Search
PromptSmart Pro - Teleprompter
Photo & Video and Productivity
App
PromptSmart is the first and only “smart” teleprompter app. VoiceTrack speech recognition...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Great Wall (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Disappointingly Pedestrian
Acclaimed director Zhang Yimou has been at the helm of some of China’s greatest film assets. 1991’s Raise the Red Lantern is widely regarded as one of the defining foreign-language films of its period and 2004’s House of Flying Daggers received huge critical acclamation for its stunning cinematography and exceptional script.
Here, Yimou teams up with one of Hollywood’s greatest assets, Matt Damon in a monster flick to rival all others. But does The Great Wall showcase the very best from its director and leading man?
When a mercenary warrior on the run from a group of bandits (Matt Damon) is imprisoned within China’s magnificent Great Wall, he discovers the mystery behind one of the greatest wonders of the world. As surge after surge of snarling, prowling beasts called Taotie besiege the massive construction, his quest for immeasurable fortune turns into a journey toward heroism. He joins a vast army of elite Chinese soldiers to confront the unimaginable and seemingly unstoppable force.
Unfortunately, The Great Wall squanders the talents of both Damon and Yimou with an unnecessarily dense script overriding any sense of drama. To be honest, it’s all just a bit of a bore.
The cast is fine but so vast that Damon and Jin Tian, who we will see again very soon in Kong: Skull Island, are the only stars to make any sort of impact. Even then, a poor script stops them from being anything but cardboard cut-outs. There is no character development whatsoever. In fact, as I write this paragraph I nearly forgot to mention Willem Dafoe. He makes no impact on the final outcome at all.
Elsewhere, the special effects range from laughably poor to adequate and certainly not befitting of a film costing well over $200million. The wall itself is rendered in decent CGI and the numerous battle scenes have a reasonably immersive feel, but the Taotie lacks realism and as the main antagonists throughout, this is a serious problem.
The cinematography too is not up to the standard of Yimou’s previous works. Relying far too heavily on green screen, it wastes his incredible eye for detail and continuously feels like you’re sat watching a very expensive video game. As with last year’s Gods of Egypt, there’s a certain glossy quality to the picture that dominates and this is what stops it being believable.
Nevertheless, the music is very good indeed. Ramin Djawadi has scored big budget blockbusters like Iron Man and Pacific Rim with The Great Wall taking a few influences from the latter. It’s definitely the saving grace here and alleviates a couple of the shortcomings.
Overall, The Great Wall is a film unworthy of the talent both behind and in front of the lens. It’s crammed full of poor CGI and uninspiring cinematography, though its great score is unquestionably a highlight. With such good subject matter, it feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/18/the-great-wall-disappointingly-pedestrian/
Here, Yimou teams up with one of Hollywood’s greatest assets, Matt Damon in a monster flick to rival all others. But does The Great Wall showcase the very best from its director and leading man?
When a mercenary warrior on the run from a group of bandits (Matt Damon) is imprisoned within China’s magnificent Great Wall, he discovers the mystery behind one of the greatest wonders of the world. As surge after surge of snarling, prowling beasts called Taotie besiege the massive construction, his quest for immeasurable fortune turns into a journey toward heroism. He joins a vast army of elite Chinese soldiers to confront the unimaginable and seemingly unstoppable force.
Unfortunately, The Great Wall squanders the talents of both Damon and Yimou with an unnecessarily dense script overriding any sense of drama. To be honest, it’s all just a bit of a bore.
The cast is fine but so vast that Damon and Jin Tian, who we will see again very soon in Kong: Skull Island, are the only stars to make any sort of impact. Even then, a poor script stops them from being anything but cardboard cut-outs. There is no character development whatsoever. In fact, as I write this paragraph I nearly forgot to mention Willem Dafoe. He makes no impact on the final outcome at all.
Elsewhere, the special effects range from laughably poor to adequate and certainly not befitting of a film costing well over $200million. The wall itself is rendered in decent CGI and the numerous battle scenes have a reasonably immersive feel, but the Taotie lacks realism and as the main antagonists throughout, this is a serious problem.
The cinematography too is not up to the standard of Yimou’s previous works. Relying far too heavily on green screen, it wastes his incredible eye for detail and continuously feels like you’re sat watching a very expensive video game. As with last year’s Gods of Egypt, there’s a certain glossy quality to the picture that dominates and this is what stops it being believable.
Nevertheless, the music is very good indeed. Ramin Djawadi has scored big budget blockbusters like Iron Man and Pacific Rim with The Great Wall taking a few influences from the latter. It’s definitely the saving grace here and alleviates a couple of the shortcomings.
Overall, The Great Wall is a film unworthy of the talent both behind and in front of the lens. It’s crammed full of poor CGI and uninspiring cinematography, though its great score is unquestionably a highlight. With such good subject matter, it feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/18/the-great-wall-disappointingly-pedestrian/
Rob Zombie recommended Dracula (1958) in Movies (curated)
Enlight Photofox
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
9.0
Rate It
App
You’ll never believe what you can create on iPhone with Enlight Photofox. Whether you’re an...
Coach's Eye - Video Analysis
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Video doesn't lie. Get Coach's Eye today and see your performance improve immediately! ...
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Oh Yeah, Audrey! in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Fans of Audrey Hepburn are bound to love Tucker Shaw’s latest contemporary young adult novel <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> especially if they admire her as much as sixteen year old Gemma Beasley does. The novel takes place over a time period of twenty-six hours beginning at 5:00am outside <i>Tiffany’s</i> in New York. Through Tumblr Gemma has “met” other Audrey fanatics and has arranged a get together in honour of the twentieth anniversary of the legendary star’s death.
It helps to have watched the film <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> (I haven’t) or at least have read the book (I have), as the narrative is full of quotes and references to Holly Golightly and scenes from the film. At first it appears no one else will turn up to the meeting but eventually they do and their exciting day gets off to an enjoyable start. Although they have a strict itinerary planned out it is soon forgotten as other options arise. By asking themselves: “what would Holly do?” they end up doing a lot of things they have never done before.
It all seems too good to be true when a rich good-looking guy asks Gemma out for dinner. She accepts despite it meaning she will be ditching her friends but she promises to meet up with them later. However, Gemma soon finds herself out of her depth and feels like she has ruined the evening not just for herself, but for her friends as well.
Initially readers may expect <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> to be a very girly book but it actually has a strong message behind it. The whole time that Gemma is asking herself “what would Holly do?” she is not discovering the person she is and what she really wants. <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> may have made running away from home and living independently look like a glamorous adventure, but Gemma discovers that Holly Golightly was most likely a very lonely character.
I enjoyed this book much more than I was expecting to. It is a quick easy read that is very funny and entertaining but also moving at the end. Those who have not yet read/seen <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> will definitely be thinking about doing so after reading <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i>
Fans of Audrey Hepburn are bound to love Tucker Shaw’s latest contemporary young adult novel <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> especially if they admire her as much as sixteen year old Gemma Beasley does. The novel takes place over a time period of twenty-six hours beginning at 5:00am outside <i>Tiffany’s</i> in New York. Through Tumblr Gemma has “met” other Audrey fanatics and has arranged a get together in honour of the twentieth anniversary of the legendary star’s death.
It helps to have watched the film <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> (I haven’t) or at least have read the book (I have), as the narrative is full of quotes and references to Holly Golightly and scenes from the film. At first it appears no one else will turn up to the meeting but eventually they do and their exciting day gets off to an enjoyable start. Although they have a strict itinerary planned out it is soon forgotten as other options arise. By asking themselves: “what would Holly do?” they end up doing a lot of things they have never done before.
It all seems too good to be true when a rich good-looking guy asks Gemma out for dinner. She accepts despite it meaning she will be ditching her friends but she promises to meet up with them later. However, Gemma soon finds herself out of her depth and feels like she has ruined the evening not just for herself, but for her friends as well.
Initially readers may expect <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> to be a very girly book but it actually has a strong message behind it. The whole time that Gemma is asking herself “what would Holly do?” she is not discovering the person she is and what she really wants. <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> may have made running away from home and living independently look like a glamorous adventure, but Gemma discovers that Holly Golightly was most likely a very lonely character.
I enjoyed this book much more than I was expecting to. It is a quick easy read that is very funny and entertaining but also moving at the end. Those who have not yet read/seen <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> will definitely be thinking about doing so after reading <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i>
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated T2 Trainspotting (2017) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Cast (3 more)
Script
Direction
Soundtrack
Here comes Johnny Yen again...
Choose nostalgia, choose sequels, choose another dose of high energy antics and following four reprobates as they show that although time rolls by, people don’t change. Choose betraying your mates and abandoning them for two decades until you are forced to return home and face your demons. Choose to buy the fact that Renton returns to Edinburgh the same week that Begbie decides to break out of prison after a twenty year stretch and try not to think too much about it. Choose facing the fact that we aren’t getting any younger and not everything works out the way we hope it will. Choose a killer soundtrack, a lighter tone, a witty script and phenomenal direction. Danny Boyle and the cast in this movie have came a long way in the last twenty years and this movie exhibits that awesomely, but doesn’t forget where they came from. This movie was never going to exceed the first movie but it instead functions as a companion piece to the original and actually makes the events of the first movie more meaningful. The film isn’t afraid to play on its legacy and the fact that a good amount of time has passed since the last time we saw these characters, it in fact relies on the time that has past since the original movie. This is one of the best Scottish films ever made and is right up there alongside the original and the two movies together tell a fantastic, gripping and engaging story over a significant period of time.
Dawn Marie (22 KP) rated The Watcher in the Woods (1981) in Movies
Jan 19, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
Disney had a dark period they were not making money horror films and sci fi films were all the rage so Disney decided that they needed to try to get away from the animated film and musicals to scary and sci fi films. This was one of the films. It had problems from the get go the watcher when showed to the preview audiences was not finished and people thought it wasn't scary which caused Disney to get scared and pulled the movie to refinish the movie with a new ending. If you get a dvd copy in the special features you will see the two different cut scenes with the watcher there are other scenes that anchor bay the distribution company wanted to put on a laser disc and a dvd but Disney refused to corporate so we may never see the deleted opening. That being said Jan and her family move into a family manor where the mrs. Elwood played by the great bette Davis lives in the cottage next to her old house. Jan finds out that mrs. Elwoods daughter disappeared in the woods during an eclipse and spooky things start happening to Jan and her sister Ellie could the watcher have something to do with this and could Jan or Ellie be the watchers next victim! The movie has some flaws and is a little cheesy but it is one of my favorite Disney forgotten films! Enjoyable but not what it could of been and defiantly better than the lifetime remake which changed everything that was good about this movie