Search
Search results
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Lord of the Rings in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Lord of the rings is written by professor J. R. R. Tolkien and began as a squeal to the Hobbit but evolved over time into its own stand alone book. It was Published by Allen and Unwin (who also produced the hobbit) on July 29th 1954 in three segments; The Fellowship of the Ring, The Towers and The Return of the King. Structurally the book can be separated into six books with an appendices at the end. The book was intended to be one volume of a two volume set (Partnered with The Silmarillion). The title refers to the main antagonist the dark lord Sauron, who had in an earlier age created the one ring to rule them all and use it to conquer and rule Middle-Earth. The story starts in the shire at the 11th birthday of Bilbo Baggins and follows the journey of Frodo Baggins – Bilbos relative and heir as he ranges across middle-earth all the way to the fires of mount doom to destroy the magical ring (which Bilbo found during the Hobbit) during what ended up as the War of the Ring. The story is seen through the eyes of several characters including Frodo, and fellow Hobbits Sam Gamgee, Merry Brandybuck and Pippin Took.
Now I own a copy of the lord of the rings and have done so since I've left school. The copy I own however is the single whole copy as such I've always struggled to read the book in one go. Its always taken me a long time to read it and as such I only re-read it every two years or so. Whilst I'd known of the hobbit and read it numerous times as a child and young adult. I wasn't aware of the Lord of the Rings until the movies came out and as such I came to LoTR through the movies instead of the book. If you want to know a brief history of Professor J.R.R Tolkien and my opinion of him have a look to last weeks book blog on The Hobbit.
The book was turned into the popular movie franchise by Director Peter Jackson, Weta Workshop and New Line Cinema. The movies followed the pattern of the books and were subsequently released under The fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002) and The return of the King (2003). Lord of the rings is widely regarded as one of the most influential and greatest film trilogies ever created. Its ended up being both a major financial success and is amongst the highest grossing film series of all time (earning over £2.9 billion in worldwide receipts). When award season came around each film was critically acclaimed and heavily awarded they won 17 out of their 30 nominations. An extended copy of each movie was released on DVD after the theatrical release.....I still have my extended copies after 13 years.
I was introduced to the Lord of the Rings Movies during Secondary school and had spent a good chunk of my time out of school watching the movies. By the time I left school a knew a plethora of random knowledge of the Tolkien legendium at large and as I said earlier in this post I saw the movies first before I read the books and as such It does make it harder for me to read the books. Thanks to these movies however I now own several LoTR related books and have a healthy love of Fantasy and fiction at large.
Now I own a copy of the lord of the rings and have done so since I've left school. The copy I own however is the single whole copy as such I've always struggled to read the book in one go. Its always taken me a long time to read it and as such I only re-read it every two years or so. Whilst I'd known of the hobbit and read it numerous times as a child and young adult. I wasn't aware of the Lord of the Rings until the movies came out and as such I came to LoTR through the movies instead of the book. If you want to know a brief history of Professor J.R.R Tolkien and my opinion of him have a look to last weeks book blog on The Hobbit.
The book was turned into the popular movie franchise by Director Peter Jackson, Weta Workshop and New Line Cinema. The movies followed the pattern of the books and were subsequently released under The fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002) and The return of the King (2003). Lord of the rings is widely regarded as one of the most influential and greatest film trilogies ever created. Its ended up being both a major financial success and is amongst the highest grossing film series of all time (earning over £2.9 billion in worldwide receipts). When award season came around each film was critically acclaimed and heavily awarded they won 17 out of their 30 nominations. An extended copy of each movie was released on DVD after the theatrical release.....I still have my extended copies after 13 years.
I was introduced to the Lord of the Rings Movies during Secondary school and had spent a good chunk of my time out of school watching the movies. By the time I left school a knew a plethora of random knowledge of the Tolkien legendium at large and as I said earlier in this post I saw the movies first before I read the books and as such It does make it harder for me to read the books. Thanks to these movies however I now own several LoTR related books and have a healthy love of Fantasy and fiction at large.
JT (287 KP) rated Elysium (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Neill Blomkamp came pretty much out of nowhere. Having only directed a handful of shorts he was handed $30m by Peter Jackson and told to make any film he wanted. That offer for any up and coming director would be as good as winning the lottery and he didn’t disappoint, making the dystopian District 9 which went on to become a smash hit.
So when it was announced that his next project would be called Elysium there was much talk, excitement and anticipation about what it would entail. Blomkamp again focuses on a dystopian society, L.A. to be exact (but not an Alien in sight). With Earth quite literally turned into a shit hole it’s ravaged by crime, poverty and disease along with an ever growing population just looking to survive.
The rich and wealthy made their escape from the planet and reside on a beautiful man made space station called Elysium. Here there is no poverty or sickness and one can be cured instantly by stepping into a medical pod. Dropped into all of this is Max (Matt Damon), a former convict who is trying to get by in life but who still holds a fascination that one day he too will get to live on Elysium as we find out through an early back story.
Elysium is an enjoyable ride of thrills and spills and as a sci-fi actioner it ticks all the relevant boxes.
When an accident at work leaves him with only a few days to live he steps back into the criminal underworld in order to get himself a one way ticket onto Elysium and cure himself and in the process become a saviour for the suffering hordes on Earth. Blomkamp sticks with District 9′s Sharlto Copley an actor plucked from obscurity and who has gone on to make a real name for himself. Here he plays sleeper agent Kruger complete with distinguished South African accent and beard.
Pairing up with him from the safe confines of Elysium is Jodie Foster’s Delacourt, the Secretary of Homeland Security whose cool and unassuming personality gives her licence to literally blast people from outer space while drinking tea. She wants her place as the next Elysium president and so enlists the help of the slimy John Carlyle (William Fichtner) who helps to organise a reboot program for the station which falls into the wrong hands.
Blomkamp keeps the story very much as close to reality as possible without overstepping the mark. A world of poverty and hardship with the rich living the high life, sound familiar?
Filmed on location in the slums of Mexico as opposed to South Africa it lends itself to real life and the harsh reality that this isn’t a film set built with a large overblown budget but a place where everyday folk have to live. The action is captivating both on Earth and in space. A car chase and data heist that encounters a flying Bugatti Veyron. While in space, ships explode and crash into the tranquil surroundings of normality (well as normal as you can get in 2154).
The shaven headed Damon gives a good account of himself whether it’s delivering the dramatic line or battling through the action – complete with exoskeleton he is always reliable.
So when it was announced that his next project would be called Elysium there was much talk, excitement and anticipation about what it would entail. Blomkamp again focuses on a dystopian society, L.A. to be exact (but not an Alien in sight). With Earth quite literally turned into a shit hole it’s ravaged by crime, poverty and disease along with an ever growing population just looking to survive.
The rich and wealthy made their escape from the planet and reside on a beautiful man made space station called Elysium. Here there is no poverty or sickness and one can be cured instantly by stepping into a medical pod. Dropped into all of this is Max (Matt Damon), a former convict who is trying to get by in life but who still holds a fascination that one day he too will get to live on Elysium as we find out through an early back story.
Elysium is an enjoyable ride of thrills and spills and as a sci-fi actioner it ticks all the relevant boxes.
When an accident at work leaves him with only a few days to live he steps back into the criminal underworld in order to get himself a one way ticket onto Elysium and cure himself and in the process become a saviour for the suffering hordes on Earth. Blomkamp sticks with District 9′s Sharlto Copley an actor plucked from obscurity and who has gone on to make a real name for himself. Here he plays sleeper agent Kruger complete with distinguished South African accent and beard.
Pairing up with him from the safe confines of Elysium is Jodie Foster’s Delacourt, the Secretary of Homeland Security whose cool and unassuming personality gives her licence to literally blast people from outer space while drinking tea. She wants her place as the next Elysium president and so enlists the help of the slimy John Carlyle (William Fichtner) who helps to organise a reboot program for the station which falls into the wrong hands.
Blomkamp keeps the story very much as close to reality as possible without overstepping the mark. A world of poverty and hardship with the rich living the high life, sound familiar?
Filmed on location in the slums of Mexico as opposed to South Africa it lends itself to real life and the harsh reality that this isn’t a film set built with a large overblown budget but a place where everyday folk have to live. The action is captivating both on Earth and in space. A car chase and data heist that encounters a flying Bugatti Veyron. While in space, ships explode and crash into the tranquil surroundings of normality (well as normal as you can get in 2154).
The shaven headed Damon gives a good account of himself whether it’s delivering the dramatic line or battling through the action – complete with exoskeleton he is always reliable.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated District 9 (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Aliens made first contact twenty years ago as they parked their mother ship over Johannesburg, South Africa. These aliens are incredibly insect-like while their facial features are similar to a prawn, which is where their derogatory nickname comes from. When the aliens are found on their ship malnourished and basically on the brink of death, they were transported by the MNU (Multi-National United) to camps down in Johannesburg. These camps were soon fenced off to separate the aliens from humans and labeled as District 9. As time went on, however, the camps became slums and the aliens became bottom feeders as they spent most of their time digging through the trash.
The MNU, who have no interest in the well-being of the aliens, decide they should relocate 1.8 million aliens to a new camp, District 10, located outside the Johannesburg city limits since the people of Johannesburg think the aliens have worn out their welcome. Wikus van der Mirwe is put in charge of evicting the aliens, but it's soon revealed that the aliens have been searching and building towards something the past two decades. Wikus is just trying to do his job the best that he can until he's exposed to a black fluid that was stored in an alien canister. Soon after, his world is turned upside down and he becomes the most wanted man in the world.
District 9 is one of the most advertised films of the year, probably due to Peter Jackson's involvement. The film seemed to materialize without much of a trace beforehand a few months ago with that first teaser trailer that included the interrogation of one of the aliens. A viral marketing campaign began as images of new posters and production stills found their way onto the internet. The buildup was giving the impression that it was one of the most incredible and original sci-fi films to ever grace the screen and, truth be told, it might just be.
The film starts off a bit slow at first using that documentary-style you've probably come to expect from the trailers, but the tension begins to rise as we begin to see more and more of the "prawns." It doesn't take long for things to get interesting and you know the film is building towards something big once the evictions start and Wikus is exposed. The most entertaining aspect of the film is the alien technology. When we're introduced to one of their weapons, wondering how much damage it's going to cause is half the fun. Then when you finally see it come into play, it's nothing short of extraordinary. The film definitely earns its R-rating. F-bombs are littered throughout the film, but it all seems like a natural response to the circumstances of what's happened with District 9. The gore is pretty ridiculous, too; ridiculous in a good way. Humans explode as blood and body chunks splatter everywhere. It's insane how many scenes make you go, "AUGH!" or "OHHHH!" in the film.
Everything else is top notch, as well. The actors are all pretty much unknown, which was a great route to take with a film like this. Not recognizing anyone in the film made it a lot more believable. There really isn't a bad actor in the bunch either, but Sharlto Copley as Wikus steals the film since we're around him the entire time. The scenes where he's on the phone with his wife are generally rather heartbreaking as you feel for what Wikus is going through and it rides on his performance. The story is also pretty incredible. It starts off rather simple with the aliens just wanting to go home and the MNU wanting to keep them around so they can discover the secrets of their technology, but it slowly unravels into something more. Perhaps the biggest element of the film is its special effects. They have to be rather astounding to make these aliens and their technology believable. Since Peter Jackson is involved, you can pretty much expect the CG to be superb. There was a scene or two that mainly involved one of the alien ships being a big part of the scene where the CG was noticeable. The effects looked generally as realistic as they needed to be 95% of the time though, which is a big thing in a film like this. Bad CG can ruin a good film. I Am Legend is a great example, but it's safe to say that most people won't find an issue with it in District 9.
District 9 is quite possibly the best sci-fi film I've seen in a long, long time. The only film that really rivals it is Moon, but I never thought 2009 would be such a good year for the sci-fi genre. District 9 delivers with incredible action sequences, fantastic special effects, a great story, and superb acting. I have no doubt in my mind that it'll be in my top five films of the year. It isn't every day that a film lives up to its hype, but this one surely does that and then some.
The MNU, who have no interest in the well-being of the aliens, decide they should relocate 1.8 million aliens to a new camp, District 10, located outside the Johannesburg city limits since the people of Johannesburg think the aliens have worn out their welcome. Wikus van der Mirwe is put in charge of evicting the aliens, but it's soon revealed that the aliens have been searching and building towards something the past two decades. Wikus is just trying to do his job the best that he can until he's exposed to a black fluid that was stored in an alien canister. Soon after, his world is turned upside down and he becomes the most wanted man in the world.
District 9 is one of the most advertised films of the year, probably due to Peter Jackson's involvement. The film seemed to materialize without much of a trace beforehand a few months ago with that first teaser trailer that included the interrogation of one of the aliens. A viral marketing campaign began as images of new posters and production stills found their way onto the internet. The buildup was giving the impression that it was one of the most incredible and original sci-fi films to ever grace the screen and, truth be told, it might just be.
The film starts off a bit slow at first using that documentary-style you've probably come to expect from the trailers, but the tension begins to rise as we begin to see more and more of the "prawns." It doesn't take long for things to get interesting and you know the film is building towards something big once the evictions start and Wikus is exposed. The most entertaining aspect of the film is the alien technology. When we're introduced to one of their weapons, wondering how much damage it's going to cause is half the fun. Then when you finally see it come into play, it's nothing short of extraordinary. The film definitely earns its R-rating. F-bombs are littered throughout the film, but it all seems like a natural response to the circumstances of what's happened with District 9. The gore is pretty ridiculous, too; ridiculous in a good way. Humans explode as blood and body chunks splatter everywhere. It's insane how many scenes make you go, "AUGH!" or "OHHHH!" in the film.
Everything else is top notch, as well. The actors are all pretty much unknown, which was a great route to take with a film like this. Not recognizing anyone in the film made it a lot more believable. There really isn't a bad actor in the bunch either, but Sharlto Copley as Wikus steals the film since we're around him the entire time. The scenes where he's on the phone with his wife are generally rather heartbreaking as you feel for what Wikus is going through and it rides on his performance. The story is also pretty incredible. It starts off rather simple with the aliens just wanting to go home and the MNU wanting to keep them around so they can discover the secrets of their technology, but it slowly unravels into something more. Perhaps the biggest element of the film is its special effects. They have to be rather astounding to make these aliens and their technology believable. Since Peter Jackson is involved, you can pretty much expect the CG to be superb. There was a scene or two that mainly involved one of the alien ships being a big part of the scene where the CG was noticeable. The effects looked generally as realistic as they needed to be 95% of the time though, which is a big thing in a film like this. Bad CG can ruin a good film. I Am Legend is a great example, but it's safe to say that most people won't find an issue with it in District 9.
District 9 is quite possibly the best sci-fi film I've seen in a long, long time. The only film that really rivals it is Moon, but I never thought 2009 would be such a good year for the sci-fi genre. District 9 delivers with incredible action sequences, fantastic special effects, a great story, and superb acting. I have no doubt in my mind that it'll be in my top five films of the year. It isn't every day that a film lives up to its hype, but this one surely does that and then some.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Doesn't Quite Succeed In What It Was Attempting To Do
Liam Neeson has stated that COLD PURSUIT is going to be his last action film. And, if that is the case, he certainly picked an interesting one to go out on.
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
May 10, 2019
“You said it yourself bitch, we’re the Guardians of the Galaxy”
The Marvel marathon continues. We started with the story of a soldier out of time. Now we move on to the tale of a group of losers having to learn not to kill each other and maybe, just maybe, becoming friends along the way. Guardians of the Galaxy I view as the movie that fully cemented Marvel Studios as the powerhouse we know today. The popularity of Iron Man and Thor spiked after their respective films, but I'm gonna guess if you pulled someone random off the street and asked them who either character was before their movies were released, they could probably at least tell you who they are. Now, not too far separated from the humongous success of The Avengers, here comes Marvel with a film about characters next to no one, not even some avid fans of comics, knew existed. And wouldn't you know, five years after Guardians came out and made Groot a household word, it's still one of their best films Marvel has made.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 24, 2021
The Definitive Film Version for the Fans
Fans of the 1965 Frank Herbert Sci-Fi Fantasy Masterpiece DUNE can finally rejoice - the definitive film version of this novel (at least the first 1/2 of the novel) has made it’s way onto the screen.
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Oct 11, 2020 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
I’m sure I wasn’t alone in the Summer of 2019 when Spider-Man: Far From Home was released in just needing a minute or two, maybe a couple of months, longer to catch my breath after Avengers: Engame, and what very much felt like an ending to the MCU plan that had been in motion since 2008. That climax was so satisfying and complete that the thought of any of them donning the costume and fighting bad guys again so soon felt wrong.
I wasn’t against the survivors having continued adventures, of course not. It was more a question of where do we go from here? And how? Well, perhaps Tom Holland as the youngest and most emotionally resilient of the bunch was the right choice to continue the universe, if any at all. Knowing that Jake Gyllenhaal had been brought onboard certainly added to the appeal, being one of my very favourite actors of the last decade (together with Ryan Gosling and Joaquin Phoenix), but I had made up my mind to skip this one at the cinema.
And so, before any of us knew where we were, it was Spring 2020 and we were all in a different place. Needing films, any films, to fill out the days of lockdown and isolation became a case of make a list and tick them off. This was one of those that made the shortlist around June when I began the trial month of Now TV and discovered that this was where all the big films of the last year I had missed were hiding.
I liked Spider-Man: Homecoming very much, after some initial trepidation over who the heck Jon Watts was, and why he had been trusted with such a big job out of seemingly nowhere? I also really like Tom Holland in the role. I think the idea of making him seem like a naive teenager again is a masterstroke, and he fast became The real Spider-Man in my head. His relationship with Robert Downey Jnr across the last handful of MCU films was rich, genuine and fully rounded, and Holland has managed to pitch the balance between nervy teen and likeable hero quite deftly.
The charm of the first film from Watts was how much it felt like a teen film, full of teens that were actual teens, not adults pretending to be teens. And in this second instalment that element is even more to the fore. It is a travelling road movie that keeps everything fresh and energetic, not giving a moment to dwell despondently on previous events, but looking forward to a bright, hopeful world, full of romance and adventure and discovery.
Other than Holland himself, who grows in stature and maturity as an actor every minute, the rising star of Zendaya as MJ fills the screen very pleasantly, she has a great aura about her for one so young. I am expecting great things from her, especially in the upcoming yet delayed Dune, directed by Denis Villeneuve. She doesn’t have a lot to do here, but steals enough scenes to hint at a serious talent. In fact, most of his classmates seem beyond their years ability-wise, or do they seem that way because of the skilled direction and bottomless production?
It’s also nice to get more time with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Marisa Tomei as Aunt May in this one. You always do wonder what the lesser characters have been up to while everyone else was saving the world. But the backbone of the film as a spectacle is the Peter Parker / Quentin Beck face off. Every moment of Holland and Gyllenhaal together feels like a huge movie treat. And knowing nothing about who Quentin Beck was going in from comic book lore, I got a real thrill out of how it all develops.
I came away from my small screen experience of this movie thinking that I had really enjoyed it, but in a very disposable way, that I was happy to leave behind almost instantly. Nothing about it is especially deep or meaningful, just fun! And that was 100% what Marvel needed at this junction in the pantheon. These guys are pretty smart at knowing when and why and how much with these movies, and I’m pleased to say they did it again!
There is some serious work to be done to ever reach the heights of interest generated by the final pairing of Avengers films, and a lot has changed, as it must, as some actors age, some even pass away (RIP CB) and some call it a day. But if nothing else, there feels like there is plenty of mileage left in this incarnation of the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man, and a lot of new fans to be hauled in by the onscreen romance between Tom Holland and Zendaya’s MJ. Older fans, like me, could maybe care less, but I believe that is the hook to ensure a future generation of fans stay loyal to Marvel. Every hero needs someone to save, after all. I’m still watching.
I wasn’t against the survivors having continued adventures, of course not. It was more a question of where do we go from here? And how? Well, perhaps Tom Holland as the youngest and most emotionally resilient of the bunch was the right choice to continue the universe, if any at all. Knowing that Jake Gyllenhaal had been brought onboard certainly added to the appeal, being one of my very favourite actors of the last decade (together with Ryan Gosling and Joaquin Phoenix), but I had made up my mind to skip this one at the cinema.
And so, before any of us knew where we were, it was Spring 2020 and we were all in a different place. Needing films, any films, to fill out the days of lockdown and isolation became a case of make a list and tick them off. This was one of those that made the shortlist around June when I began the trial month of Now TV and discovered that this was where all the big films of the last year I had missed were hiding.
I liked Spider-Man: Homecoming very much, after some initial trepidation over who the heck Jon Watts was, and why he had been trusted with such a big job out of seemingly nowhere? I also really like Tom Holland in the role. I think the idea of making him seem like a naive teenager again is a masterstroke, and he fast became The real Spider-Man in my head. His relationship with Robert Downey Jnr across the last handful of MCU films was rich, genuine and fully rounded, and Holland has managed to pitch the balance between nervy teen and likeable hero quite deftly.
The charm of the first film from Watts was how much it felt like a teen film, full of teens that were actual teens, not adults pretending to be teens. And in this second instalment that element is even more to the fore. It is a travelling road movie that keeps everything fresh and energetic, not giving a moment to dwell despondently on previous events, but looking forward to a bright, hopeful world, full of romance and adventure and discovery.
Other than Holland himself, who grows in stature and maturity as an actor every minute, the rising star of Zendaya as MJ fills the screen very pleasantly, she has a great aura about her for one so young. I am expecting great things from her, especially in the upcoming yet delayed Dune, directed by Denis Villeneuve. She doesn’t have a lot to do here, but steals enough scenes to hint at a serious talent. In fact, most of his classmates seem beyond their years ability-wise, or do they seem that way because of the skilled direction and bottomless production?
It’s also nice to get more time with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Marisa Tomei as Aunt May in this one. You always do wonder what the lesser characters have been up to while everyone else was saving the world. But the backbone of the film as a spectacle is the Peter Parker / Quentin Beck face off. Every moment of Holland and Gyllenhaal together feels like a huge movie treat. And knowing nothing about who Quentin Beck was going in from comic book lore, I got a real thrill out of how it all develops.
I came away from my small screen experience of this movie thinking that I had really enjoyed it, but in a very disposable way, that I was happy to leave behind almost instantly. Nothing about it is especially deep or meaningful, just fun! And that was 100% what Marvel needed at this junction in the pantheon. These guys are pretty smart at knowing when and why and how much with these movies, and I’m pleased to say they did it again!
There is some serious work to be done to ever reach the heights of interest generated by the final pairing of Avengers films, and a lot has changed, as it must, as some actors age, some even pass away (RIP CB) and some call it a day. But if nothing else, there feels like there is plenty of mileage left in this incarnation of the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man, and a lot of new fans to be hauled in by the onscreen romance between Tom Holland and Zendaya’s MJ. Older fans, like me, could maybe care less, but I believe that is the hook to ensure a future generation of fans stay loyal to Marvel. Every hero needs someone to save, after all. I’m still watching.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Anger Begets Greater Anger”.
What is it? A black-comedy drama. But my fear would be that with such an ‘art-house’ title, it’s going to put a lot of people off… (“I saw ‘Paint Drying in Jackson, Mississippi‘, and that was dull”!). But it really really shouldn’t. FOR THIS IS A GEM OF A MOVIE… and so, so entertaining that two hours just sped by.
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an interesting piece. Originally commissioned for a 30 minute documentary piece, Peter Jackson found so much footage and so many stories to tell that he managed to extend it into a feature length production.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.