Search
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.
Gay Times - the original gay lifestyle magazine
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
App
It’s all change here GT. New look. New price. New mobile app. Download now. GT is the original...
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla Vs Biollante (1989) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018 (Updated Feb 8, 2018)
The Rise of the Rose of the Risen Dead
Toho Studios held a competition to find the plot for their next Godzilla movie after the semi-reboot of the series in 1984, and this is the film that resulted from the winning idea. Heaven knows what the losing entries must have been like, because this is a tale dripping with utter insanity of a kind you just don't get in conventional western movies.
Scientists hoping to grow extra-resilient genetically-modified wheat give some harvested Godzilla cells to a brilliant scientist who has been left unhinged by the death of his lovely young daughter in a terrorist attack. The scientist promptly decides to use the G-cells to create a new form of hybrid rose (as you would), which starts to exhibit worrying Godzilla-ish tendencies (demolishing the greenhouse and heading off across country, for instance). It transpires the new creature is possessed by the spirit of the scientist's daughter. 'I think now I may have made a mistake,' admits the scientist, in one of the great movie understatements.
Not to worry, for Godzilla himself erupts from the volcanic prison he was stuck in at the end of the previous film, and the new creature (Biollante, in case you haven't already figured it out) may be able to lend a hand in sorting him out. There is also a slightly dull subplot about evil American corporations and spies from the desert nation of Saradia (i.e. Saudi Arabia) which sometimes gets in the way of the monster action.
Well, if you've ever wanted to see cinema's most famous mutant nuclear dinosaur battling a botanical semi-clone of himself which has been possessed by the ghost of a young woman, this is the movie for you. Actually, this is a cut above most Godzilla movies of this period, being filled with (admittedly mad) ideas and actually keeping Godzilla at the centre of the plot. The monsters look good and it treats them with a welcome seriousness. Unfortunately, the poor box office for this outing led Toho to adopt a policy of bringing back old favourites in subsequent movies, rather than new monsters, but this is a refreshingly different and rather well-made Godzilla film.
Scientists hoping to grow extra-resilient genetically-modified wheat give some harvested Godzilla cells to a brilliant scientist who has been left unhinged by the death of his lovely young daughter in a terrorist attack. The scientist promptly decides to use the G-cells to create a new form of hybrid rose (as you would), which starts to exhibit worrying Godzilla-ish tendencies (demolishing the greenhouse and heading off across country, for instance). It transpires the new creature is possessed by the spirit of the scientist's daughter. 'I think now I may have made a mistake,' admits the scientist, in one of the great movie understatements.
Not to worry, for Godzilla himself erupts from the volcanic prison he was stuck in at the end of the previous film, and the new creature (Biollante, in case you haven't already figured it out) may be able to lend a hand in sorting him out. There is also a slightly dull subplot about evil American corporations and spies from the desert nation of Saradia (i.e. Saudi Arabia) which sometimes gets in the way of the monster action.
Well, if you've ever wanted to see cinema's most famous mutant nuclear dinosaur battling a botanical semi-clone of himself which has been possessed by the ghost of a young woman, this is the movie for you. Actually, this is a cut above most Godzilla movies of this period, being filled with (admittedly mad) ideas and actually keeping Godzilla at the centre of the plot. The monsters look good and it treats them with a welcome seriousness. Unfortunately, the poor box office for this outing led Toho to adopt a policy of bringing back old favourites in subsequent movies, rather than new monsters, but this is a refreshingly different and rather well-made Godzilla film.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Favourite (2018) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
Fantastic script (3 more)
Brilliant performances
Clever cinematography
Insanely detailed set design
Strange But Brilliant
To be honest, I am not a huge fan of Yorgos Lanthimos' other movies, I also have a hatred for most period pieces. I am however a huge fan of Olivia Colman and it was her that swayed me to go and see this movie and I am very glad that I did.
Colman absolutely nails her role as a grief stricken, overly dramatic, short tempered Queen Anne. Her acting ability is diverse enough that she can take you from a side splitting remark one moment to a genuinely saddening comment the next and do it flawlessly and convincingly. Rachel Weisz is also pretty good here as Queen Anne's original favourite lady, Anne may be the Queen, but it is Lady Marlborough who is really running the show.
The biggest surpise for me was Emma Stone's performance. I don't hate Emma Stone, but I do feel like she plays the same goofy studenty American girl in everything that she is in, but here she is actually acting and her English accent was brilliant throughout the whole movie. It proves how much a good director is able to get out of their actors performance-wise.
The other main star here is the script. It is jam packed with brilliantly crass lines that are fired out so quickly and with such venom from the respective characters that you really feel the words being said. It is one of the best written scripts I have seen in a film in a while.
I'm not normally one to gush about set design, but my God... This movie goes all out with it's backdrops. I know that for the exterior shots, they shot on location at real palaces and castles and used mostly natural lighting at least for the daytime scenes. While these scenes are impressive, it is the interior scenes that are really mesmerising. The level of detail on the background elements in this movie is insane and anywhere that you look onscreen, there is something new and interesting to catch your eye.
The other great thing about this movie, is that even if you don't care about the competition for favour that is at the centre of the movie's plot, there is enough going on with the filmmaking itself to keep your attention throughout. The odd looking fish eye lenses that Lanthimos uses and the bizarre shot compositions looking up from waist-height at the actors is as fascinating to look at as it is weird. It gives the movie a unique feel that sets it apart from any other period piece I have seen.
Overall, I got way more out of The Favourite than I expected to going in. The movie is funny, witty and pretty unique. The attention to detail is impressive and the performances are great, with Olivia Colman's alone making the film worth the price of admission. The script is great and the direction is oddly interesting. Do be warned though; this movie is very weird and definitely not your typical period piece movie.
Colman absolutely nails her role as a grief stricken, overly dramatic, short tempered Queen Anne. Her acting ability is diverse enough that she can take you from a side splitting remark one moment to a genuinely saddening comment the next and do it flawlessly and convincingly. Rachel Weisz is also pretty good here as Queen Anne's original favourite lady, Anne may be the Queen, but it is Lady Marlborough who is really running the show.
The biggest surpise for me was Emma Stone's performance. I don't hate Emma Stone, but I do feel like she plays the same goofy studenty American girl in everything that she is in, but here she is actually acting and her English accent was brilliant throughout the whole movie. It proves how much a good director is able to get out of their actors performance-wise.
The other main star here is the script. It is jam packed with brilliantly crass lines that are fired out so quickly and with such venom from the respective characters that you really feel the words being said. It is one of the best written scripts I have seen in a film in a while.
I'm not normally one to gush about set design, but my God... This movie goes all out with it's backdrops. I know that for the exterior shots, they shot on location at real palaces and castles and used mostly natural lighting at least for the daytime scenes. While these scenes are impressive, it is the interior scenes that are really mesmerising. The level of detail on the background elements in this movie is insane and anywhere that you look onscreen, there is something new and interesting to catch your eye.
The other great thing about this movie, is that even if you don't care about the competition for favour that is at the centre of the movie's plot, there is enough going on with the filmmaking itself to keep your attention throughout. The odd looking fish eye lenses that Lanthimos uses and the bizarre shot compositions looking up from waist-height at the actors is as fascinating to look at as it is weird. It gives the movie a unique feel that sets it apart from any other period piece I have seen.
Overall, I got way more out of The Favourite than I expected to going in. The movie is funny, witty and pretty unique. The attention to detail is impressive and the performances are great, with Olivia Colman's alone making the film worth the price of admission. The script is great and the direction is oddly interesting. Do be warned though; this movie is very weird and definitely not your typical period piece movie.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Divorce has been depicted many times onscreen, as it’s one of those difficult realities about adult relationships. There’s still a lot of stigma around the breakdown of a marriage, but Marriage Story deals with the topic in a very raw and unique way.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Nov 12, 2019 (Updated Nov 12, 2019)
Nahhhh
Assassin's Creed is a series of (mostly) decent games that I personally enjoy. It's got a simple yet solid premise that has a story running in a select time in history, whilst simultaneously having another story running in modern day. It's full of parkour action, and flashy combat, and lends itself nicely to a movie adaption format?
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
Kris Kristofferson: Country Highwayman
Book
Singer-songwriter Kris Kristofferson has maintained a career in music and film for more than forty...
Hitchcock's British Films
Barry Keith Grant and Maurice Yacowar
Book
Originally published in 1977 and long out of print, Maurice Yacowar's Hitchcock's British Films was...
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Prom Night (1980) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Halloween 1.5
Fairly forgettable slasher/horror film with a lot of similarities to the original Halloween which had been released only 2 years earlier also starring Jamie Lee Curtis. Maybe at the time, all the now predictable horror cliches had not been overdone as they have been these days, but it was still mostly a bore.
After several children murder another girl in an abandoned building, they decide to keep their crime as a secret. Years later the children are now in high school when a mysterious stranger now decides to look them up and make them pay for the dastardly deed. They don't notice subtle clues immediately as the stranger starting calling them with his "spooky voice". The night of the prom is different though, as he decides to take his revenge on them one at a time after there is plenty of disco dancing of course.
Were audiences easier to please back in 1980? Clearly this was a cash grab of a film coming right on the heels of a much better ground breaking entry into the horror genre. This killer is pretty boring in comparison to others even of the same time period. No Captain Kirk or hockey masks here. The guy just wears all black with a black ski mask.
The soundtrack of disco tunes and the prom dancing scene with Jamie Lee strutting her stuff with her date was the highlight for me. It was also funny, yet not funny to see Leslie Nielsen in a dramatic role. It's hard to believe his career would change forever the same year when Airplane! was released.
I would pass if I were you.
After several children murder another girl in an abandoned building, they decide to keep their crime as a secret. Years later the children are now in high school when a mysterious stranger now decides to look them up and make them pay for the dastardly deed. They don't notice subtle clues immediately as the stranger starting calling them with his "spooky voice". The night of the prom is different though, as he decides to take his revenge on them one at a time after there is plenty of disco dancing of course.
Were audiences easier to please back in 1980? Clearly this was a cash grab of a film coming right on the heels of a much better ground breaking entry into the horror genre. This killer is pretty boring in comparison to others even of the same time period. No Captain Kirk or hockey masks here. The guy just wears all black with a black ski mask.
The soundtrack of disco tunes and the prom dancing scene with Jamie Lee strutting her stuff with her date was the highlight for me. It was also funny, yet not funny to see Leslie Nielsen in a dramatic role. It's hard to believe his career would change forever the same year when Airplane! was released.
I would pass if I were you.
WA
Women and Consumer Culture in Early Twentieth-Century Japan: The Department Store, Modernity and Everyday Life
Book
The first thirty years of the twentieth century was a key period in the development of Japanese...