Search
Lost in the Wilderness
Book
"As you drive across the midwest of America, one is in awe of the vast endless landscape. If the...
Photography
The World of Charles and Ray Eames
7.0
Rate It
Book
This is the first comprehensive book on the Eames' legacy in over a decade, revealing the rich...
Design
Last Exit To Brooklyn
Book
Few novels have caused as much debate as Hubert Selby Jr.'s notorious masterpiece, Last Exit to...
Ministry of Illusion: Nazi Cinema and Its Afterlife
Book
German cinema of the Third Reich, even a half-century after Hitler's demise, still provokes extreme...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Shadow in the Cloud (2020) in Movies
Sep 7, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
In short, Shadow in the Cloud is a whole load of silly, but entertaining nonsense. In all honesty, the opening 30 or so minutes completely grabbed me - it has a foreboding synth heavy soundtrack that's completely at odds with its WWII time period but still works, it has a sort of gothic aesthetic in it's cloudy night sky setting that boasts some wonderful shots, it has a well built up sense of dread, and then, when the penny drops that there's something not quite right, there's a shot that is legitimately chilling. I was hooked and found myself thinking "this is going to be one of my new favourite films", but alas, it wasn't to last.
From the moment the gremlin creature is fully revealed, proceedings get sillier and sillier - there is one bit in particular that is so mind numbingly dumb, I felt some brain cells die off (but it still made me audibly laugh so, every cloud). The silliness isn't even the main problem, it's actually a plus, but it does highlight how shoddy most of the writing is. Chloë Grace Moretz does the best with what she's given, but honestly, Max Landis' claims that 95% of the finished product is still his work despite re-writes isn't something to be proud of. There's just a lot of iffy dialogue, and some narrative twists later down the line that feel forced and unnecessary.
However, all the silliness that I mentioned makes up for it, if that's your kind of thing. I really can't hate on a film too much when it has its lead beating the shit out of a CGI monkey-bat thing that's trying to eat her baby after all.
From the moment the gremlin creature is fully revealed, proceedings get sillier and sillier - there is one bit in particular that is so mind numbingly dumb, I felt some brain cells die off (but it still made me audibly laugh so, every cloud). The silliness isn't even the main problem, it's actually a plus, but it does highlight how shoddy most of the writing is. Chloë Grace Moretz does the best with what she's given, but honestly, Max Landis' claims that 95% of the finished product is still his work despite re-writes isn't something to be proud of. There's just a lot of iffy dialogue, and some narrative twists later down the line that feel forced and unnecessary.
However, all the silliness that I mentioned makes up for it, if that's your kind of thing. I really can't hate on a film too much when it has its lead beating the shit out of a CGI monkey-bat thing that's trying to eat her baby after all.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Cracks Me Up
Growing up, I never really understood British humor. There is a bit of a bite to it, dry wit that I didn’t really get as a kid. The older I get, the more I appreciate and love it. Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a the perfect example of British humor at its finest. Set in 33 A.D., it follows the story of Brian Cohen who is mistaken for the Messiah and worshipped at every turn.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Another King Fighting Film
Story: The King starts as the war between the English and the Scots continues to rage on, King Henry IV (Mendlesohn) is getting tired of the bloodshed and disloyalty being found in his own soldiers and with his health getting worse he recalls his son Hal (Chalamet) to his side.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"i'm just a kid from brooklyn"
"I'm just a kid from Brooklyn"
A rip-roaring homage to old fashioned serials and comic books. Joe Johnston somehow pulls off the tone and look, firmly planting me into the 1940's time period. As fantastical as it is I still feel the real world within the picture.
Protagonist Steve Rogers makes for an easily likable guy who at the start is a smaller guy, who stands up to bullies even if it means getting his ass beat. His dream is to serve his country and although not meeting physical requirements for the army, he proves the heart and courage to become the specimen of a super soldier syrum. With this experiment, Steve's size, strength and conditioning is greatly enhanced and becomes the face of WW2 propaganda. His desire to fight however gets him involved with the battle against a division of the Nazi's known as Hydra, headed by Johann Schmidt, the "Red Skull".
Red Skull is one of the best villians of the Marvel cinematic universe. I couldn't imagine him played by anyone other than Hugo Weaving who brings such gravitas and personality to the role. Red Skull is an experiment of the soldier syrum himself which gives him a certain connection to Rogers, but chooses to use his power for the service of himself and his evil desires. The film includes the element of Nazi fascination with science and experimentation, taking it a step further. Red Skull discovers other worldly magic, the Tesseract of Asgard, which he utilizes for the use of weaponry. Thus, blending historical events with an exciting dose of imagination. A Nazi more powerful than Hitler? That's pretty scary.
The action comes swift and mighty, combining the fleshy violence of war with creative comic book thrills. It's some of the most entertaining action I've ever seen. I love that the presence of Hitler can be felt even though he is not on screen. It seamlessly connects the future with the past, makes the looming threat of the entire world felt, and contains elements of other Marvel films past and present that only adds to the movie and never detracts. Tony Stark's father has a direct influence on Captain America which adds a layer to the proceeding films. Thor and Loki's place in future events are tied in perfectly. Steve's friendship with Bucky and presumed death is one of the emotional cores to the film that also plays into the sequels. Unbelievable.
Can I just mention the charming romance between Peggy and Steve Rogers? It's so natural and plays out over the duration of the film without anything ridiculous. When Peggy tears up as Steve is speeding toward the unkown in a downed plane, I lose it. I lose it every time. They never got that last dance and my heart is broken.
When Red Skull calls Steve a "simpleton with a shield" I'm like YES!! that's why I love him. I could be Steve Rogers. I could be Captain America. Well, not really, but he's one of the most relatable on screen super heroes. I'd even say he's the one I can see myself in the most. Consider me #TeamCap.
I must make mention of the wonderful musical score and songs written for the film. Very important piece to the puzzle. I listen to "Star Spangled Man" just about every time I take a walk. The costumes and production design deserve all the love in the world as well. Tommy Lee Jones is great and makes me laugh as usual. All performances are great. Points for finding a use for Captain America's vintage comic book costume and re-enacting the punch to Hitler's face from Captain America issue #1.
Who taught Cap how to fight like that though? Guess that's one of the perks of the syrum too.
A rip-roaring homage to old fashioned serials and comic books. Joe Johnston somehow pulls off the tone and look, firmly planting me into the 1940's time period. As fantastical as it is I still feel the real world within the picture.
Protagonist Steve Rogers makes for an easily likable guy who at the start is a smaller guy, who stands up to bullies even if it means getting his ass beat. His dream is to serve his country and although not meeting physical requirements for the army, he proves the heart and courage to become the specimen of a super soldier syrum. With this experiment, Steve's size, strength and conditioning is greatly enhanced and becomes the face of WW2 propaganda. His desire to fight however gets him involved with the battle against a division of the Nazi's known as Hydra, headed by Johann Schmidt, the "Red Skull".
Red Skull is one of the best villians of the Marvel cinematic universe. I couldn't imagine him played by anyone other than Hugo Weaving who brings such gravitas and personality to the role. Red Skull is an experiment of the soldier syrum himself which gives him a certain connection to Rogers, but chooses to use his power for the service of himself and his evil desires. The film includes the element of Nazi fascination with science and experimentation, taking it a step further. Red Skull discovers other worldly magic, the Tesseract of Asgard, which he utilizes for the use of weaponry. Thus, blending historical events with an exciting dose of imagination. A Nazi more powerful than Hitler? That's pretty scary.
The action comes swift and mighty, combining the fleshy violence of war with creative comic book thrills. It's some of the most entertaining action I've ever seen. I love that the presence of Hitler can be felt even though he is not on screen. It seamlessly connects the future with the past, makes the looming threat of the entire world felt, and contains elements of other Marvel films past and present that only adds to the movie and never detracts. Tony Stark's father has a direct influence on Captain America which adds a layer to the proceeding films. Thor and Loki's place in future events are tied in perfectly. Steve's friendship with Bucky and presumed death is one of the emotional cores to the film that also plays into the sequels. Unbelievable.
Can I just mention the charming romance between Peggy and Steve Rogers? It's so natural and plays out over the duration of the film without anything ridiculous. When Peggy tears up as Steve is speeding toward the unkown in a downed plane, I lose it. I lose it every time. They never got that last dance and my heart is broken.
When Red Skull calls Steve a "simpleton with a shield" I'm like YES!! that's why I love him. I could be Steve Rogers. I could be Captain America. Well, not really, but he's one of the most relatable on screen super heroes. I'd even say he's the one I can see myself in the most. Consider me #TeamCap.
I must make mention of the wonderful musical score and songs written for the film. Very important piece to the puzzle. I listen to "Star Spangled Man" just about every time I take a walk. The costumes and production design deserve all the love in the world as well. Tommy Lee Jones is great and makes me laugh as usual. All performances are great. Points for finding a use for Captain America's vintage comic book costume and re-enacting the punch to Hitler's face from Captain America issue #1.
Who taught Cap how to fight like that though? Guess that's one of the perks of the syrum too.