Search
Search results
Fairy Colors - Magical Draw & Paint Coloring Book
Education and Games
App
~ The most enchanting, magical, interactive experience in the App Store ~ ~~ 150+ adorable fairy...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Night Of - Season 1 in TV
Jul 19, 2017
Fantastic performances by the entire cast (4 more)
Phenomenal Script
Beautiful cinematography
Clever use of lighting
Brillaint direction
A Masterpice of Storytelling.
The Night Of stars Riz Ahmed as Naz, a young guy from Manhattan from an Asian family, who makes a series of bad decisions on what was supposed to be a simple night out; leading to his subsequent arrest and trial for the murder of a young girl. While there is no denying that Naz made some bad decisions and it is hard to deny he looks guilty, we are on this guy’s side at the start of the series. Then Jon Turturro comes into the show as Naz’s lawer John Stone. This is Turturro’s best role in years, possibly in his entire career and it serves as a stark reminder how wasted this guy is in the Transformers series and Adam Sandler Movies. Both leads give convincing performances as their respective characters, thrust into a situation that ends up being way out of their depth, they are both fish out of water, on either side of the justice system and we see the adapt or die method used by each of them.
Preacher, Westworld and Stranger Things are widely considered to be the best new TV shows of 2016, but I reckon that The Night Of is probably the most important new show broadcast this year. In the wake of a plethora of horrific, recent terror attacks across the world and following the vote to elect Donald Trump as the president of the most powerful country in the world, (a man who once expressed the desire to ban all Muslims from entering the USA,) this show seems unfortunately more relevant than ever. The show doesn’t shove any explicit propaganda down your throat, but there is no denying the racist undertones present and the social issues that the show presents to us. The writing is also fantastic throughout and this is by far the most painfully realistic show I have seen in the last few years. The show isn’t without its quirks though, but the consistently realistic nature of the writing and the performances are what make this show so immersive. The series also takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, constantly dropping unexpected character twists and new hints towards what really happened on the night referred to in the show’s title. This show throws so many interesting conversation starters into the viewership’s collective mind and constantly keeps you guessing as a spectator to these gruesome events.
This is a show that everyone should try, in a post brexit world where racial tensions are at an extreme high, this show is painfully relevant to people on either side of the argument. The crime itself becomes a background element as we see the biased treatment of a young Muslim man by the system and the assumptions made for and against him. There are so many backdoor deals being made between lawyers and other law officials and really the worst light is thrown on the criminal justice system itself and how broken the whole thing is. By halfway through the series’ 8 episodes, the issue of whether or not Naz actually committed the crime is irrelevant, the most important thing at this point being trying to keep everybody involved with this high profile case happy.
Although the moral points that this show chooses to pursue are unflinching and extremely well handled, the more technical aspects of the show are also expertly executed. I have already spoke about Riz Ahmed and John Turturro’s stand out performances, but the show’s supporting cast doesn’t contain any weak spots either and features a well rounded variety of races, ages and social classes. Naz’s family are all brilliant as are the other lawyers that make up the case. I have also already spoke about the high quality script present in the show, but I feel that the show’s writing team can’t be praised enough for the consistently high quality script they have produced. The cinematography of the show is also impressive throughout, with each shot perfectly complimenting the tone that the show sets and framing the actor’s performances masterfully. The use of light is also well implemented and adds to each shot composition and the overall aesthetic of the show. As highlighted above the actor’s performances are fantastic, but they are guided very well by the show’s directors. The score is also a nice addition to the tone of the show, as are all of the sound effects and audio used throughout.
Overall, this is the definition of great television and is the example that all other TV shows should aim for. Even if you don’t agree with the moral compasses of the show’s characters, it is objectively impossible to deny the show’s high caliber of technical filmaking. This is without a doubt one of the best shows aired in 2016 and could even be considered as one of the best seasons of a TV show of the last decade.
Preacher, Westworld and Stranger Things are widely considered to be the best new TV shows of 2016, but I reckon that The Night Of is probably the most important new show broadcast this year. In the wake of a plethora of horrific, recent terror attacks across the world and following the vote to elect Donald Trump as the president of the most powerful country in the world, (a man who once expressed the desire to ban all Muslims from entering the USA,) this show seems unfortunately more relevant than ever. The show doesn’t shove any explicit propaganda down your throat, but there is no denying the racist undertones present and the social issues that the show presents to us. The writing is also fantastic throughout and this is by far the most painfully realistic show I have seen in the last few years. The show isn’t without its quirks though, but the consistently realistic nature of the writing and the performances are what make this show so immersive. The series also takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, constantly dropping unexpected character twists and new hints towards what really happened on the night referred to in the show’s title. This show throws so many interesting conversation starters into the viewership’s collective mind and constantly keeps you guessing as a spectator to these gruesome events.
This is a show that everyone should try, in a post brexit world where racial tensions are at an extreme high, this show is painfully relevant to people on either side of the argument. The crime itself becomes a background element as we see the biased treatment of a young Muslim man by the system and the assumptions made for and against him. There are so many backdoor deals being made between lawyers and other law officials and really the worst light is thrown on the criminal justice system itself and how broken the whole thing is. By halfway through the series’ 8 episodes, the issue of whether or not Naz actually committed the crime is irrelevant, the most important thing at this point being trying to keep everybody involved with this high profile case happy.
Although the moral points that this show chooses to pursue are unflinching and extremely well handled, the more technical aspects of the show are also expertly executed. I have already spoke about Riz Ahmed and John Turturro’s stand out performances, but the show’s supporting cast doesn’t contain any weak spots either and features a well rounded variety of races, ages and social classes. Naz’s family are all brilliant as are the other lawyers that make up the case. I have also already spoke about the high quality script present in the show, but I feel that the show’s writing team can’t be praised enough for the consistently high quality script they have produced. The cinematography of the show is also impressive throughout, with each shot perfectly complimenting the tone that the show sets and framing the actor’s performances masterfully. The use of light is also well implemented and adds to each shot composition and the overall aesthetic of the show. As highlighted above the actor’s performances are fantastic, but they are guided very well by the show’s directors. The score is also a nice addition to the tone of the show, as are all of the sound effects and audio used throughout.
Overall, this is the definition of great television and is the example that all other TV shows should aim for. Even if you don’t agree with the moral compasses of the show’s characters, it is objectively impossible to deny the show’s high caliber of technical filmaking. This is without a doubt one of the best shows aired in 2016 and could even be considered as one of the best seasons of a TV show of the last decade.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Iron Man 3 (2013) in Movies
May 10, 2019 (Updated May 10, 2019)
"i am iron man 2.0"
Marking the commencement of the second phase of Marvel Cinematic Universe after the first one culminated with The Avengers, Iron Man 3 presents a definite improvement over its insufferably insipid predecessor but it still falls short of the magical experience that was the first Iron Man film. However, it does carry a new energy & has a refreshing vibe to it, thanks to the new director at helm.
Iron Man 3 continues the story of Tony Stark who's recovering from post-traumatic stress caused by the events of The Avengers. Unable to sleep & genuinely afraid of losing what he loves, Stark's life is turned upside down after he issues a threat to a radical terrorist who retaliates by destroying his personal world, leaving him far more vulnerable than ever before & forcing him to rebuild from the scratch.
Co-written & directed by Shane Black, Iron Man 3 really benefits from a fresh perspective & is an enjoyable ride for the most part but is also marred by its attempt to try out way too many things at once, out of which only a few work out in a convincing manner. Technical aspects are finely executed for its Cinematography favours a slightly darker tone, Editing steadily paces its narrative while Brian Tyler's score adds more vibrancy to its plot.
Coming to the performances, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley & Rebecca Hall join the reprising cast & ably fill up their given roles while Robert Downey Jr. once again manages to impress the most. The best thing about this sequel is the position it puts Tony Stark in & Downey Jr. does a terrific job in bringing that vulnerability on the screen. Also, while I was a bit furious at what they did with Iron Man's arch-nemesis, I did later warm up to what their intent was here.
On an overall scale, Iron Man 3 is a solid follow up to Iron Man & you don't even have to go through the crap that was Iron Man 2 to get to this one. The film's intent to cover the darker issues at hand while keeping itself light-hearted & plenty of fun is a combination that doesn't gel so well, is at friction on many occasions & is bound to divide its viewers, but its improvement over everything that was so wrong with its predecessor nevertheless makes it a welcome chapter, if not a worthy one.
Iron Man 3 continues the story of Tony Stark who's recovering from post-traumatic stress caused by the events of The Avengers. Unable to sleep & genuinely afraid of losing what he loves, Stark's life is turned upside down after he issues a threat to a radical terrorist who retaliates by destroying his personal world, leaving him far more vulnerable than ever before & forcing him to rebuild from the scratch.
Co-written & directed by Shane Black, Iron Man 3 really benefits from a fresh perspective & is an enjoyable ride for the most part but is also marred by its attempt to try out way too many things at once, out of which only a few work out in a convincing manner. Technical aspects are finely executed for its Cinematography favours a slightly darker tone, Editing steadily paces its narrative while Brian Tyler's score adds more vibrancy to its plot.
Coming to the performances, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley & Rebecca Hall join the reprising cast & ably fill up their given roles while Robert Downey Jr. once again manages to impress the most. The best thing about this sequel is the position it puts Tony Stark in & Downey Jr. does a terrific job in bringing that vulnerability on the screen. Also, while I was a bit furious at what they did with Iron Man's arch-nemesis, I did later warm up to what their intent was here.
On an overall scale, Iron Man 3 is a solid follow up to Iron Man & you don't even have to go through the crap that was Iron Man 2 to get to this one. The film's intent to cover the darker issues at hand while keeping itself light-hearted & plenty of fun is a combination that doesn't gel so well, is at friction on many occasions & is bound to divide its viewers, but its improvement over everything that was so wrong with its predecessor nevertheless makes it a welcome chapter, if not a worthy one.
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
I can't quite decide how to classify this book, although I kept telling people I was reading a crime thriller. But it's a little more than that, as Darren works to prevent crime by thwarting gang efforts in a place called The Orchard. He manages to do this by using a suit specifically designed to enhance his own abilities multiple times over, making him faster, stronger, and ultimately bullet-proof. The resulting encounters with criminals are sometimes hilarious when they see that they're basically fighting Iron Man.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. There were aspects that got a little technical and went a little over my head, when Darren and Adam were explaining how they created the suit, what all software/technology went into it, etc., but it was still understandable enough to keep me in the story. Aside from that part, I was deeply engrossed in how Darren could pull of these feats, why he did it (when it got that part), and the little mini-stories from the perspective of the would-be victims, had he not stepped in to help. And I found myself reading the introduction over and over again (I even got my husband to read it), because I was just so fascinated at what can be done with technology now!! It really grabbed my attention, the first chapter sucked me in, and the rest of the book made sure to never let me go.
Finally, while not a major part, there's an exchange between Darren and Corrine about the difference between a justice system and a legal system, as well as one between Darren and a judge that involves such things as the psychology of the courtroom and law. I found both these discussions very interesting, as I majored in Forensic Psychology, and the term "justice system" was used quite often, often interchangeably with "legal system." To hear the two explained in stark contrast to one another and how they differ was something that really added to the story and bolstered Darren's cause, in my opinion. And to hear the judge talk about the theatrics of the courtroom and how it's all ritualistic and intimidating really got me thinking, as well. Kudos to the author for throwing those two bits of dialogue in the story.
5 stars, and I'd recommend this to anyone who likes a good off-the-beaten-path superhero story =)
I can't quite decide how to classify this book, although I kept telling people I was reading a crime thriller. But it's a little more than that, as Darren works to prevent crime by thwarting gang efforts in a place called The Orchard. He manages to do this by using a suit specifically designed to enhance his own abilities multiple times over, making him faster, stronger, and ultimately bullet-proof. The resulting encounters with criminals are sometimes hilarious when they see that they're basically fighting Iron Man.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. There were aspects that got a little technical and went a little over my head, when Darren and Adam were explaining how they created the suit, what all software/technology went into it, etc., but it was still understandable enough to keep me in the story. Aside from that part, I was deeply engrossed in how Darren could pull of these feats, why he did it (when it got that part), and the little mini-stories from the perspective of the would-be victims, had he not stepped in to help. And I found myself reading the introduction over and over again (I even got my husband to read it), because I was just so fascinated at what can be done with technology now!! It really grabbed my attention, the first chapter sucked me in, and the rest of the book made sure to never let me go.
Finally, while not a major part, there's an exchange between Darren and Corrine about the difference between a justice system and a legal system, as well as one between Darren and a judge that involves such things as the psychology of the courtroom and law. I found both these discussions very interesting, as I majored in Forensic Psychology, and the term "justice system" was used quite often, often interchangeably with "legal system." To hear the two explained in stark contrast to one another and how they differ was something that really added to the story and bolstered Darren's cause, in my opinion. And to hear the judge talk about the theatrics of the courtroom and how it's all ritualistic and intimidating really got me thinking, as well. Kudos to the author for throwing those two bits of dialogue in the story.
5 stars, and I'd recommend this to anyone who likes a good off-the-beaten-path superhero story =)
Lee (2222 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 11, 2020
British soldiers Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are taking a well earned rest in a peaceful French field when they are summoned to a meeting down in the trenches with General Erinmore (Colin Firth). Having believed that the Germans had retreated, and were now on the run, the General has now learned that they are in fact armed to the teeth and lying in wait for the unsuspecting battalion of 1600 Brits who are preparing to advance on them. Unfortunately, that battalion is quite a distance across country, and with telephone lines currently out of action, Blake and Schofield have been tasked by the General with delivering the message to call off the attack. And the reason for choosing Blake? His brother is one of the 1600 likely to meet their death if the message isn’t received before they attack the following morning.
The big talking point surrounding 1917 has been the ‘single shot’ effect that it uses in order to tell its story. We effectively follow Blake and Schofield in real time as they undertake their mission, with only a single camera shot tracking them, and only noticeably cutting away just once. The result is outstanding, delivering a seamless and fully immersive experience unlike anything you’ve experienced before, outside of a first person shooter video game.
Late last year, a short behind the scenes video for 1917 was released, showing how they’d used cameras hanging from wires, which were then passed to guys on foot, then to guys on vehicles, back and forth in order to achieve the effect. The result is that the camera glides effortlessly around the soldiers in the trenches and on the battlefields, through barbed wire and across bodies of water filled with rotting corpses. You feel the tension and all of the emotion right there, right alongside the soldiers who are experiencing it. It’s a truly amazing technical achievement.
Their journey takes them across no mans land, across the war-torn countryside, avoiding danger and all other obstacles in their way. And it’s edge of seat stuff, aided by an amazing heart pumping score and that incredible camera work. Hats off to George Mackay as Schofield too, who carries the majority of the movie and is really put through the wringer.
1917 has already earned itself a Golden Globe, and nine BAFTA nominations, just this last week alone. And it deserves it all. Bold, ambitious storytelling, and an early contender for this years best movie.
The big talking point surrounding 1917 has been the ‘single shot’ effect that it uses in order to tell its story. We effectively follow Blake and Schofield in real time as they undertake their mission, with only a single camera shot tracking them, and only noticeably cutting away just once. The result is outstanding, delivering a seamless and fully immersive experience unlike anything you’ve experienced before, outside of a first person shooter video game.
Late last year, a short behind the scenes video for 1917 was released, showing how they’d used cameras hanging from wires, which were then passed to guys on foot, then to guys on vehicles, back and forth in order to achieve the effect. The result is that the camera glides effortlessly around the soldiers in the trenches and on the battlefields, through barbed wire and across bodies of water filled with rotting corpses. You feel the tension and all of the emotion right there, right alongside the soldiers who are experiencing it. It’s a truly amazing technical achievement.
Their journey takes them across no mans land, across the war-torn countryside, avoiding danger and all other obstacles in their way. And it’s edge of seat stuff, aided by an amazing heart pumping score and that incredible camera work. Hats off to George Mackay as Schofield too, who carries the majority of the movie and is really put through the wringer.
1917 has already earned itself a Golden Globe, and nine BAFTA nominations, just this last week alone. And it deserves it all. Bold, ambitious storytelling, and an early contender for this years best movie.
Flower Girl: Big Wedding Day
Games and Entertainment
9.0
Rate It
App
Molly’s sister is getting married! Join Molly, the flower girl, on a crazy adventure as she sets...
Vehicle Fun - Preschool Games
Education and Games
8.0
Rate It
App
~ The most exciting vehicle interactive games in the App-Store ~ ~~ A rewarding and educational...
Health & Glow
Shopping
App
With Health & Glow online shopping app, the new radiant you is just a tap away! Health & Glow is...