Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Game Of Thrones - Season 8 in TV
Aug 7, 2019
And now our watch has ended
Contains spoilers, click to show
From the moment Game of Thrones first graced our screens, whenever it was going to come to and end, the last season was going to have to be special to land properly.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
156Reviews (7 KP) rated True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
One of the main things that divides opinion on Ned Kelly is was he on the side of good or bad? Some see him as a kind of freedom fighter, standing up to the British, who at the time that looked to suppress and demean the Australian people. Some see him as a criminal, who murdered innocent people for reasons known only to him. Both of these opinions may be true, neither of them might be, but it's one hell of a gamble to base a film on someone that divides opinion that much.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paths of Glory (1957) in Movies
Feb 18, 2024
Early Kubrick Masterpiece
Dore Schary, then head of production of MGM, like Stanley Kubrick’s first film, THE KILLING (1956) so he hired Kubrick to develop film stories from the studios pile of scripts and purchased novels. Finding nothing the he liked, Kubrick remembered reading Humprhey Cobb’s anti-war novel PATHS OF GLORY and suggested that. Schary (like every other studio exec in Hollywood at the time) turned down the opportunity to make this bleak anti-war film.
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
10-Day Detox - Healthy 10lbs weight loss in 10 days and complete cleansing and recovery of your body!
Health & Fitness and Food & Drink
App
*** SALE! - 50%! *** *** The 10-Day Detox is oriented on much more deeper body cleansing of...
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Patch Of Fog (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Patch of Fog starts as we meet successful author and television presenter Sandy Duffy (Hill) that would like to return to the quiet life only to find himself caught shoplifting by security guard Robert (Graham). In an attempt to keep the story out of the papers tries to bribe Robert, who turns the tables on Sandy by blackmailing him into being his friend.
As Sandy tries to get himself out of the blackmail, he learns that Robert has a much darker side which puts his and his girlfriend, presenter Lucy (Pulver) lives at risk.
Thoughts on A Patch of Fog
Characters – Robert is mild mannered security guard in a general store, he is a lonely figure that takes advantage of the situation of power once he catches acclaimed author stealing in his store. He blackmails Sandy into being his friend and tries to stay one step ahead of him as he tries his best to escape from position. Sandy is the acclaimed author that has become a celebrity on television, though he wants to take a step away from the spotlight and the endless conversations about his book, A Patch of Fog. He tries his best to outsmart Robert though he can only get so far before learning Robert has everything planned out. Lucy is the television presenter just starting a relationship with Sandy, she has been trying to get the interview together for long time now.
Performances – Stephen Graham in the leading role as the slightly unhinged loner works very well, he shows that given the chance the moments of darkness can shine through. Conleth Hill is great in his role as the author that wants out of the limelight. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without being overly involved in the main story.
Story – The story follows an author and celebrity being blackmailed by a security guard that catches him stealing. The story does come down to a cat-n-mouse style thriller where each character tries to stay ahead of the other, which brings twists along the way. This is a style of story telling we have seen before and it is one that is always interesting to watch unfold, by having both sides having secrets this does make it feel like one of the better ones too.
Thriller – This is a film that does keep you on the edge of your seat throughout as we wait to see just where things will go next.
Settings – The film does show the different lives both Robert and Sandy live, one with success, one with loneliness, though most of the scenes try to take place in everyday locations.
Scene of the Movie – The truth about A Patch of Fog.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not truly knowing is Robert has done this before or whether something made him snap.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books blackmailing movie, it does keep you guessing throughout the film and with the two leads shining we did just want to see more.
Overall: By the book stalker thriller.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/05/a-patch-of-fog-2015/
As Sandy tries to get himself out of the blackmail, he learns that Robert has a much darker side which puts his and his girlfriend, presenter Lucy (Pulver) lives at risk.
Thoughts on A Patch of Fog
Characters – Robert is mild mannered security guard in a general store, he is a lonely figure that takes advantage of the situation of power once he catches acclaimed author stealing in his store. He blackmails Sandy into being his friend and tries to stay one step ahead of him as he tries his best to escape from position. Sandy is the acclaimed author that has become a celebrity on television, though he wants to take a step away from the spotlight and the endless conversations about his book, A Patch of Fog. He tries his best to outsmart Robert though he can only get so far before learning Robert has everything planned out. Lucy is the television presenter just starting a relationship with Sandy, she has been trying to get the interview together for long time now.
Performances – Stephen Graham in the leading role as the slightly unhinged loner works very well, he shows that given the chance the moments of darkness can shine through. Conleth Hill is great in his role as the author that wants out of the limelight. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without being overly involved in the main story.
Story – The story follows an author and celebrity being blackmailed by a security guard that catches him stealing. The story does come down to a cat-n-mouse style thriller where each character tries to stay ahead of the other, which brings twists along the way. This is a style of story telling we have seen before and it is one that is always interesting to watch unfold, by having both sides having secrets this does make it feel like one of the better ones too.
Thriller – This is a film that does keep you on the edge of your seat throughout as we wait to see just where things will go next.
Settings – The film does show the different lives both Robert and Sandy live, one with success, one with loneliness, though most of the scenes try to take place in everyday locations.
Scene of the Movie – The truth about A Patch of Fog.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not truly knowing is Robert has done this before or whether something made him snap.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books blackmailing movie, it does keep you guessing throughout the film and with the two leads shining we did just want to see more.
Overall: By the book stalker thriller.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/05/a-patch-of-fog-2015/
365Flicks (235 KP) rated The Mason Brothers (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
It has been some time since I sat down to watch a good heist movie, so when I received The Mason Brothers and read things like ‘Inspired by films like The Untouchables and Reservoir Dogs’ well call me an old romantic for those films in particular but I will give this one a shot for sure.
I’m going to put something right on front street when it comes to this movie. When it says inspired by Reservoir Dogs it means inspired by… However as my esteemed podcast co-host said “there are worse movies to be inspired by”.
The Mason Brothers is the story of a group of Bank Robbers who as you may imagine are also brothers. We join the crew right after a heist has just gone really wrong and we witness the aftermath where one of the brothers dies. We then spend the night with the other 3 as they hide out waiting for an associate to track down the members of the other crew who screwed them over. The story is given to us in present time and flashbacks, so as the night unfolds and we start to find out who exactly set the guys up, caused there brother to die and wants the cash for themselves. Meanwhile via flashbacks we find out how they planned the job, who they cut into the deal and motivations for why and who did this to the brothers. That about covers it…. Obviously there are twisty turn-y things but hey No Spoilers here.
Keith Sutliff in his Directorial debut has hit upon something great here. He has assembled a good cast with some great chemistry and like most first time directors even throws himself into the mix on acting duties. Sutliff has a real flair for dialogue and it flows throughout. Sometimes screaming ‘you do love a Tarantino flick, dont you!!’ but at the same time freshening up a genre that often feels stale. I was real impressed with this as a Debut movie because it looks great has some real interesting choices with the editing and camera work but everything fits and the movie never loses sight of itself.
Quick word on the cast. As stated Sutliff plays brother Ren Mason, the planner, the mastermind and the strong silent type. Brandon Sean Pearson plays Jesse Mason the full blooded aggravated hot head of the crew. Personally I thought Pearson was the shining light of this Flick. Matthew Webb is Gage, a member of the group but not actually a Mason, I thought right the way through Gage was a wild card and I like to think that was a conscious decision. Rounding off the team is Micheal Ryan Whelan as Orion Mason who we only really see during the flashbacks but has some great little monologue-y scenes. Other supporters include Julien Cesario (Sons of Anarchy), Tim Park (Matador, Sons of Anarchy) and Nazo Bravo (Vigilante Diaries).
Yeah I would say this is a recommend from us here, The script is nice and wordy (something I love) the core cast all deliver in a pretty well paced heist movie gone wrong.
I’m going to put something right on front street when it comes to this movie. When it says inspired by Reservoir Dogs it means inspired by… However as my esteemed podcast co-host said “there are worse movies to be inspired by”.
The Mason Brothers is the story of a group of Bank Robbers who as you may imagine are also brothers. We join the crew right after a heist has just gone really wrong and we witness the aftermath where one of the brothers dies. We then spend the night with the other 3 as they hide out waiting for an associate to track down the members of the other crew who screwed them over. The story is given to us in present time and flashbacks, so as the night unfolds and we start to find out who exactly set the guys up, caused there brother to die and wants the cash for themselves. Meanwhile via flashbacks we find out how they planned the job, who they cut into the deal and motivations for why and who did this to the brothers. That about covers it…. Obviously there are twisty turn-y things but hey No Spoilers here.
Keith Sutliff in his Directorial debut has hit upon something great here. He has assembled a good cast with some great chemistry and like most first time directors even throws himself into the mix on acting duties. Sutliff has a real flair for dialogue and it flows throughout. Sometimes screaming ‘you do love a Tarantino flick, dont you!!’ but at the same time freshening up a genre that often feels stale. I was real impressed with this as a Debut movie because it looks great has some real interesting choices with the editing and camera work but everything fits and the movie never loses sight of itself.
Quick word on the cast. As stated Sutliff plays brother Ren Mason, the planner, the mastermind and the strong silent type. Brandon Sean Pearson plays Jesse Mason the full blooded aggravated hot head of the crew. Personally I thought Pearson was the shining light of this Flick. Matthew Webb is Gage, a member of the group but not actually a Mason, I thought right the way through Gage was a wild card and I like to think that was a conscious decision. Rounding off the team is Micheal Ryan Whelan as Orion Mason who we only really see during the flashbacks but has some great little monologue-y scenes. Other supporters include Julien Cesario (Sons of Anarchy), Tim Park (Matador, Sons of Anarchy) and Nazo Bravo (Vigilante Diaries).
Yeah I would say this is a recommend from us here, The script is nice and wordy (something I love) the core cast all deliver in a pretty well paced heist movie gone wrong.
The Official Caesars Slots
Games and Entertainment
6.0
Rate It
App
From the creators of Slotomania comes the top shelf experience that is Caesars Casino, the world’s...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story (1995) in Movies
Dec 16, 2018
Truly a classic
With Toy Story 4 coming out in theaters this summer, I thought I'd go back and check out a beloved classice - the original TOY STORY (1995) to see if this film holds up to my memory of it.
It sure does.
Directed by visionary Pixar founder John Lasseter, TOY STORY is the first computer generated full-length motion picture and tells the...story...of toys that come to life when the humans leave the room. It is a simple concept that is executed beautifully with wit, charm and heart that sustains to this day and (I would imagine) to infinity...and beyond.
Besides the revolutionary CGI work (which mostly holds up), the heartwarming story and the crispness of the pacing of the film, the masterstroke here is the pitch perfect voice casting. Tom Hanks was the first - and only - choice for Woody, the Cowboy doll that has been the main toy for Andy. His confidence is shattered when Andy receives a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday and he struggles to maintain control of the room - and Andy's heart. In lesser hands, this character could be be annoying and a bit of a jerk, but with Hanks' inherent charm, Woody is lovable, neurotic and vulnerable as he tries to get out of one jam after another.
Tim Allen wasn't the first choice for the voice of Buzz Lightyear, but with his success in 1994's THE SANTA CLAUS he was called into service on this film - and the results couldn't be better. He blends machismo, bluster and a sincere earnestness that perfectly pairs and counterbalances Hanks' tics to form a movie duo that ranks right up there with the best in film history.
It is the attention to detail that these filmmakers really excel at and the supporting cast of voice actors really brings it here. From Don Rickles to John Ratzenberger to Annie Potts to R. Lee Emery to Jim Varney to Laurie Metcalf, all bring charm and heart to their characters even when they are in conflict.
Speaking of attention to detail, the CGI in this film works really, really well - even after 23 years of improvements. The filmmakers were blazing a trail and there is much to look at in the background, from the 2 "Hidden Mickey's" in Andy's room to the tribute to THE SHINING, the background and renderings are lush and are worth a viewing just to look at hidden gems (and Easter Eggs) in the background.
But none of this would matter if the story wasn't any good and I give story writers Lasseter and future Pixar Director's Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton credit for keeping the story crisp, clear and simple and infusing heart and sincerity without getting cloying or annoying. Interestingly enough, in looking at the credits, Joss Whedon, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow were all contributors to the screenplay as well. When I see that many writers on a screenplay, I worry about continuity and flow. But, make no mistake about it, this film has a strong vision driven by Lasseter and the results on the screen show that focus.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, give yourself a treat and check it out again, it holds up very, very well and will be well worth the 84 minutes it will take to watch it (the shortest of all PIXAR films).
Letter Grade A+ - which means, of course...
A rare 10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It sure does.
Directed by visionary Pixar founder John Lasseter, TOY STORY is the first computer generated full-length motion picture and tells the...story...of toys that come to life when the humans leave the room. It is a simple concept that is executed beautifully with wit, charm and heart that sustains to this day and (I would imagine) to infinity...and beyond.
Besides the revolutionary CGI work (which mostly holds up), the heartwarming story and the crispness of the pacing of the film, the masterstroke here is the pitch perfect voice casting. Tom Hanks was the first - and only - choice for Woody, the Cowboy doll that has been the main toy for Andy. His confidence is shattered when Andy receives a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday and he struggles to maintain control of the room - and Andy's heart. In lesser hands, this character could be be annoying and a bit of a jerk, but with Hanks' inherent charm, Woody is lovable, neurotic and vulnerable as he tries to get out of one jam after another.
Tim Allen wasn't the first choice for the voice of Buzz Lightyear, but with his success in 1994's THE SANTA CLAUS he was called into service on this film - and the results couldn't be better. He blends machismo, bluster and a sincere earnestness that perfectly pairs and counterbalances Hanks' tics to form a movie duo that ranks right up there with the best in film history.
It is the attention to detail that these filmmakers really excel at and the supporting cast of voice actors really brings it here. From Don Rickles to John Ratzenberger to Annie Potts to R. Lee Emery to Jim Varney to Laurie Metcalf, all bring charm and heart to their characters even when they are in conflict.
Speaking of attention to detail, the CGI in this film works really, really well - even after 23 years of improvements. The filmmakers were blazing a trail and there is much to look at in the background, from the 2 "Hidden Mickey's" in Andy's room to the tribute to THE SHINING, the background and renderings are lush and are worth a viewing just to look at hidden gems (and Easter Eggs) in the background.
But none of this would matter if the story wasn't any good and I give story writers Lasseter and future Pixar Director's Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton credit for keeping the story crisp, clear and simple and infusing heart and sincerity without getting cloying or annoying. Interestingly enough, in looking at the credits, Joss Whedon, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow were all contributors to the screenplay as well. When I see that many writers on a screenplay, I worry about continuity and flow. But, make no mistake about it, this film has a strong vision driven by Lasseter and the results on the screen show that focus.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, give yourself a treat and check it out again, it holds up very, very well and will be well worth the 84 minutes it will take to watch it (the shortest of all PIXAR films).
Letter Grade A+ - which means, of course...
A rare 10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mad Max (1979) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Decent
Guilty confession: Typically when I watch a "classic" or a film I've really been looking forward to, I go into it expecting to like it. In other words, the film is already ahead of the curve when it comes to my grading scale. It has to do a lot to let me down. I hate to say it, but Mad Max? It let me down. Not in the sense that it was bad, but rather in the sense that I was hoping for more.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Limehouse Golem in Books
Sep 24, 2020
The blurb gives out all the necessary information about this book, leaving some mystery for the reader to figure out. The star of this novel is Lizzie Cree, an actress and a wife of well-known reporter John Cree. This novel is told from multiple perspectives: Lizzie’s life story, “Limehouse Golem’s” thoughts during the killings, and other character’s views and life stories. The most interesting to me was Lizzie’s life story, I think it was the most intriguing, complex part of this novel. I am really grateful that Peter Ackroyd added the murderer’s thoughts to this book. Even though they were really graphic, I always love to have an insight into what’s happening in a psychopath’s head. There is a wide variety of characters to choose from in this book, and I think that everybody can find their favourite. My pick would be Lizzie, she is such a well composed and intriguing character!
The narrative of this novel was very well written and researched. I did enjoy the story which author was sharing with the reader, however, there were many philosophical parts in this book, which I found boring and unnecessary. It reminded me of all the dull books I had to read while in school, so I just skim read those parts. 😦 I would like to throw in a disclaimer, that there are graphic violent parts in this book, and it is not suitable for sensitive readers. 😉
The writing style of this book is impeccable. Peter Ackroyd is a master of his craft and truly gifted writer. This novel was first published in 1994, but it feels like it was written in the 19th century. I could clearly see the author’s knowledge in this book because it was shining through the pages. The language used in this novel was very sophisticated but not very difficult to read, and the chapters where decent length, so it did not leave me bored. I really enjoyed the ending of this novel, I think it was well deserved and rounded up the story very nicely.
The film actually surprised me, it had a completely different approach to the whole story and told it through Inspector Kildare’s perspective. In the book, the whole police investigation was very vague, so it was a real surprise to see this approach, and I didn’t really mind it. The acting was marvellous and Mr D. Booth (Dan Leno) was absolutely amazing. He had the charisma and the skill to be a star of this movie. The whole movie was not a full representation of the book, they used some parts from the book and amended it to fit their story, but I liked it nevertheless. This movie is not suitable for children under 15, as it has some really gross scenes in there.
So to conclude, this book is very well written and amusing read, with well rounded and charismatic characters, and the narrative is twisty and always changing, keeping the reader interested. I do recommend to experience Lizzie’s journey and to watch the film afterwards. They do compliment each other, offering different perspectives and different interpretations, so give it a try and I hope you will enjoy it 🙂
The narrative of this novel was very well written and researched. I did enjoy the story which author was sharing with the reader, however, there were many philosophical parts in this book, which I found boring and unnecessary. It reminded me of all the dull books I had to read while in school, so I just skim read those parts. 😦 I would like to throw in a disclaimer, that there are graphic violent parts in this book, and it is not suitable for sensitive readers. 😉
The writing style of this book is impeccable. Peter Ackroyd is a master of his craft and truly gifted writer. This novel was first published in 1994, but it feels like it was written in the 19th century. I could clearly see the author’s knowledge in this book because it was shining through the pages. The language used in this novel was very sophisticated but not very difficult to read, and the chapters where decent length, so it did not leave me bored. I really enjoyed the ending of this novel, I think it was well deserved and rounded up the story very nicely.
The film actually surprised me, it had a completely different approach to the whole story and told it through Inspector Kildare’s perspective. In the book, the whole police investigation was very vague, so it was a real surprise to see this approach, and I didn’t really mind it. The acting was marvellous and Mr D. Booth (Dan Leno) was absolutely amazing. He had the charisma and the skill to be a star of this movie. The whole movie was not a full representation of the book, they used some parts from the book and amended it to fit their story, but I liked it nevertheless. This movie is not suitable for children under 15, as it has some really gross scenes in there.
So to conclude, this book is very well written and amusing read, with well rounded and charismatic characters, and the narrative is twisty and always changing, keeping the reader interested. I do recommend to experience Lizzie’s journey and to watch the film afterwards. They do compliment each other, offering different perspectives and different interpretations, so give it a try and I hope you will enjoy it 🙂