Search
Enlight Quickshot
Photo & Video and Utilities
App
Enlight Quickshot will make you fall in love with mobile photography. Here to convince you that the...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Kingdom (2019) in Movies
Aug 12, 2019
Action sequences. (2 more)
The Mountain Tribe.
Zuo Ci.
134-minute duration feels like a marathon. (1 more)
Drags a lot in its first half.
I haven’t read any of the 55 volumes (and counting) of Yasuhisa Hara’s Kingdom manga or watched any of the 77 episodes of the anime adapted by animation studio Pierrot (Bleach, Yu Yu Hakusho, and Tokyo Ghoul among many others). To make matters worse, I haven’t seen any of the films by director and co-screenwriter Shinsuke Sato (the two live-action Gantz films, Death Note: Light Up the New World, the live-action Bleach film for Netflix). I’m going into Kingdom completely blind and I have no idea if that makes the viewing experience any better or worse.
In 255 B.C., Kingdom revolves around the quick-tempered and charge-headfirst-into-battle-without-thinking Xin (Kento Yamazaki) that dreams of being the greatest general of the Qin Kingdom. There’s other stuff going on; a bloody 500 year war between the seven states of China, Xin’s best friend Piao (Ryô Yoshizawa) being enlisted by the King only to turn around and be killed, and King Yin Zheng being a splitting image of Piao, but nothing is emphasized or screamed louder than Xin’s desire to become the greatest general China has ever known.
Kingdom feels like it’s about 45 minutes too long for its own good. The first hour seems to drag as blood spraying into the air every now and then isn’t enough to keep you fully intrigued. The manga is an exaggerated recounting of Zheng actually becoming king in 221 B.C. during the Warring States period and eventually unifying China while the characters are loosely based on actual historical figures. The action adventure film attempts to portray Xin and Piao as worthy and capable swordsman because they clunked stick swords together 10,000 times in an empty field throughout their childhood and teenage years.
The film tries to compensate for its slow first hour with a more eventful second half, but it doesn’t totally succeed. Yang Duan He (Masami Nagasawa) and her mountain tribe are pretty awesome. Their masks remind you of something straight out of Princess Mononoke and you’ll be trying your hardest not to compare Yang Duan He to Xena: Warrior Princess. There’s this competition for the throne that gets a little complicated. Zheng’s brother Cheng Jiao (Kanata Hongo) is nasty and heartless and basically a human version of Salacious Crumb sitting on an even more elaborate version of Jabba the Hutt’s dais. Zheng and Jiao have the same father, but different mothers; Jiao’s is of royal blood and Zheng’s is a dancer or, in other words, a commoner. Jiao viewed peasantry as being bone deep; it isn’t something that can ever go away.
The main theme of Kingdom sounds like a direct ripoff of the main Guardians of the Galaxy theme, which is kind of brain-numbing. The prosthetics in the film are questionable with Li Dian, the original slave owner of Xin and Piao, having this awkwardly orange colored face, inhumanly puffy cheeks, stringy facial hair, and the ugliest facial expressions imaginable. After Xin joins up with Zheng, a girl in a bushy owl costume named He Liao Diao (Kanna Hasimoto) is mostly only around to take everyone to the mountains later. The chemistry Xin, Zheng, and Diao have is reminiscent of what Mugen, Jin, and Foo have in Samurai Champloo. Another observation is that Xin is basically Goku with Vegeta’s short-fuse temper; he lives to fight and eat, he’s dumber than a bag of rocks, and he can’t identify a woman when she’s standing directly in front of him.
Cheng Jiao’s go-to henchman, former general and current hitman for hire Zuo Ci (Tak Sakaguchi) may be the film’s coolest character. He doesn’t care about anybody, tells Xin that all dreams are BS, and is a part of what is arguably the best action sequence in the film. Meanwhile, General Wang Yi (Takao Ohsawa), the most renowned general in all of China and the guy with the status Xin plans on taking in the future, is a bit overrated. He mostly just parades his weird and pointy facial hair around and swings his giant sword as if it won’t remind us of Guts from Berserk.
All in all, Kingdom is a decent action adventure that just takes a while to really get going. The performances aren’t totally satisfying with Kento Yamazaki hamming it up on more than occasion and taking the brainless dolt with a huge mouth thing to uncomfortable levels. The story isn’t exactly hard to follow, but it does feel like it’s trying to be more convoluted than it needs to be. You don’t feel any sort of attachment to any of the characters and any sort of twist can be seen long before the reveal. Kingdom is just an okay way to spend two hours that is probably a justifiable rental on a day when you have nothing better to do, but is not worth paying full price to own.
In 255 B.C., Kingdom revolves around the quick-tempered and charge-headfirst-into-battle-without-thinking Xin (Kento Yamazaki) that dreams of being the greatest general of the Qin Kingdom. There’s other stuff going on; a bloody 500 year war between the seven states of China, Xin’s best friend Piao (Ryô Yoshizawa) being enlisted by the King only to turn around and be killed, and King Yin Zheng being a splitting image of Piao, but nothing is emphasized or screamed louder than Xin’s desire to become the greatest general China has ever known.
Kingdom feels like it’s about 45 minutes too long for its own good. The first hour seems to drag as blood spraying into the air every now and then isn’t enough to keep you fully intrigued. The manga is an exaggerated recounting of Zheng actually becoming king in 221 B.C. during the Warring States period and eventually unifying China while the characters are loosely based on actual historical figures. The action adventure film attempts to portray Xin and Piao as worthy and capable swordsman because they clunked stick swords together 10,000 times in an empty field throughout their childhood and teenage years.
The film tries to compensate for its slow first hour with a more eventful second half, but it doesn’t totally succeed. Yang Duan He (Masami Nagasawa) and her mountain tribe are pretty awesome. Their masks remind you of something straight out of Princess Mononoke and you’ll be trying your hardest not to compare Yang Duan He to Xena: Warrior Princess. There’s this competition for the throne that gets a little complicated. Zheng’s brother Cheng Jiao (Kanata Hongo) is nasty and heartless and basically a human version of Salacious Crumb sitting on an even more elaborate version of Jabba the Hutt’s dais. Zheng and Jiao have the same father, but different mothers; Jiao’s is of royal blood and Zheng’s is a dancer or, in other words, a commoner. Jiao viewed peasantry as being bone deep; it isn’t something that can ever go away.
The main theme of Kingdom sounds like a direct ripoff of the main Guardians of the Galaxy theme, which is kind of brain-numbing. The prosthetics in the film are questionable with Li Dian, the original slave owner of Xin and Piao, having this awkwardly orange colored face, inhumanly puffy cheeks, stringy facial hair, and the ugliest facial expressions imaginable. After Xin joins up with Zheng, a girl in a bushy owl costume named He Liao Diao (Kanna Hasimoto) is mostly only around to take everyone to the mountains later. The chemistry Xin, Zheng, and Diao have is reminiscent of what Mugen, Jin, and Foo have in Samurai Champloo. Another observation is that Xin is basically Goku with Vegeta’s short-fuse temper; he lives to fight and eat, he’s dumber than a bag of rocks, and he can’t identify a woman when she’s standing directly in front of him.
Cheng Jiao’s go-to henchman, former general and current hitman for hire Zuo Ci (Tak Sakaguchi) may be the film’s coolest character. He doesn’t care about anybody, tells Xin that all dreams are BS, and is a part of what is arguably the best action sequence in the film. Meanwhile, General Wang Yi (Takao Ohsawa), the most renowned general in all of China and the guy with the status Xin plans on taking in the future, is a bit overrated. He mostly just parades his weird and pointy facial hair around and swings his giant sword as if it won’t remind us of Guts from Berserk.
All in all, Kingdom is a decent action adventure that just takes a while to really get going. The performances aren’t totally satisfying with Kento Yamazaki hamming it up on more than occasion and taking the brainless dolt with a huge mouth thing to uncomfortable levels. The story isn’t exactly hard to follow, but it does feel like it’s trying to be more convoluted than it needs to be. You don’t feel any sort of attachment to any of the characters and any sort of twist can be seen long before the reveal. Kingdom is just an okay way to spend two hours that is probably a justifiable rental on a day when you have nothing better to do, but is not worth paying full price to own.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959) in Movies
Jan 14, 2020
A Love Story and An Atomic Bomb
An extramarital affair occurs between a Japanese architect and a French filmmaker during the horrific time period when an atomic bomb was dropped. Hiroshima Mon Amour has a wonderful concept, yet there were a few things missing that caused it to miss the mark for me.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film begins with two lovers locked in a nude embrace. As they exchange dialogue, you feel their sensual connection. It’s not long before that shot cuts to images of people in hospitals deeply affected by the atomic bomb. It’s a harrowing sequence and a wonderful way to start a movie.
Characters: 4
This is probably one of the areas where I struggled the most when watching this movie. I never found myself invested in the two main characters known simply as He (Eiji Okada) and She (Emmanuelle Riva). I don’t know what it was but their stories didn’t move me and their personalities felt a bit flat. Seeing as they were pretty much the only characters that carried any kind of weight, it made it hard to really get into the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not only is this film beautiful cinematically but It’s easily way ahead of its time. The cuts between sensuality and disaster are just sheer genius. Despite my lack of love for the characters, the movie itself is shot in a way that makes you feel, that leaves a jarring impact on you mentally. Very powerful.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 8
Because of the way it’s shot, the overall impact is strong. Unfortunately the movie itself is boring as all get out. I respect it sheerly for it being ahead of its time and being one of those cinematic pieces standing in a class of its own. At the very least, it will definitely stick out in your brain.
Pace: 6
Interesting at times, boring in others. I can see why people love this movie, but relate moreso to those that don’t. It drags on in a lot of spots where you’re hoping for a speedier resolution.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 3
I originally hated the ending. After going back and watching it again…I just really dislike it. The closure didn’t feel fully established leaving me extremely dissatisfied. Here was a chance for redemption and director Alain Resnais dropped the ball in my opinion.
Overall: 70
Hiroshima Mon Amour has flashes of absolute brilliance. Then those flashes get erased by poop. I think it’s worth a fair shot if you’re into the classics. Who knows, you may disagree with me. After all 89% of audience members did on Rotten Tomatoes.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film begins with two lovers locked in a nude embrace. As they exchange dialogue, you feel their sensual connection. It’s not long before that shot cuts to images of people in hospitals deeply affected by the atomic bomb. It’s a harrowing sequence and a wonderful way to start a movie.
Characters: 4
This is probably one of the areas where I struggled the most when watching this movie. I never found myself invested in the two main characters known simply as He (Eiji Okada) and She (Emmanuelle Riva). I don’t know what it was but their stories didn’t move me and their personalities felt a bit flat. Seeing as they were pretty much the only characters that carried any kind of weight, it made it hard to really get into the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not only is this film beautiful cinematically but It’s easily way ahead of its time. The cuts between sensuality and disaster are just sheer genius. Despite my lack of love for the characters, the movie itself is shot in a way that makes you feel, that leaves a jarring impact on you mentally. Very powerful.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 8
Because of the way it’s shot, the overall impact is strong. Unfortunately the movie itself is boring as all get out. I respect it sheerly for it being ahead of its time and being one of those cinematic pieces standing in a class of its own. At the very least, it will definitely stick out in your brain.
Pace: 6
Interesting at times, boring in others. I can see why people love this movie, but relate moreso to those that don’t. It drags on in a lot of spots where you’re hoping for a speedier resolution.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 3
I originally hated the ending. After going back and watching it again…I just really dislike it. The closure didn’t feel fully established leaving me extremely dissatisfied. Here was a chance for redemption and director Alain Resnais dropped the ball in my opinion.
Overall: 70
Hiroshima Mon Amour has flashes of absolute brilliance. Then those flashes get erased by poop. I think it’s worth a fair shot if you’re into the classics. Who knows, you may disagree with me. After all 89% of audience members did on Rotten Tomatoes.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
Will Baby Get Out of the Game?
A young getaway driver finds himself in over his head when he tries to get out of the crime game.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s really hard not to love main character Baby (Ansel Elgort). Sure he’s helping criminals do criminal things but he has a great story and a solid motive. From the minute he shows up on screen beating his steering wheel to the music, you immediately want to root for this guy. Baby answers to Doc played by Kevin Spacey who reads the role with a controlled seriousness that forces you to focus on his every word. Doc along with an interesting gang of thugs make for a solid supporting cast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Whether it’s two lovebirds in a diner talking or a death-defying car chase, I really appreciate the way Edgar Wright uses different angles to capture the perfect moment. I don’t know how he did it, but the movie has an 80’s feel to it even though it takes place in modern day. The action sequences play out in amazing fashion on screen and keep the story moving.
Conflict: 10
So many angles to consider here. Will Baby get out of the game? Does he get the girl? Will the next heist be a success? Something seems to always be happening whether at the forefront or in the background. This is a movie where you can get up to grab a drink and totally miss something you wish you hadn’t. Not to mention Baby Driver seriously has some of the best car chases in film period.
Entertainment Value: 10
It’s a movie that makes The French Connection car chase look like amateur night. There is so much going on, so many layers, that you will be hardpressed to be bored. It has the feel of an indie with blockbuster moments.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Moves at an extremely high clip. Even the dialogue scenes can feel action-driven at times due to the intensity of the conversation. It’s a movie that never really lets you get too comfortable, but rather continues to hit you repeatedly with more.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 8
While the ending is the weakest point of the movie, it doesn’t detract from the overall greatness of Baby Driver. I wasn’t blown away by the resolution, but it was complete enough to get a pass from me. Good, but not lifechanging.
Overall: 98
In addition to having great action, Baby Driver’s love story helps drive the movie (pun intended) as a whole. It’s movies like these I wish would get more love from the Academy as they help to keep the population in love with film. Proud to call this movie a classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s really hard not to love main character Baby (Ansel Elgort). Sure he’s helping criminals do criminal things but he has a great story and a solid motive. From the minute he shows up on screen beating his steering wheel to the music, you immediately want to root for this guy. Baby answers to Doc played by Kevin Spacey who reads the role with a controlled seriousness that forces you to focus on his every word. Doc along with an interesting gang of thugs make for a solid supporting cast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Whether it’s two lovebirds in a diner talking or a death-defying car chase, I really appreciate the way Edgar Wright uses different angles to capture the perfect moment. I don’t know how he did it, but the movie has an 80’s feel to it even though it takes place in modern day. The action sequences play out in amazing fashion on screen and keep the story moving.
Conflict: 10
So many angles to consider here. Will Baby get out of the game? Does he get the girl? Will the next heist be a success? Something seems to always be happening whether at the forefront or in the background. This is a movie where you can get up to grab a drink and totally miss something you wish you hadn’t. Not to mention Baby Driver seriously has some of the best car chases in film period.
Entertainment Value: 10
It’s a movie that makes The French Connection car chase look like amateur night. There is so much going on, so many layers, that you will be hardpressed to be bored. It has the feel of an indie with blockbuster moments.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Moves at an extremely high clip. Even the dialogue scenes can feel action-driven at times due to the intensity of the conversation. It’s a movie that never really lets you get too comfortable, but rather continues to hit you repeatedly with more.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 8
While the ending is the weakest point of the movie, it doesn’t detract from the overall greatness of Baby Driver. I wasn’t blown away by the resolution, but it was complete enough to get a pass from me. Good, but not lifechanging.
Overall: 98
In addition to having great action, Baby Driver’s love story helps drive the movie (pun intended) as a whole. It’s movies like these I wish would get more love from the Academy as they help to keep the population in love with film. Proud to call this movie a classic.
Gaspar Noe recommended Eraserhead (1977) in Movies (curated)
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Merrily We Go to Hell (1932) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020 (Updated Sep 3, 2020)
Pre-code (4 more)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Skeet Gallagher as Buck, the sidekick
Florence Britton as Charlcie, the female sidekick
Directed by female director Dorothy Arzner
Contains spoilers, click to show
It was an important movie of its time. It is a pre-code movie so it was able to get away with sins such as alcoholism and infidelity of husbands AND wives without making them pay in the end.
Sylvia Sidney plays Joan Prentice, the daughter of the president of Prentice coffee and Fredric March plays Jerry Corbett, a newspaperman who wishes to be a playwright. They meet at a society party where she is trying to ignore the advances of a very handsy older man and he is on the terrace drunk and drinking even more. She somehow finds him charming and he finds her "swell." They make a date to meet up again and romance follows. I mean, allegedly follows though it seems like a huge plot point to me what they see in each other and what kind of substance their relationship has. I've never been a very romantic person but even this seems terribly lacking to me.
Skeets Gallagher plays the sidekick Buck and he's worth his weight in gold. He a drinking buddy and scenes with him often start with the camera panning him tap dancing from behind. He's sweet, sympathetic, charming, and adorable and brings so much life to the role and film. Florence Britton plays the female sidekick to Fredric March's Jerry Corbett and is a bold lady, and kind. She and Buck are so much fun and not sloppy drunk like Corbett. I would much rather watch a movie with the two of them.
Sylvia Sidney, the female protagonist was bold and determined. After her husband cheats on her with his former wife, she goes out to have a little fun, too. She gets tired of her husband's constant drunkenness and leaves him. He seems to come to his senses at the end of the movie and goes to her. Spoiler alert: she is in the hospital having delivered their baby. He didn't know she was pregnant and only learned about the baby after reading the birth announcement in the newspaper. This is a premonition of things to come once the code comes into play as any sin must be paid for with a person's ruin or death. However, it ends on a happy note that their marriage will be better and that they are hopeful for the future.
* Watch for Cary Grant in one of his earliest roles as the male lead in the period drama play towards the end of the film.
Sylvia Sidney plays Joan Prentice, the daughter of the president of Prentice coffee and Fredric March plays Jerry Corbett, a newspaperman who wishes to be a playwright. They meet at a society party where she is trying to ignore the advances of a very handsy older man and he is on the terrace drunk and drinking even more. She somehow finds him charming and he finds her "swell." They make a date to meet up again and romance follows. I mean, allegedly follows though it seems like a huge plot point to me what they see in each other and what kind of substance their relationship has. I've never been a very romantic person but even this seems terribly lacking to me.
Skeets Gallagher plays the sidekick Buck and he's worth his weight in gold. He a drinking buddy and scenes with him often start with the camera panning him tap dancing from behind. He's sweet, sympathetic, charming, and adorable and brings so much life to the role and film. Florence Britton plays the female sidekick to Fredric March's Jerry Corbett and is a bold lady, and kind. She and Buck are so much fun and not sloppy drunk like Corbett. I would much rather watch a movie with the two of them.
Sylvia Sidney, the female protagonist was bold and determined. After her husband cheats on her with his former wife, she goes out to have a little fun, too. She gets tired of her husband's constant drunkenness and leaves him. He seems to come to his senses at the end of the movie and goes to her. Spoiler alert: she is in the hospital having delivered their baby. He didn't know she was pregnant and only learned about the baby after reading the birth announcement in the newspaper. This is a premonition of things to come once the code comes into play as any sin must be paid for with a person's ruin or death. However, it ends on a happy note that their marriage will be better and that they are hopeful for the future.
* Watch for Cary Grant in one of his earliest roles as the male lead in the period drama play towards the end of the film.
David McK (3508 KP) rated Star Wars: Bloodline in Books
Jan 30, 2019
By and large, most of the Star Wars books to date (including in the old EU), have pretty much belonged to the 'boys club', dfocusing more on the male characters (Han, Luke, the X-Wing pilots, etc) than on their female contemporaries.
I think that's to be expected, given the predominantly male targer audience of the film series - an expectation that Disney themselves are trying to shake up, both in the new films (both of which - The Force Awakens and Rogue One - , so far, have female leads), and in the wider media, as can be shown by their 'Princess Leia' series of comics.
This follows(?) (or did it come first?) in the latter footsteps, with nary a sign of Luke and Han only popping in to give Leia a hand towards the climax of the novel.
Set in the period between the end of 'Return of the Jedi' and the start of 'The Force Awakens', this also seeks to bridge the gap between those two films, providing a bit of background to the history of The First Order and explaining why, if Leia was part of the Rebellion which toppled the Empire, just why she is now a key member in The Resistance - the Resistance to what, I hear you ask? This answers that question.
It's not a bad read by any strecth of the imagination - according to Goodreads own rating system, 2 stars is a 'I liked it'; I just personally found this a slower, somewhat heavier read than [a:Claudia Gray|1192311|Claudia Gray|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1234643683p2/1192311.jpg]'s other Star Wars title: '[b:Lost Stars|25067046|Lost Stars (Star Wars Journey to the Force Awakens)|Claudia Gray|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1462731623s/25067046.jpg|44751860]';. And yes, I'm aware that this is aimed at a different audience.
How best to put it? I didn't find myself reading this quite so much in my spare time on the bus on the way to work!
I think that's to be expected, given the predominantly male targer audience of the film series - an expectation that Disney themselves are trying to shake up, both in the new films (both of which - The Force Awakens and Rogue One - , so far, have female leads), and in the wider media, as can be shown by their 'Princess Leia' series of comics.
This follows(?) (or did it come first?) in the latter footsteps, with nary a sign of Luke and Han only popping in to give Leia a hand towards the climax of the novel.
Set in the period between the end of 'Return of the Jedi' and the start of 'The Force Awakens', this also seeks to bridge the gap between those two films, providing a bit of background to the history of The First Order and explaining why, if Leia was part of the Rebellion which toppled the Empire, just why she is now a key member in The Resistance - the Resistance to what, I hear you ask? This answers that question.
It's not a bad read by any strecth of the imagination - according to Goodreads own rating system, 2 stars is a 'I liked it'; I just personally found this a slower, somewhat heavier read than [a:Claudia Gray|1192311|Claudia Gray|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1234643683p2/1192311.jpg]'s other Star Wars title: '[b:Lost Stars|25067046|Lost Stars (Star Wars Journey to the Force Awakens)|Claudia Gray|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1462731623s/25067046.jpg|44751860]';. And yes, I'm aware that this is aimed at a different audience.
How best to put it? I didn't find myself reading this quite so much in my spare time on the bus on the way to work!
Salinger
David Shields and Shane Salerno
Book
Based on eight years of exhaustive research and exclusive interviews with more than 200 people-and...