Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Outlaw King (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
After more than eight years of war with King Edward I of England (Stephen Dillane) the Scottish Nobles swear allegiance to the crown, ending the brutal. This includes Robert Bruce (Chris Pine) who is one of two men in line to be King of Scots. But by pledging his loyalty to they agree to be under the supervision of the Earl of Pembroke, Aymer de Valence (Sam Spruell). Robert’s father, Robert Bruce Senior (James Cosmo), had pushed for the peace with England but when he dies and the younger Robert is in charge a new fight for independence seems eminent. When the last remaining outlaw, William Wallace, is killed by the English Robert knows the time to fight is now. He decides to meet with his rival for the crown, John Comyn (Callan Mulvey), to have a united Scotland fighting for freedom. When Comyn denies Robert’s request and tells him he will use the information to be named King by Edward I, Robert kills him. This proves costly as it divides the Scottish Lords. Robert is determined and will take a small group loyal to him and fight one of the largest and most feared armies in the world.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Haunting (1999) in Movies
Mar 5, 2021
Hill House
The Haunting- doesnt live up to the oringal, now thats with most horror remakes, and this is one of them. Liam Neeson and Lili Taylor did a good job. Why cast owen wilson, he does nothing in the film but just say "wow". Catherine Zeta-Jones was just there.
The plot: This horror tale focuses on visitors to the secluded mansion of Hill House who have been called to the isolated location by Dr. David Marrow (Liam Neeson) as part of a study on insomnia. However, Marrow is really investigating fear, and he plans to scare the subjects, including the introverted Nell (Lili Taylor) and the seductive Theo (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Unfortunately for Marrow and everyone staying at Hill House, the manor is actually haunted by an evil spirit out to torment its guests.
Steven Spielberg talked to Stephen King about doing a haunted house movie, and the two agreed that Robert Wise's 1963 film "The Haunting" was a benchmark of cinematic house horror, but after they started writing, the two had creative differences. Spielberg agreed with King's idea to use the real-life Winchester Mystery House, in San Jose, California, as a source of inspiration.
Just watch the oringal.
The plot: This horror tale focuses on visitors to the secluded mansion of Hill House who have been called to the isolated location by Dr. David Marrow (Liam Neeson) as part of a study on insomnia. However, Marrow is really investigating fear, and he plans to scare the subjects, including the introverted Nell (Lili Taylor) and the seductive Theo (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Unfortunately for Marrow and everyone staying at Hill House, the manor is actually haunted by an evil spirit out to torment its guests.
Steven Spielberg talked to Stephen King about doing a haunted house movie, and the two agreed that Robert Wise's 1963 film "The Haunting" was a benchmark of cinematic house horror, but after they started writing, the two had creative differences. Spielberg agreed with King's idea to use the real-life Winchester Mystery House, in San Jose, California, as a source of inspiration.
Just watch the oringal.
Adventure and Redemption
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Northman (2022) in Movies
May 11, 2022
Robert Eggers continues his winning streak with The Northman, surely one of the most visually stunning and compelling movies in recent years. A Viking revenge story presented in his signature style is just cinematic crack waiting to happen as far as I'm concerned.
The first third is a fast moving setup that effectively establishes the characters and shows off quite an epic production. After that, The Northman becomes a tight and slow burning thriller as Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) exacts a psychologically torturous revenge on the people who killer his father. It's a perfect marriage of powerful character drama, weird imagery, Viking culture and beliefs, bizarre gore, and fantasy set pieces, and it's slower pace ensures that it's utterly captivating.
The whole film looks incredible from start to finish and is complimented by a wonderful music score.
It's all cemented by a stacked cast. Skarsgård is a capable lead for sure, and is just a big walking muscle in this, the manly bastard. Anya Taylor-Joy is great as always, and the supporting cast boasts the likes of Nicole Kidman, Willem Dafoe, Ethan Hawke, and Claes Bang who are all stellar.
I can't heap enough praise on The Northman, another homerun from Eggers. I'd happily call it a masterpiece.
The first third is a fast moving setup that effectively establishes the characters and shows off quite an epic production. After that, The Northman becomes a tight and slow burning thriller as Amleth (Alexander Skarsgård) exacts a psychologically torturous revenge on the people who killer his father. It's a perfect marriage of powerful character drama, weird imagery, Viking culture and beliefs, bizarre gore, and fantasy set pieces, and it's slower pace ensures that it's utterly captivating.
The whole film looks incredible from start to finish and is complimented by a wonderful music score.
It's all cemented by a stacked cast. Skarsgård is a capable lead for sure, and is just a big walking muscle in this, the manly bastard. Anya Taylor-Joy is great as always, and the supporting cast boasts the likes of Nicole Kidman, Willem Dafoe, Ethan Hawke, and Claes Bang who are all stellar.
I can't heap enough praise on The Northman, another homerun from Eggers. I'd happily call it a masterpiece.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Finally, a Twilight film that doesn’t have men in the audience going green with envy as they stare at Taylor Lautner’s washboard abs and finally, a Twilight film that doesn’t actually stink.
Of course, those of you familiar with my reviews know that I’m not fond of the Twilight Saga in the slightest, but here I’m prepared to eat my words as newcomer Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) directs a surprisingly enjoyable outing. Unfortunately, it all comes a bit late as this is the penultimate film in Stephanie Meyer’s book series.
Sadly, the Twilight films have never had the critical success of their Harry Potter cousins, probably due to their wooden acting, dire scripting and disappointing special effects, but here, Breaking Dawn Part 1 manages to be at least as good as the first two films of its wizarding counterpart.
The similarities between the two series’ don’t stop there. The decision to split the final book in the Twilight series was probably done because of the success Harry Potter had by splitting the final book into two films.
Here, Bill Condon manages to inject some life into the franchise with good acting, good special effects and finally, a good storyline. Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) have finally decided to tie the knot. Naturally, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is less than pleased with this announcement and decides to run away in a fit of rage. Will he be back for the wedding? GASP!
Alas, he makes it and just before Edward whisks Bella on their honeymoon, some pleasantries are exchanged between the bride and the wolf. So, the honeymoon comes and Bella realises she’s pregnant; oh dear. The film then follows her journey to becoming a mother and the growing beast inside her. Thankfully, the point where the film is split doesn’t jar like it did in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and seems to follow a natural ending.
The special effects have also upped their game for the latest instalment as the (still blatantly obvious) CGI werewolves look much more realistic. Also, the acting has improved leaps and bounds with Kristen Stewart being a real highlight. The realisation that motherhood could kill her is fantastically portrayed by Stewart, though the special effects making her look frail probably helped here.
Taylor Lautner is the best out of the male leads and does the role some justice, whilst Robert Pattinson is mediocre as Edward.
There’s still a problem with the films pacing however. It seems that events that would take 10 minutes worth of screen time in other films have to take 30 in the Twilight saga; it’s a major annoyance as it interrupts the flow of the film and the constant close ups of the characters’ faces grate after a while.
Also, Condon has clearly not directed many films that require action scenes. A major fight with the werewolves and the Cullen’s should have been a real highlight, but it’s a sloppily directed sequence with bodies mashing together. You’re unsure as to who is who, a problem which blights the Transformers film series.
Thankfully there are numerous highlights, the shots of Rio are breath-taking and Bella giving birth is truly horrific, you can’t take your eyes of the screen for a second. Also worth a mention is a part where the werewolves are running through the forest and end up in a logging plant. It’s a fabulous sequence that really makes you grip your seat.
The Twlight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 is a good film. It finally makes use of the promising source material it has been blessed with and it’s pleasing to see that a good sense of direction is all it takes to turn around the fortunes of a film series. It’s far from perfect, with sloppy action scenes and terrible pacing, but finally, I left the cinema with a sense of happiness – I’m actually looking forward to part two. (I can’t believe I just said that.)
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/27/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1-2011/
Of course, those of you familiar with my reviews know that I’m not fond of the Twilight Saga in the slightest, but here I’m prepared to eat my words as newcomer Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) directs a surprisingly enjoyable outing. Unfortunately, it all comes a bit late as this is the penultimate film in Stephanie Meyer’s book series.
Sadly, the Twilight films have never had the critical success of their Harry Potter cousins, probably due to their wooden acting, dire scripting and disappointing special effects, but here, Breaking Dawn Part 1 manages to be at least as good as the first two films of its wizarding counterpart.
The similarities between the two series’ don’t stop there. The decision to split the final book in the Twilight series was probably done because of the success Harry Potter had by splitting the final book into two films.
Here, Bill Condon manages to inject some life into the franchise with good acting, good special effects and finally, a good storyline. Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) have finally decided to tie the knot. Naturally, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is less than pleased with this announcement and decides to run away in a fit of rage. Will he be back for the wedding? GASP!
Alas, he makes it and just before Edward whisks Bella on their honeymoon, some pleasantries are exchanged between the bride and the wolf. So, the honeymoon comes and Bella realises she’s pregnant; oh dear. The film then follows her journey to becoming a mother and the growing beast inside her. Thankfully, the point where the film is split doesn’t jar like it did in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and seems to follow a natural ending.
The special effects have also upped their game for the latest instalment as the (still blatantly obvious) CGI werewolves look much more realistic. Also, the acting has improved leaps and bounds with Kristen Stewart being a real highlight. The realisation that motherhood could kill her is fantastically portrayed by Stewart, though the special effects making her look frail probably helped here.
Taylor Lautner is the best out of the male leads and does the role some justice, whilst Robert Pattinson is mediocre as Edward.
There’s still a problem with the films pacing however. It seems that events that would take 10 minutes worth of screen time in other films have to take 30 in the Twilight saga; it’s a major annoyance as it interrupts the flow of the film and the constant close ups of the characters’ faces grate after a while.
Also, Condon has clearly not directed many films that require action scenes. A major fight with the werewolves and the Cullen’s should have been a real highlight, but it’s a sloppily directed sequence with bodies mashing together. You’re unsure as to who is who, a problem which blights the Transformers film series.
Thankfully there are numerous highlights, the shots of Rio are breath-taking and Bella giving birth is truly horrific, you can’t take your eyes of the screen for a second. Also worth a mention is a part where the werewolves are running through the forest and end up in a logging plant. It’s a fabulous sequence that really makes you grip your seat.
The Twlight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 is a good film. It finally makes use of the promising source material it has been blessed with and it’s pleasing to see that a good sense of direction is all it takes to turn around the fortunes of a film series. It’s far from perfect, with sloppy action scenes and terrible pacing, but finally, I left the cinema with a sense of happiness – I’m actually looking forward to part two. (I can’t believe I just said that.)
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/27/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1-2011/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Witch (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Based on New England folklore, Robert Eggers brings us his debut film The With.
William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) are the parents of five children living in 1630 New England. This God-fearing family has become dissatisfied with how their town chose to live by the word of God. William hopes to promote change in the town, instead he causes his family to be banished left only to find a patch of land bordered by dark dense woods to call home. Luckily they have Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) the eldest daughter who is in charge of looking after her younger siblings. A pre teen Caleb, unruly twins Mercy and Jonas and baby Samuel along with all of the household chores. Newborn Samuel has fate working against him when he suddenly disappears during an afternoon round of peekaboo.
The family is left heartbroken. With no sign of Samuel’s return William declares that this must have been the act of a wolf. Thomasin’s siblings soon become suspicious that this was not the work of a wolf, that she has to have succumbed to the malevolent forces of witchcraft. Mercy has also claimed that she and her twin brother have been conversing with their goat Black Phillip one would assume only jokingly from children. There might just be something darker going on. As the days progress and their crops continue to fail, tensions between the family grow. Things start to go bump in the night making the situation more oppressive each day.
This film is described as a horror genre film, after screening it though I felt it lean more towards a psychological thriller. When asked what films inspired The Witch Robert Eggers mentioned Stephen King’s The Shinning which to me really shines through the film. Most importantly the film is based on actual historical accounts of witchcraft in a time where men feared a woman’s power and sexuality. In my opinion the horror in it is the unknown, because even though you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suppose it can be viewed as both horror and psychological.
Paying close attention to detail Eggers’ immerses the audience into 1630 New England. It’s hard to believe that it was filmed in Canada and not New England because of how accurate every little detail is from the hand stitched costumes to the intricacies of the dialogue. Perhaps this can be credited to his former career as a production designer and costume designer. The music alone adds the perfect amount of horror to make those hairs on the back of your neck stand up. This film is an excellent portrait of amazing filmmaking and horrific historical folklore.
William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) are the parents of five children living in 1630 New England. This God-fearing family has become dissatisfied with how their town chose to live by the word of God. William hopes to promote change in the town, instead he causes his family to be banished left only to find a patch of land bordered by dark dense woods to call home. Luckily they have Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) the eldest daughter who is in charge of looking after her younger siblings. A pre teen Caleb, unruly twins Mercy and Jonas and baby Samuel along with all of the household chores. Newborn Samuel has fate working against him when he suddenly disappears during an afternoon round of peekaboo.
The family is left heartbroken. With no sign of Samuel’s return William declares that this must have been the act of a wolf. Thomasin’s siblings soon become suspicious that this was not the work of a wolf, that she has to have succumbed to the malevolent forces of witchcraft. Mercy has also claimed that she and her twin brother have been conversing with their goat Black Phillip one would assume only jokingly from children. There might just be something darker going on. As the days progress and their crops continue to fail, tensions between the family grow. Things start to go bump in the night making the situation more oppressive each day.
This film is described as a horror genre film, after screening it though I felt it lean more towards a psychological thriller. When asked what films inspired The Witch Robert Eggers mentioned Stephen King’s The Shinning which to me really shines through the film. Most importantly the film is based on actual historical accounts of witchcraft in a time where men feared a woman’s power and sexuality. In my opinion the horror in it is the unknown, because even though you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suppose it can be viewed as both horror and psychological.
Paying close attention to detail Eggers’ immerses the audience into 1630 New England. It’s hard to believe that it was filmed in Canada and not New England because of how accurate every little detail is from the hand stitched costumes to the intricacies of the dialogue. Perhaps this can be credited to his former career as a production designer and costume designer. The music alone adds the perfect amount of horror to make those hairs on the back of your neck stand up. This film is an excellent portrait of amazing filmmaking and horrific historical folklore.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Sep 8, 2020
God damn Tenet is confusing, and even that statement has a dual meaning - in regards to the plot, it's purposefully confusing to a degree (more on that shortly), but also in regards to my poor frazzled feelings towards the film as a whole.
For every moment where I felt myself switching off a bit, there was another moment which blew me away.
Back to the plot, Christopher Nolan has done that thing where he throws a load of faffy exposition and quick cuts, with thread bare explanation, before bringing in a massive pay off to sort of tie it all together. Not too dissimilar to Inception, but way harder to follow.
By the time the credits rolled, I think I had a good enough grasp on what happened, but still will probably need another viewing to piece it together.
Something that is beyond doubt however, is the aesthetics on display. Tenet looks amazing. The action set pieces are breathtaking at times. The last 45 minutes in particular is an absolute pleasure to look at, and the idea of some people functioning in reverse makes for some hugely eye pleasing fight scenes.
Another positive to take from Tenet is the cast. John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, and Elizabeth Debicki are all great as per usual, and are supported by the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Branagh especially is a convincing, nasty villain.
There's been a lot of discussion surrounding the sound mixing - and I can honestly see why. A lot of the dialogue is cancelled out by either the (pretty damn good) music score, or swamped underneath obnoxiously loud sound effects. Whether this is a stylistic choice by Nolan or not, it does negatively impact the experience.
Ultimately, Tenet is enjoyable enough, but I feel like it's not as clever as it wants you to think. That being said, maybe I'm just not clever enough to truly get it. It's proving to be a divisive film however, so it's definitely worth seeing for yourself to reach a conclusion.
For every moment where I felt myself switching off a bit, there was another moment which blew me away.
Back to the plot, Christopher Nolan has done that thing where he throws a load of faffy exposition and quick cuts, with thread bare explanation, before bringing in a massive pay off to sort of tie it all together. Not too dissimilar to Inception, but way harder to follow.
By the time the credits rolled, I think I had a good enough grasp on what happened, but still will probably need another viewing to piece it together.
Something that is beyond doubt however, is the aesthetics on display. Tenet looks amazing. The action set pieces are breathtaking at times. The last 45 minutes in particular is an absolute pleasure to look at, and the idea of some people functioning in reverse makes for some hugely eye pleasing fight scenes.
Another positive to take from Tenet is the cast. John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, and Elizabeth Debicki are all great as per usual, and are supported by the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Branagh especially is a convincing, nasty villain.
There's been a lot of discussion surrounding the sound mixing - and I can honestly see why. A lot of the dialogue is cancelled out by either the (pretty damn good) music score, or swamped underneath obnoxiously loud sound effects. Whether this is a stylistic choice by Nolan or not, it does negatively impact the experience.
Ultimately, Tenet is enjoyable enough, but I feel like it's not as clever as it wants you to think. That being said, maybe I'm just not clever enough to truly get it. It's proving to be a divisive film however, so it's definitely worth seeing for yourself to reach a conclusion.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
If you hear the sound of a million screaming girls coming from your local theater, then you already know that the newest film in the Twilight Saga, “New Moon” is here. Picking up where “Twilight” left off is the love triangle between emo babe, Bella (Kristen Stewert), her star-crossed boyfriend/vampire, Edward (Robert Pattinson), and the heartfelt affectionate werewolf, Jacob (Taylor Lautner). But this film isn’t just about this century’s most discussed love triangle. “New Moon” takes Twilighters deeper into the history and mythos of these loveable monsters. Further expanding the Twilightverse is the introduction of the Volturi, the vampire royalty, who keep their kind a global secret, with serious consequences for those who break their code.
If you were bored during the slow buildup of “Twilight” then “New Moon” should be an exciting change, filled with fast cars and strong CGI. And the visuals don’t stop there, with backdrops ranging from the rainy forests of Washington to the sunny streets of Tuscany, this film goes far beyond the scope of the last.
Most impressively the acting has improved, especially on the part of Jacob Black who is charming in “New Moon”, a significant improvement from his irritating portrayal in the first film. Did I mention that he has gained a six pack? No, not just the abs, but also in the form of his wolf tribe (yes, I know there are only five wolves, but who can resist a good six pack turn of phrase?).
I only wish there had been more interaction with the Volturi. Surely there was a way to skip an unnecessary emotional Bella scene for a better understanding of the cruel nature of these creatures. Still the chemistry between Bella and the two men of her dreams is undeniably heart wrenching in this cinematic chapter.
Lovers of Twilight will also rejoice over the clever dialogue, which immediately took me back to key moments in the books. Moreover, the action-filled storytelling might just be the final straw for the remaining people out there on the fence about tackling the hefty novels.
If you were bored during the slow buildup of “Twilight” then “New Moon” should be an exciting change, filled with fast cars and strong CGI. And the visuals don’t stop there, with backdrops ranging from the rainy forests of Washington to the sunny streets of Tuscany, this film goes far beyond the scope of the last.
Most impressively the acting has improved, especially on the part of Jacob Black who is charming in “New Moon”, a significant improvement from his irritating portrayal in the first film. Did I mention that he has gained a six pack? No, not just the abs, but also in the form of his wolf tribe (yes, I know there are only five wolves, but who can resist a good six pack turn of phrase?).
I only wish there had been more interaction with the Volturi. Surely there was a way to skip an unnecessary emotional Bella scene for a better understanding of the cruel nature of these creatures. Still the chemistry between Bella and the two men of her dreams is undeniably heart wrenching in this cinematic chapter.
Lovers of Twilight will also rejoice over the clever dialogue, which immediately took me back to key moments in the books. Moreover, the action-filled storytelling might just be the final straw for the remaining people out there on the fence about tackling the hefty novels.