Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated At Eternity's Gate (2018) in Movies
Feb 16, 2019
A slow meditation of the last days of a tortured artist
he artist as a tortured soul.
How many films have been made on this subject? Too many to count. Add AT ETERNITY'S GATE to this list as it tells the tale of the tortured final days of Vincent Van Gogh - including cutting his own ear off - so perhaps no one deserves the title of "tortured artist" more than he.
Directed by Julian Schnabel (THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY) and starring Willem DaFoe (AQUAMAN) in an Oscar nominated turn as Van Gogh, AT ETERNITY'S GATE follows Van Gogh in the final weeks of his life. Since it is a film by Schnabel, you get an introspective, languid, haunting, beautifully shot meditation on life, art, madness and misunderstanding. Which, of course, is both the blessing and the curse of the film. Schnabel trains his camera - sometimes for long stretches - on the mundane...Van Gogh walking through a field, Van Gogh looking out at a landscape, Van Gogh thinking and, most importantly. Van Gogh painting...and painting...and painting...
Do you know how exciting it is to WATCH someone paint? About as exciting as watching paint dry.
Thank goodness DaFoe is mesmerizing as Van Gogh, for he really holds the film - and attention - throughout. His Academy Award nomination is justified for he brings a haunted, world weariness quality to his portrayal. - check this film out just for this performance. Rupert Friend, Oscar Isaac, Mads Mikkelson and Mathieu Amalric all show up in glorified cameos to punch a little dialogue and forward momentum into this narrative. But, mostly, we watch DaFoe - as Van Gogh - walk and think and look and paint and paint and paint...
I know I am repeating myself, but I felt the film repeated itself over and over again as well. I think there is about 1/2 of interesting film in this 1 hour 54 minute movie. The rest is just "art" and "artistic expression" of images on the screen by Schnabel. If that sort of thing is up your alley, you'll enjoy this. For the rest , it will just become repetitive and boring.
I will say, however, that after seeing this film, I have a greater appreciation for Van Gogh's work, how he made them and how his style differs from ANYBODY else. I am now going to make it a point to find a museum that shows some of his works and check it out.
So, I guess, that's a good thing.
Letter Grade: B- (it is a well made and acted film)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
How many films have been made on this subject? Too many to count. Add AT ETERNITY'S GATE to this list as it tells the tale of the tortured final days of Vincent Van Gogh - including cutting his own ear off - so perhaps no one deserves the title of "tortured artist" more than he.
Directed by Julian Schnabel (THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY) and starring Willem DaFoe (AQUAMAN) in an Oscar nominated turn as Van Gogh, AT ETERNITY'S GATE follows Van Gogh in the final weeks of his life. Since it is a film by Schnabel, you get an introspective, languid, haunting, beautifully shot meditation on life, art, madness and misunderstanding. Which, of course, is both the blessing and the curse of the film. Schnabel trains his camera - sometimes for long stretches - on the mundane...Van Gogh walking through a field, Van Gogh looking out at a landscape, Van Gogh thinking and, most importantly. Van Gogh painting...and painting...and painting...
Do you know how exciting it is to WATCH someone paint? About as exciting as watching paint dry.
Thank goodness DaFoe is mesmerizing as Van Gogh, for he really holds the film - and attention - throughout. His Academy Award nomination is justified for he brings a haunted, world weariness quality to his portrayal. - check this film out just for this performance. Rupert Friend, Oscar Isaac, Mads Mikkelson and Mathieu Amalric all show up in glorified cameos to punch a little dialogue and forward momentum into this narrative. But, mostly, we watch DaFoe - as Van Gogh - walk and think and look and paint and paint and paint...
I know I am repeating myself, but I felt the film repeated itself over and over again as well. I think there is about 1/2 of interesting film in this 1 hour 54 minute movie. The rest is just "art" and "artistic expression" of images on the screen by Schnabel. If that sort of thing is up your alley, you'll enjoy this. For the rest , it will just become repetitive and boring.
I will say, however, that after seeing this film, I have a greater appreciation for Van Gogh's work, how he made them and how his style differs from ANYBODY else. I am now going to make it a point to find a museum that shows some of his works and check it out.
So, I guess, that's a good thing.
Letter Grade: B- (it is a well made and acted film)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Louise (64 KP) rated Izombie: Volume 1: Dead to the World in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I first heard about this book from Elena reads books and was instantly intrigued!This book sounded fun, I haven’t read much about zombies and also just wanted to read more comics/graphic novels. It was totally fascinating from the start and definitely different.
Gwen appears to be you average everyday person at the start, other than working as a gravedigger she is normal, except she’s not! She is a zombie! but not your stereotypical zombie – she doesn’t walk around groaning, her face and body are not decaying. As long as she eats one brain per month she will not turn full zombie. However eating brains comes at a cost, first of all the brain has to be pretty fresh (hence being a gravedigger), she obviously can’t get caught, they taste bad….oh and she gets stuck with the deceased’s memories for a period of time. The last brain she ate was from a young family man who was killed by a serial killer. Gwen takes it upon herself to investigate why the man was murdered. Also there are a group of female vampires who don’t kill their victims they just feed little and often from men that attend paint balling in the woods. However there is always one that can’t play by the rules and is starting to attract attention from these ancient monster hunters.
There were so many different types of character/monsters in this book, we had zombies (obvs)Ghosts, Vampires and even a WereTerrier which I thought was kind of cute. This is a more of a fluffy zombie book and totally different from the walking dead. I liked all the individual characters but there wasn’t a lot of development and I think this was because there was too much trying to happen in one volume. We had the story of Gwen, it would then jump to the Vampires and then to the hunters, which made the plot line a bit disjointed. Some of the characters….Mainly Dixie was portrayed as being self-centred, all she thinks about is herself and Gwen is unable to rely on her even though she is her best friend. All the females in the book all seemed to have perfect bodies… I wish they just made some females different shapes and sizes. I really liked the art style and colours that were used to set the tone of the book. This was a great introduction to the story and I will be continuing on with the second volume.
Also there is a series on Netflix adaptation that is loosely based on the comic, I might start watching it as my partner has watched it and said it’s alright. Have you watched izombie? whats your thoughts on it?
Overall I rated this 3.75 out of 5 stars
Gwen appears to be you average everyday person at the start, other than working as a gravedigger she is normal, except she’s not! She is a zombie! but not your stereotypical zombie – she doesn’t walk around groaning, her face and body are not decaying. As long as she eats one brain per month she will not turn full zombie. However eating brains comes at a cost, first of all the brain has to be pretty fresh (hence being a gravedigger), she obviously can’t get caught, they taste bad….oh and she gets stuck with the deceased’s memories for a period of time. The last brain she ate was from a young family man who was killed by a serial killer. Gwen takes it upon herself to investigate why the man was murdered. Also there are a group of female vampires who don’t kill their victims they just feed little and often from men that attend paint balling in the woods. However there is always one that can’t play by the rules and is starting to attract attention from these ancient monster hunters.
There were so many different types of character/monsters in this book, we had zombies (obvs)Ghosts, Vampires and even a WereTerrier which I thought was kind of cute. This is a more of a fluffy zombie book and totally different from the walking dead. I liked all the individual characters but there wasn’t a lot of development and I think this was because there was too much trying to happen in one volume. We had the story of Gwen, it would then jump to the Vampires and then to the hunters, which made the plot line a bit disjointed. Some of the characters….Mainly Dixie was portrayed as being self-centred, all she thinks about is herself and Gwen is unable to rely on her even though she is her best friend. All the females in the book all seemed to have perfect bodies… I wish they just made some females different shapes and sizes. I really liked the art style and colours that were used to set the tone of the book. This was a great introduction to the story and I will be continuing on with the second volume.
Also there is a series on Netflix adaptation that is loosely based on the comic, I might start watching it as my partner has watched it and said it’s alright. Have you watched izombie? whats your thoughts on it?
Overall I rated this 3.75 out of 5 stars
FilmIntuition (33 KP) rated The Other Woman in Books
Aug 21, 2018
A thrillingly fast-paced read from Sandie Jones, The Other Woman finds her novel's hardworking, unlucky-in-love British heroine Emily unwittingly (and very quickly) caught up in an escalating game of psychological chicken with her boyfriend's mother Pammie that unfortunately, her boyfriend and the rest of the world is unable to see.
Sure to be a popular late summer beach read, while it suffers from a few gaps in logic and common sense as our lead character never thinks to use technology to snap a photo, record a threat as evidence, or merely research one of two sketchy backstories involving both her boyfriend as well as Pammie, as a journalist, Jones knows how to assemble a compelling story.
Although it raises a valid concern regarding how much we change and/ore are willing to take when we're in a committed relationship, because more than a few people in Pammie's orbit suffer from serious likability issues, I kept wanting to yell at the fictional Emily as though she were on the other end of the phone, “honey, just leave already!”
Nonetheless still able to reel me back in and (mostly) suspend my disbelief, as I grew closer to the final Emily vs. Pammie standoff, I found myself walking around with the book in hand, waiting to see what Jones had in store for the finale.
Needing to reveal, explain, and wrap-up everything in a very rushed showdown that perhaps involves way too much spoken exposition, while that device has been used so often in books and film that it's easy to overlook, one of Woman's biggest hurdles isn't in the book at all but on the cover.
A vital reminder for publishers to be careful as to which blurbs you include on the book itself, because my Advanced Reader Copy arrived complete with a quotation advertising “a twist you will not see coming,” readers (like yours truly) are sure to find their brains working overtime to the point that I was able to correctly deduce where Jones might be going roughly halfway through.
Of course it's still an incredibly fun read and I didn't have all of the nuts and bolts of said twist squared away to the point that it ruined everything. All the same and regardless of the fact that all of these genre titles have twists, I would've loved it even more if I'd never been tipped off that there was something that far out of left field for which to look.
Even so an impressive debut that I thank Minotaur Books for sending me, The Other Woman might make you uneasy to meet your new love's parents but it'll definitely excite you to imagine what new novels and twists Jones might have up her sleeve.
Sure to be a popular late summer beach read, while it suffers from a few gaps in logic and common sense as our lead character never thinks to use technology to snap a photo, record a threat as evidence, or merely research one of two sketchy backstories involving both her boyfriend as well as Pammie, as a journalist, Jones knows how to assemble a compelling story.
Although it raises a valid concern regarding how much we change and/ore are willing to take when we're in a committed relationship, because more than a few people in Pammie's orbit suffer from serious likability issues, I kept wanting to yell at the fictional Emily as though she were on the other end of the phone, “honey, just leave already!”
Nonetheless still able to reel me back in and (mostly) suspend my disbelief, as I grew closer to the final Emily vs. Pammie standoff, I found myself walking around with the book in hand, waiting to see what Jones had in store for the finale.
Needing to reveal, explain, and wrap-up everything in a very rushed showdown that perhaps involves way too much spoken exposition, while that device has been used so often in books and film that it's easy to overlook, one of Woman's biggest hurdles isn't in the book at all but on the cover.
A vital reminder for publishers to be careful as to which blurbs you include on the book itself, because my Advanced Reader Copy arrived complete with a quotation advertising “a twist you will not see coming,” readers (like yours truly) are sure to find their brains working overtime to the point that I was able to correctly deduce where Jones might be going roughly halfway through.
Of course it's still an incredibly fun read and I didn't have all of the nuts and bolts of said twist squared away to the point that it ruined everything. All the same and regardless of the fact that all of these genre titles have twists, I would've loved it even more if I'd never been tipped off that there was something that far out of left field for which to look.
Even so an impressive debut that I thank Minotaur Books for sending me, The Other Woman might make you uneasy to meet your new love's parents but it'll definitely excite you to imagine what new novels and twists Jones might have up her sleeve.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Nov 15, 2018
Master Director working some Masterful Camerawork
For my next deep dive into a film of the "Master of Suspense", Alfred Hitchock, I thought I'd pull out a "one-trick pony" film of his, 1948's ROPE. Based on a stage play, HItchock decided to film this movie as it were a play - keeping the entire film in one location (an apartment) and to film it in (what appears to be) one long take.
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
The film starts off with a murder, we see two young men (John Dall and Farley Granger) strangling their "inferior" friend. They then decide to hold a dinner party to see if anyone can tell that they have committed murder. Included in this party is the dead friend's girlfriend (Joan Chandler), his father (Sir Cedrick Hardwicke) and their old school teacher (James Stewart).
The fun of this film isn't "will they get caught", it's "how will they get caught - and by who". The cast is wonderful (especially Hardwicke) but they all take a back seat to the absolute stellar performance of Stewart who begins to piece together that something is amiss and turns the tide on the two murderers.
The real star of this film is Director HItchock and his camera. Since he decided to make this in one long take, it took a master of organization and logistics to pull this off, having stagehands move furniture and walls out of the way (and back in again) as the camera moved around. In 1948, a camera could only hold 10 minutes worth of film, so the "one long take" aspect of this is a trick, as it is really 8 takes with strategic timing of camera movements behind walls and backs to give the illusion of seamlessness.
The interesting thing of this "trick" is that you are totally at the control of what Hitchock wants you to see (and not see). There is a scene about 1/2 way through the film that completely ignores the action and the people in the scene and focuses on the trunk the body is in. It is a masterwork, and the tension of keeping your focus there throughout the course of this part of the film is scary, tense and mesmerizing.
One last thing, Hitchock makes a cameo in every one of his films. Try to tell where Hitch is in this film (and, no, it is not as someone walking by the apartment at the beginning of the movie).
Not one of Hitchock's best, plotwise, but one of his best, camera-wise. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
The film starts off with a murder, we see two young men (John Dall and Farley Granger) strangling their "inferior" friend. They then decide to hold a dinner party to see if anyone can tell that they have committed murder. Included in this party is the dead friend's girlfriend (Joan Chandler), his father (Sir Cedrick Hardwicke) and their old school teacher (James Stewart).
The fun of this film isn't "will they get caught", it's "how will they get caught - and by who". The cast is wonderful (especially Hardwicke) but they all take a back seat to the absolute stellar performance of Stewart who begins to piece together that something is amiss and turns the tide on the two murderers.
The real star of this film is Director HItchock and his camera. Since he decided to make this in one long take, it took a master of organization and logistics to pull this off, having stagehands move furniture and walls out of the way (and back in again) as the camera moved around. In 1948, a camera could only hold 10 minutes worth of film, so the "one long take" aspect of this is a trick, as it is really 8 takes with strategic timing of camera movements behind walls and backs to give the illusion of seamlessness.
The interesting thing of this "trick" is that you are totally at the control of what Hitchock wants you to see (and not see). There is a scene about 1/2 way through the film that completely ignores the action and the people in the scene and focuses on the trunk the body is in. It is a masterwork, and the tension of keeping your focus there throughout the course of this part of the film is scary, tense and mesmerizing.
One last thing, Hitchock makes a cameo in every one of his films. Try to tell where Hitch is in this film (and, no, it is not as someone walking by the apartment at the beginning of the movie).
Not one of Hitchock's best, plotwise, but one of his best, camera-wise. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Lion (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Upon discovering this short film, I was impressed with how well it had performed. During its first year of distribution, it has won 126 awards at a variety of film festivals which is quite the selling point. Walking in to the film, I didn’t know much about it but the air of mystery made my viewing experience even better. The film is set in an isolated cabin, on a snowy night, which creates the perfect backdrop for a horror tale…
From the very first scene you can tell this cabin is not a happy place to be. Straight away we’re created with sounds of domestic violence, making the viewer feel instantly uncomfortable. The father in the film is repulsive and lives in a squalor, with cigarette butts, leftover pizza and empty cans of beer dotted everywhere. Michael Segal really brought this character to life, showing us that not all villains are supernatural or machete wielding psychopaths. Some evil can be found in the average home, behind closed doors, where violence takes over. Sometimes humans can be more terrifying than anything else.
The way Lion deals with domestic violence, particularly against children, was done incredibly well. It’s not an easy topic to cover but this short makes an impact without going too far and making it gratuitous. Part of what makes this film so good is what you don’t see on screen, and how your imagination runs wild. It has a slow burning narrative that builds up the suspense and finally unleashes the climactic moment with only a few minutes to spare, providing closure and satisfaction for the spectator.
I really liked the use of special effects throughout the film, because they blended in nicely with the rest of the scene and weren’t overdone at any point. Cinematically it hits all the right notes for a horror film through it’s use of low-lighting, tense creeping moments, and an excellent use of music. Jump scares and gore weren’t needed in Lion, because it manages to deliver real horror in a much more subtler, but effective way. The presence of the lion throughout was a good motif to use as well, as they’re synonymous with courage and being a fighter. You’ll see what I mean when you watch it.
Lion is an incredibly important short film that I believe is a must watch, even for those who don’t tend to reach for horrors. The final card at the end reiterates the important message that is present throughout the film, and it really resonated with me. It’s a film with fantasy elements, yet still deep rooted within reality that it makes you want to stand up and take action in any way you can.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/lion-short/
From the very first scene you can tell this cabin is not a happy place to be. Straight away we’re created with sounds of domestic violence, making the viewer feel instantly uncomfortable. The father in the film is repulsive and lives in a squalor, with cigarette butts, leftover pizza and empty cans of beer dotted everywhere. Michael Segal really brought this character to life, showing us that not all villains are supernatural or machete wielding psychopaths. Some evil can be found in the average home, behind closed doors, where violence takes over. Sometimes humans can be more terrifying than anything else.
The way Lion deals with domestic violence, particularly against children, was done incredibly well. It’s not an easy topic to cover but this short makes an impact without going too far and making it gratuitous. Part of what makes this film so good is what you don’t see on screen, and how your imagination runs wild. It has a slow burning narrative that builds up the suspense and finally unleashes the climactic moment with only a few minutes to spare, providing closure and satisfaction for the spectator.
I really liked the use of special effects throughout the film, because they blended in nicely with the rest of the scene and weren’t overdone at any point. Cinematically it hits all the right notes for a horror film through it’s use of low-lighting, tense creeping moments, and an excellent use of music. Jump scares and gore weren’t needed in Lion, because it manages to deliver real horror in a much more subtler, but effective way. The presence of the lion throughout was a good motif to use as well, as they’re synonymous with courage and being a fighter. You’ll see what I mean when you watch it.
Lion is an incredibly important short film that I believe is a must watch, even for those who don’t tend to reach for horrors. The final card at the end reiterates the important message that is present throughout the film, and it really resonated with me. It’s a film with fantasy elements, yet still deep rooted within reality that it makes you want to stand up and take action in any way you can.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/lion-short/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
With the slow, familiar strains of “Hedwig’s Theme”, the leitmotif that shepherds us into the world of Harry Potter, we’re once again immersed in the magic and adventure of the wizarding world. If for some reason you forgot where the story left off at the end of The Half-Blood Prince, the mournful dirge that plays as Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley prepare to meet reminds you that their world has changed drastically.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Dancer in the Dark (2000) in Movies
Nov 24, 2019
Selma is a simple woman leading a simple life. She lives with her only son in a trailer on the property of her friends the nice cop and his wife. She works at a metal factory making sinks and basins. She doesn't make a lot of money, so she holds on to almost every penny she earns for something secret. She can't even buy her son a present for his birthday, so her friends and landlords buy the boy the used bicycle he has been yearning for. Selma also enjoys musicals. She loves them. Especially The Sound of Music, She is actually cast in a local production and gets to play Maria. She can even hear rhythm through the common sounds of life like a train on its tracks or even the sounds of people walking. She creates melodies in her head to distract from the mundane events of life. Sometimes these melodies turn into full production numbers only visible in the confines of her cerebrum.
Now the problem.
Selma is going blind. She knows she is. She is trying to set her plans and set up her son for a better life than she is able before her illness runs its course. Out of nowhere, tragedy strikes from an unexpected source. She is petrified and acts in haste with dreadful results. Now she must deal with the consequences of her actions and let the pieces fall where they must.
Controversial writer/director Lars von Trier finds an unexpected leading lady in Icelandic alternative pop singer Björk. I guess maybe not so unexpected considering all the singing in the film which she also wrote. I was surprised to read only one of the songs was nominated for Best Song in 2000 and no nomination for her acting prowess. Her emotional turmoil is the spine of the film and her simple, yet powerful demeanor holds the film together through its humorous and tense, gripping melodrama. All Selma wants is to give a good life to her son and is content with a meager existence, which, unfortunately is ripped from her.
The songs are brilliant as most of the them begin with the random noises of life in Selma's brain and become a glorious, choreographed splendor which I found myself really loving. These events make the 2nd half of the film such a tragedy as her spirit is resilient always sees the lighter side of life.
Unlike a lot of Von Trier's other work, no sex scenes and only one scene of violence in the film. The actions of the "normal" people here are the true horror.
Now the problem.
Selma is going blind. She knows she is. She is trying to set her plans and set up her son for a better life than she is able before her illness runs its course. Out of nowhere, tragedy strikes from an unexpected source. She is petrified and acts in haste with dreadful results. Now she must deal with the consequences of her actions and let the pieces fall where they must.
Controversial writer/director Lars von Trier finds an unexpected leading lady in Icelandic alternative pop singer Björk. I guess maybe not so unexpected considering all the singing in the film which she also wrote. I was surprised to read only one of the songs was nominated for Best Song in 2000 and no nomination for her acting prowess. Her emotional turmoil is the spine of the film and her simple, yet powerful demeanor holds the film together through its humorous and tense, gripping melodrama. All Selma wants is to give a good life to her son and is content with a meager existence, which, unfortunately is ripped from her.
The songs are brilliant as most of the them begin with the random noises of life in Selma's brain and become a glorious, choreographed splendor which I found myself really loving. These events make the 2nd half of the film such a tragedy as her spirit is resilient always sees the lighter side of life.
Unlike a lot of Von Trier's other work, no sex scenes and only one scene of violence in the film. The actions of the "normal" people here are the true horror.
JT (287 KP) rated Predators (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Fans of the original Predator will no doubt have been excited to see the trailers for Predators, a script pulled from a filing cabinet in 1994 and given a 2010 make over by Robert Rodriguez, who produces, with Nimród Antal directing.
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) in Movies
Mar 11, 2020
Faster Than the Newer Films...But Also Much Worse
Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) tries to redeem himself from the first film by taking out a gang of car enthusiasts.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 6
Characters: 0
These characters are about as interesting as an empty takeout box. Not only is there no kind of depth whatsoever, I never really liked the characters to begin with. I can usually deal with characters not growing if they’re at least interesting, but 2 Fast 2 Furious gives us neither. The cars have more characters than the characters themselves. Might has well let them do the talking instead.
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
Speaking from the future, the car chases/race don’t nearly have the same impact as the latter films. In comparison, they are boring and stale and aren’t enough to carry the movie. Overall it’s shot in gimmicky fashion with lots of slowmo and near-misses. It is painful to watch at times.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 5
Sometimes a movie can be so bad that it keeps your interest solely for the fact that you want to see what crappity crap crap is going to happen next. I fell asleep on more than one occasion which is a horrible thing to say about a movie that revolves around car chases. There was little in the way of redemption here.
Memorability: 5
One line made me give this score above a zero, a line I will always remember for the rest of my days. At one point, Walker almost put me in a casket by saying, “I said forget about it, cuh.” This line has since become the source of a number of memes and Youtube clips and I can still burst into laughter if I were to watch it right now. Regarding everything else about the movie? Forget about it, cuh.
Pace: 9
If I’m holding it to the standard of the latter movies, I do have to acknowledge that the movie gets through its plot at a fairly quick pace. It is easily one of the shortest in the franchise as almost all of the others top two hours. Yes, it still put me to sleep, but only because the content sucked.
Plot: 4
Sports a story that my six-year-old nephew could have come up with. Barely believable, it has holes inside of holes. I almost wish they had just said, “Screw it. Just look at the cool cars.”
Resolution: 5
Overall: 49
Dumpster fire. Burning poop. A fly walking on a windowsill with only one wing. These are all things that are more interesting than 2 Fast 2 Furious. Talk about a nightmare.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 6
Characters: 0
These characters are about as interesting as an empty takeout box. Not only is there no kind of depth whatsoever, I never really liked the characters to begin with. I can usually deal with characters not growing if they’re at least interesting, but 2 Fast 2 Furious gives us neither. The cars have more characters than the characters themselves. Might has well let them do the talking instead.
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
Speaking from the future, the car chases/race don’t nearly have the same impact as the latter films. In comparison, they are boring and stale and aren’t enough to carry the movie. Overall it’s shot in gimmicky fashion with lots of slowmo and near-misses. It is painful to watch at times.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 5
Sometimes a movie can be so bad that it keeps your interest solely for the fact that you want to see what crappity crap crap is going to happen next. I fell asleep on more than one occasion which is a horrible thing to say about a movie that revolves around car chases. There was little in the way of redemption here.
Memorability: 5
One line made me give this score above a zero, a line I will always remember for the rest of my days. At one point, Walker almost put me in a casket by saying, “I said forget about it, cuh.” This line has since become the source of a number of memes and Youtube clips and I can still burst into laughter if I were to watch it right now. Regarding everything else about the movie? Forget about it, cuh.
Pace: 9
If I’m holding it to the standard of the latter movies, I do have to acknowledge that the movie gets through its plot at a fairly quick pace. It is easily one of the shortest in the franchise as almost all of the others top two hours. Yes, it still put me to sleep, but only because the content sucked.
Plot: 4
Sports a story that my six-year-old nephew could have come up with. Barely believable, it has holes inside of holes. I almost wish they had just said, “Screw it. Just look at the cool cars.”
Resolution: 5
Overall: 49
Dumpster fire. Burning poop. A fly walking on a windowsill with only one wing. These are all things that are more interesting than 2 Fast 2 Furious. Talk about a nightmare.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Laggies (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Laggies is a film that I walked into open minded and a little bit excited where they might take the storyline. As a millennial, I can relate to Keira Knightley’s character Megan as she is approaching 30 and she does not really have any clear direction in life. So when her boyfriend proposes, she freaks out and escapes for a week with her new 16 year old friend and her father. Believable, however rather than this film deciding to become something more akin to 2004’s Garden State, it instead abruptly turns in a “Hollywood” direction, badly.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.