Search
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
There are a swathe of European film-makers like Luca Guadagnino and Paolo Sorrentino that have the skill to make every image they print to film look like a work of art, giving you the feeling you are on the most idyllic holiday you ever had. Watching a largely silent image of a beautiful lake or a tree in the breeze, or an al fresco dinner where family and friends talk freely whilst the wine and olive oil flow is a treat I am not immune to.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
Hollywood Presents Jules Verne: The Father of Science Fiction on Screen
Book
Even for those who have never read Jules Verne (1828--1905), the author's very name conjures visions...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Sherlock, Jr. (1924) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
I have seen and very much enjoyed the work of Buster Keaton in the past, most notably The General, which knocked me sideways by how inventive and genuinely funny it was. My main movie love for the silent era is Charlie Chaplin, and much like it is possible to like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones but only truly love one, Keaton will always be second best for me. But what a second best. Genius is an overused word, of course, but pioneer says it better anyway. The sheer volume of invention per minute is magnificent – from the technical editing techniques that were created just for this film, to the forms of visual comedy that broke the mould and raised the bar in every scene.
Most memorable is the cinema scene where Keaton’s love sick amateur sleuth tries to hide by actually entering the screen – a trick paid homage to in many movies since, including Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. It is astonishing to think he not only thought of doing this in 1924, but also pulled it off with jaw-dropping special effects for the time. It’s also really funny. You don’t have to force a laugh because you feel you should, it is still clever and amusing almost 100 years later. In fact, the entire 46 minute print still looks so good it is hard to believe it is that old in any way. Surely one of a handful of half length films from the period that will always be watched for what they are and not just museum pieces.
Most memorable is the cinema scene where Keaton’s love sick amateur sleuth tries to hide by actually entering the screen – a trick paid homage to in many movies since, including Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. It is astonishing to think he not only thought of doing this in 1924, but also pulled it off with jaw-dropping special effects for the time. It’s also really funny. You don’t have to force a laugh because you feel you should, it is still clever and amusing almost 100 years later. In fact, the entire 46 minute print still looks so good it is hard to believe it is that old in any way. Surely one of a handful of half length films from the period that will always be watched for what they are and not just museum pieces.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Wings (1927) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Verdict: Beautiful Portray of Love & War
Story: Wings starts as two young men Jack Powell (Rogers) and David Armstrong (Arlen) both sign up to become fighter pilots in the First World War, they are from different backgrounds, with Jack working with his hands, which has seen him get the attention of Mary Preston (Bow) and David being rich, with the pair both seeking the attention of Sylvia Lewis (Ralston).
What starts out in rivalry soon becomes friendship between the two men as through their training, they learn they need to be on the same side and want the same thing from their time in the service. They are followed by Mary who has taken up a job where she delivers medical supplies to troops, all while her love for Jack continues to grow.
Thoughts on Wings
Characters – Mary Preston has worked with Jack Powell for years, they work on cars and her love for Jack is clear, she doesn’t get the attention she desires of him though, with the men at war, she uses her driving skills to deliver medical supplies, hoping to find Jack too, which sees her needing to find a way to act more lady like for the era. Jack Powell is from the working class bracket of people, he has always been great with cars and mechanics, which sees him sign up for the air force during world war 1, he will do what he can get impress the rich Sylvia to whom he loves and after years of rivalry with David, they will become friends. David Armstrong has come from a rich family, he is set to be marrying Sylvia one day if the families have their say, he sees Jack as a rival, until they fight side by side in the skies. Sylvia is the woman that both men are fighting for the attention of, they both see her as the perfect woman and will go to lengths to impress her.
Performances – This being a silent movie, all the work from the actors in the film comes from face expressions and movements, which they are all fantastic with, Clara Bow shows the pain of being in love with somebody who doesn’t want you, while Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen show the rivalry men can have when it comes to women.
Story – The story here follows two men from different backgrounds, one rich one working class, that are both fighting for the same woman, who join the air force to impress, where they become friends and learn the horrors of war. This is a story that is one that shows that love can be something people will always do crazy things for, it shows how the war bought enemies together and for a movie made in 1927, showed us a strong female character willing to go into war, unlike many films for years to come. Being a silent movie, we do get the expression and action doing a lot of the storytelling around the dialogue which is interesting because it keeps away a lot of unnecessary dialogue certain war films turn too.
Romance/War – The romance in this film shows how people will do strange things for love, you might not always see it right under your nose either, with the war being the main location that our characters all go to impress, the dog fight scenes are brilliant to watch, with the use of music making a big impact on the quality too.
Settings – The film uses the settings you would expect to see the war fought at, while we see the ground shots, it is when we are in the sky watching the dog fights that we get to feel the peril the characters are going through.
Scene of the Movie – Any of the dog fights.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does play into stereotypes of other nationalities.
Final Thoughts – This is a genius war movie that rightly deserved to win the first Oscar, it brings us a story that shows how much people would have risked for war and just how far they would go for love.
Overall: Brilliant.
Story: Wings starts as two young men Jack Powell (Rogers) and David Armstrong (Arlen) both sign up to become fighter pilots in the First World War, they are from different backgrounds, with Jack working with his hands, which has seen him get the attention of Mary Preston (Bow) and David being rich, with the pair both seeking the attention of Sylvia Lewis (Ralston).
What starts out in rivalry soon becomes friendship between the two men as through their training, they learn they need to be on the same side and want the same thing from their time in the service. They are followed by Mary who has taken up a job where she delivers medical supplies to troops, all while her love for Jack continues to grow.
Thoughts on Wings
Characters – Mary Preston has worked with Jack Powell for years, they work on cars and her love for Jack is clear, she doesn’t get the attention she desires of him though, with the men at war, she uses her driving skills to deliver medical supplies, hoping to find Jack too, which sees her needing to find a way to act more lady like for the era. Jack Powell is from the working class bracket of people, he has always been great with cars and mechanics, which sees him sign up for the air force during world war 1, he will do what he can get impress the rich Sylvia to whom he loves and after years of rivalry with David, they will become friends. David Armstrong has come from a rich family, he is set to be marrying Sylvia one day if the families have their say, he sees Jack as a rival, until they fight side by side in the skies. Sylvia is the woman that both men are fighting for the attention of, they both see her as the perfect woman and will go to lengths to impress her.
Performances – This being a silent movie, all the work from the actors in the film comes from face expressions and movements, which they are all fantastic with, Clara Bow shows the pain of being in love with somebody who doesn’t want you, while Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen show the rivalry men can have when it comes to women.
Story – The story here follows two men from different backgrounds, one rich one working class, that are both fighting for the same woman, who join the air force to impress, where they become friends and learn the horrors of war. This is a story that is one that shows that love can be something people will always do crazy things for, it shows how the war bought enemies together and for a movie made in 1927, showed us a strong female character willing to go into war, unlike many films for years to come. Being a silent movie, we do get the expression and action doing a lot of the storytelling around the dialogue which is interesting because it keeps away a lot of unnecessary dialogue certain war films turn too.
Romance/War – The romance in this film shows how people will do strange things for love, you might not always see it right under your nose either, with the war being the main location that our characters all go to impress, the dog fight scenes are brilliant to watch, with the use of music making a big impact on the quality too.
Settings – The film uses the settings you would expect to see the war fought at, while we see the ground shots, it is when we are in the sky watching the dog fights that we get to feel the peril the characters are going through.
Scene of the Movie – Any of the dog fights.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does play into stereotypes of other nationalities.
Final Thoughts – This is a genius war movie that rightly deserved to win the first Oscar, it brings us a story that shows how much people would have risked for war and just how far they would go for love.
Overall: Brilliant.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 19, 2019 (Updated Jul 19, 2019)
If this is where the monarchy is headed Count me out!
Lion king 2019 is by far the worst of the Disney live action remakes & while newcomers/children will certainly love it many of the people that hold the original close to their hearts will leave wishing they had just stayed home with the far superior predecessor instead. Aladdin & The Lion King are two of the greatest animated feature films of all time & as I experienced them both in cinema on release they are very special to me. Now i loved the Aladdin remake & im not one for comparing these to the animated features but while I was watching this all i could think about was how much better the original is. While it looks absolutely gorgeous (until anything starts to move) the animation at times is so unnatural especially when animals are walking slowly that its constantly distracting & kills the illusion of these creatures being real. Voice work is bland/mediocre & delivered with almost no enthusiasm at all like the cast were more concerned with sounding different to the original than giving the characters charm & personality. Voices also dont feel connected to the characters like your watching a nature documentary thats been dubbed over. While Aladdin did its own thing & changed up the movie Lion King is practically & infuriatingly a scene for scene remake which would be ok if it had the charm, colour, grand scale, imagination, excitement, thrill, humour & emotional impact of the original but it doesnt. Songs are butchered/dull with seemingly no energy or spectacle to them at all feeling significantly toned down/grounded rather than fun & toe tapping (they have also ruined 'Be Prepared'). So whats new? theres new humour & yup you guessed it its really bad with awkward timing & dragged out jokes that just fall flat. I wanted so bad to love this movie but not even a scense of nostalgia kicked in either because the film is just soulless, unenthusiastic, boring, bland, lacking in excitement & magic. Kids will no doubt love it but for me its this years biggest let down. If it were a silent film with an epic score over the top it might of at least been unique/watchable & helped be bearable but as it is I just cant recomend seeing it. A big fat cash grab.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Clerks (1994) in Movies
May 6, 2019
Dante and Randal - together forever
I had the pleasure of meeting Kevin Smith when he appeared at the Hollywood Video manager's meeting in Las Vegas in the summer of 1999. Clerks was revered at that time by all of us since we were living the life of Randal to a certain extent being video store managers. We could all relate to the examples of stupid customers and things we wanted to say to them, but couldn't since "the customer is always right".
Smith's appearance at our meeting must've shocked the Mormon founder, Mark Wattles, when Smith began using excessive profanity and talking about giving blow jobs in the bathroom for cash.
My own experiences as a video store manager were reflected in a lot of what Randal says especially when it came to movie recommendations. I'll never forget being asked "Which is better, Booty Call or Schindler's List" or arguing with customers during the "full screen" vs. "widescreen" debate explaining widescreen was better because you could see the entire picture instead of the side of the film being cut off.
Every time I rewatch Clerks it always reminds me of those times and how I reflect fondly on them now so many years later.
Smith was a funny guy and he certainly tells good stories if you have ever seen one of his stand-up specials where he talks about meeting Prince, Bruce Willis or his experiences writing a Superman draft.
Jay and Silent Bob are iconic too even getting their own reboot movie now.
Clerks is a comedy cinema cult classic having lived far beyond its original $27,000 budget where Smith had to sell his comic book collection and its characters will live on forever due to some classic screenwriting.
Smith's appearance at our meeting must've shocked the Mormon founder, Mark Wattles, when Smith began using excessive profanity and talking about giving blow jobs in the bathroom for cash.
My own experiences as a video store manager were reflected in a lot of what Randal says especially when it came to movie recommendations. I'll never forget being asked "Which is better, Booty Call or Schindler's List" or arguing with customers during the "full screen" vs. "widescreen" debate explaining widescreen was better because you could see the entire picture instead of the side of the film being cut off.
Every time I rewatch Clerks it always reminds me of those times and how I reflect fondly on them now so many years later.
Smith was a funny guy and he certainly tells good stories if you have ever seen one of his stand-up specials where he talks about meeting Prince, Bruce Willis or his experiences writing a Superman draft.
Jay and Silent Bob are iconic too even getting their own reboot movie now.
Clerks is a comedy cinema cult classic having lived far beyond its original $27,000 budget where Smith had to sell his comic book collection and its characters will live on forever due to some classic screenwriting.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Shining (1980) in Movies
Nov 4, 2019 (Updated Jan 8, 2021)
A slow burning horror masterclass
Stanley Kubrick's adaption of The Shining is certainly a rare gem - A tense thriller that might have aged, but still feels different and fresh in today's world.
Kubrick doesn't rely on cheap jump scares, but rather long and slow burning shots that are regularly unnerving, spliced with sudden and silent images of violence, all whilst a unsettling string score plays underneath each scene, even when nothing abnormal is happening.
The narrative of this adaption of The Shining is pretty straightforward (on the surface at least) as we watch Jack Torrance - a menacing and excellent Jack Nicholson in arguably his greatest performance - descend into madness as he looks after a deserted hotel for the winter months.
Jack is not particularly painted as a well hinged individual as it is, acting out against his wife Wendy (Shelly Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) on a regular basis, whilst being slowly pushed over the edge by the isolated hotel, and it's ghostly occupants.
It's a well scripted film, never giving us too much back story, allowing us as an audience to interpret a lot of what is going on, and this loose ended-ness of The Shining is big part of it's charm.
Pretty much every shot is gorgeous, from the overhead sweeping landscapes of the opening, to the infamous tracking shots of Danny on his toy trike. The whole aesthetic is striking and disorientating in equal measure.
Not only is Nicholson an absolutely terrifying treat, but Shelly Duvall's performance is fantastic as well. Her frantic portrayal of a woman at her wits end is chilling, even if the methods to achieve this were questionable.
The Shining is truly iconic. It's influences can be seen everywhere from Twin Peaks to American Horror Story, and it's a testament to the overall quality of this horror heavyweight. A true masterpiece.
Kubrick doesn't rely on cheap jump scares, but rather long and slow burning shots that are regularly unnerving, spliced with sudden and silent images of violence, all whilst a unsettling string score plays underneath each scene, even when nothing abnormal is happening.
The narrative of this adaption of The Shining is pretty straightforward (on the surface at least) as we watch Jack Torrance - a menacing and excellent Jack Nicholson in arguably his greatest performance - descend into madness as he looks after a deserted hotel for the winter months.
Jack is not particularly painted as a well hinged individual as it is, acting out against his wife Wendy (Shelly Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) on a regular basis, whilst being slowly pushed over the edge by the isolated hotel, and it's ghostly occupants.
It's a well scripted film, never giving us too much back story, allowing us as an audience to interpret a lot of what is going on, and this loose ended-ness of The Shining is big part of it's charm.
Pretty much every shot is gorgeous, from the overhead sweeping landscapes of the opening, to the infamous tracking shots of Danny on his toy trike. The whole aesthetic is striking and disorientating in equal measure.
Not only is Nicholson an absolutely terrifying treat, but Shelly Duvall's performance is fantastic as well. Her frantic portrayal of a woman at her wits end is chilling, even if the methods to achieve this were questionable.
The Shining is truly iconic. It's influences can be seen everywhere from Twin Peaks to American Horror Story, and it's a testament to the overall quality of this horror heavyweight. A true masterpiece.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Shaun the Sheep Movie (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Shaun the Sheep is a spin-off from the popular British stop-motion animation show Wallace and Gromit. This one of a kind, smart, and loveable sheep burst on to the small screen nearly twenty years ago in the short “A Close Shave.” Winning the hearts of millions, it’s no surprise a movie was in the works.
This film starts off with a silent monologue of how Shaun, the rest of flock of sheep, and Bitzer, the loyal and always “by the book” sheepdog, came to live with the Farmer. Fast forward a few years, sick and tired of the redundant life of waking up early, being herded throughout the farm, shaved, and fed the same food every day, Shaun brilliantly devises a plan to give him and the flock the day off. Unfortunately, the plan of tricking the Farmer to fall asleep in an RV trailer goes awry when the trailer wriggles loose from its tire wedges sending the Farmer off on an out of control trip and ending up in the Big City with amnesia. Stuck on the Farm with no one to tend to their needs, the Sheep and Bitzer panic and set off to the Big City to bring the Farmer back home. And, so begins the adventure into unchartered territory.
It’s remarkable that a movie with no dialogue manages to convey so many messages and emotions-from anger, comic relief, sadness to gratitude and joy. My hats go off to writer-director duo, Mark Burton and Richard Starzak, and the rest of the animation team for paying such wonderful attention to detail with the characters, the vibrant scenery, and also being on point with the comedic timing.
Every generation will love this movie and it definitely proves that silence is golden.
This film starts off with a silent monologue of how Shaun, the rest of flock of sheep, and Bitzer, the loyal and always “by the book” sheepdog, came to live with the Farmer. Fast forward a few years, sick and tired of the redundant life of waking up early, being herded throughout the farm, shaved, and fed the same food every day, Shaun brilliantly devises a plan to give him and the flock the day off. Unfortunately, the plan of tricking the Farmer to fall asleep in an RV trailer goes awry when the trailer wriggles loose from its tire wedges sending the Farmer off on an out of control trip and ending up in the Big City with amnesia. Stuck on the Farm with no one to tend to their needs, the Sheep and Bitzer panic and set off to the Big City to bring the Farmer back home. And, so begins the adventure into unchartered territory.
It’s remarkable that a movie with no dialogue manages to convey so many messages and emotions-from anger, comic relief, sadness to gratitude and joy. My hats go off to writer-director duo, Mark Burton and Richard Starzak, and the rest of the animation team for paying such wonderful attention to detail with the characters, the vibrant scenery, and also being on point with the comedic timing.
Every generation will love this movie and it definitely proves that silence is golden.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html