promise although highly overdue, is essential, poignant, timely, and necessary in order for all of us to see that people are not forgotten.
I knew of the Armenian Genocide and had a general understanding about the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire. There are several international films that address what took place or have the Genocide as part of the story. Even My Big Fat Greek Wedding makes reference to how Greeks were brutalized by the Turks during the period. What we were missing, at least in the realm of American Cinema, was a representation for US audiences to witness the horrors that these people fell victim to and, for some, were able to survive. In The Promise, audiences will get a history lesson about man’s inhumanity to man.
When I first heard that this film was in production, I was interesting in how it would pan out. Would it be truthful, as painful as it may be? Would they overdo certain aspects? How much would they play with the truth? The filmmakers faced the same problems as those who brought forth Schindler’s List, The Pianist, and Life is Beautiful: How do you approach telling the story of genocide? How do you draw people in to a story that they may not be familiar with? Are people ready?
Summaries of the film that I read online made it seem as though this would be an Armenian version of Pearl Harbor in that this was a love story in the foreground of a film that features violence in the background. The summaries were misleading, maybe by design or maybe by mistake. The Promise, stars Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) as a young Armenia medical student, and Christian Bale (The Dark Knight) as a journalist for the associated press reporting on developments in the Ottoman Empire as war breaks out. The film whose description touts a love triangle in the midst of the Great War is far from what this films discusses and presents. There is a love story, however, it is not what the film is about or what is able to get the attention of the viewers.
The film reveals the deep held animosity of Armenians and other minority groups in the Ottoman Empire. It demonstrates the depth of mistrust and mistreatment of people who cast as “the other.” It is not simplistic in approach nor relying on over-the-top examples of violence in order for those watching to feel something. The development of events and characters permits the audience to connect with each of the characters, their families, their circumstances, and look for any moment in which they can escape the violence that is being committed to them. In no way does this film minimize what the victims went through. It doesn’t trivialize their experience in order to gain one’s attention.
The Promise satisfies the need for a discussion to emerge allowing for a truer examination of the genocide’s place in world history and within the framing of World War I. It presents a more representative picture of what people bore witness to or experienced themselves. With history, we are continuously searching for the truth and ensuring that history itself does not remained buried or ignored. This films serves the purpose in ensuring that more people are aware of not only the Armenian genocide, but all of the moving pieces that come with people fighting against an injustice or violence that is committed upon them because they are seen as less than or undesirable. It is my hope that with this film, studios see the necessity of bringing more stories of struggle, survival, and the will of humanity to overcome hardship and violence to audiences. The Promise although highly overdue, is essential, poignant, timely, and necessary in order for all of us to see that people are not forgotten.
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jan 2, 2018
Wish it focused on the importance of this historic event
I might be an anomaly here, but sadly I didn't find Christopher Nolan's blockbuster as good as it should have been, and actually am fairly disappointed. The battle at Dunkirk is one of the most catastrophic moments in British military history, essentially British soldiers were completely out of their depth, with little backing and resources, and it was the tipping point in which Britain was very likely to lose the war - if it wasn't for a costly strategic mistake by the Germans to show leniency. It was then that Winston Churchill made his renowned speech, "We Shall Fight on the Beaches" - which we saw a glimpse of in the last scene.
Unfortunately none of this was apparent in the film, and as much as I love Nolan as a director, he seems to have concentrated too much on the cinematography rather than the importance of this event. No doubt, visually it was as beautiful as some of his previous work such as Interstellar, and the acting was subtle, yet stirring. As per usual, Mark Rylance stands out as the most understated and refined actor - but it was an all-round great cast. It's watchable, but it doesn't really show the true magnitude and significance of this period.
Unfortunately none of this was apparent in the film, and as much as I love Nolan as a director, he seems to have concentrated too much on the cinematography rather than the importance of this event. No doubt, visually it was as beautiful as some of his previous work such as Interstellar, and the acting was subtle, yet stirring. As per usual, Mark Rylance stands out as the most understated and refined actor - but it was an all-round great cast. It's watchable, but it doesn't really show the true magnitude and significance of this period.
Eleanor (1463 KP) rated The Green Mile in Books
Jun 4, 2019
Atmosphere (1 more)
Characters
A disturbing but beautiful book
I'd seen the film a long time ago so no surprises with the plot but wow was I surprised at how well written and captivating this book was.
Written as the memoir of former Prison Guard Paul Edgecombe we get a look into the life of Block E of the Cold Mountain Penitentiary which Paul is the head guard of in the 1930s. In what we would call death row today they call it the “Green Mile” due to the colour of the floor. We get a snapshot of the period on the block around the time of convicted child killer John Coffey coming onto the “Mile.”
Each part of the book has a bit from the present from as Paul is writing this memoir and these served as lovely little bridge to the next part of his story.
I've read quite a bit of King and enjoy a lot of his work with his well crafted stories, but I've never fallen head over heels for his writing....until now.
Very emotionally engaging King really pulls off a great atmosphere, characters and despite a supernatural element, a story that easily carries you along. Not often I cry reading a book but this one got me.
Written as the memoir of former Prison Guard Paul Edgecombe we get a look into the life of Block E of the Cold Mountain Penitentiary which Paul is the head guard of in the 1930s. In what we would call death row today they call it the “Green Mile” due to the colour of the floor. We get a snapshot of the period on the block around the time of convicted child killer John Coffey coming onto the “Mile.”
Each part of the book has a bit from the present from as Paul is writing this memoir and these served as lovely little bridge to the next part of his story.
I've read quite a bit of King and enjoy a lot of his work with his well crafted stories, but I've never fallen head over heels for his writing....until now.
Very emotionally engaging King really pulls off a great atmosphere, characters and despite a supernatural element, a story that easily carries you along. Not often I cry reading a book but this one got me.