Search
Search results
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 (980 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 (10823 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 (980 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.
Speed Distance Time Calculator
Education
App
Calculate either speed, distance or time by entering the other two measurements. ► EASY TO USE -...
Lonely Planet Chateaux of the Loire Valley Road Trips
Lonely Planet, Alexis Averbuck, Oliver Berry and Jean-Bernard Carillet
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Discover the freedom of open roads with...
Lonely Planet Laos
Lonely Planet, Greg Bloom, Nick Ray and Richard Waters
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Laos is your passport to all...
Lonely Planet Pocket Edinburgh
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet's Pocket Edinburgh is your...