Search
Search results
STEINS;GATE HD KR
Games and Entertainment
App
STEINS;GATE has sold over 1,000,000 copies since 2009! "STEINS;GATE", based on the anime currently...
The Bard's Tale
Games and Entertainment
3.0
Rate It
App
#1 RPG in 75 countries, including USA, UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia,...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022
I don't like to go into a film with a negative impression... but... #NotMyPoirot #SlashTheStash.
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Make sure you take a pillow
Horror buffs and Stephen King fans everywhere have been waiting for this moment since 2009. It is of course, a modern adaptation of the author’s novel, IT.
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
No, not that one
Nordic noir is big business at the moment, but with the incredible scenery of the locations lending themselves perfectly to film, is there any wonder?
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I was watching The Devil Wears Prada the other day on ITV2 and forgot just how brilliant a film it is, it really did exceed expectations back then in 2006 and even now in 2011. Here’s the review I wrote all those years ago. Enjoy!
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Brown_Flopsy (3 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why: (TV Tie-in) in Books
Feb 4, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a school librarian and in light of the recent Netflix adaptation of this book, I felt that I should read it.
Firstly, I don't think this book actively promotes suicide. I actually think it is the intention of the author to make us think about how our actions affect other people's lives. It is not about revenge. It is about changing your actions...making time to talk to that person you think may need someone to talk to....being kinder. Listening to the tapes makes Clay appreciate that a person's actions can influence another's life in ways you do not realise and that making an effort to really get to know someone else can help them be happier if they are struggling.
However, this is definitely not a book to be given to someone who is suffering from depression. This is not a self-help book. Hannah is in a cycle of self-destruction, a downward spiral she is not able to escape from. She has already made up her mind that she cannot carry on and I am not sure she can be diverted from her course in the end. Mr Porter tries to help her talk, but unintentionally confirms the decision she has already made. I have not suffered from depression myself, but am very aware of what this can lead to and I can see that the book could be read in a way which could offer suicide as an option to someone who is in a dark place.
If you are worried about whether to recommend this book, or allow a young person to read this, my advice would be that this is not a story for younger children - this is a dark and sometimes sexual story and does have a rape in it. I would not recommend this book for anyone under the age of 15/16, because of this.
In addition, be aware that this is not a story for someone who suffers from depression as it can be read in a way which seems to offer suicide as an acceptable option if you can see youself in the same place as Hannah finds herself, although this is not its intention. Be aware of who is reading this book. It is, however an interesting read and does open the discussion about suicide, just be careful about who you recommend this to and do talk about it with them both before and afterwards.
Having said all this, I did enjoy reading the book and don't believe that the author intends anything dark by it or suggests intentionally that suicide is a way to get revenge on others.
The Netflix series worries me far more than the book itself. This strings out the story in a way which seems to glamorise Hannah's tapes and the idea of revenge on those that caused her suffering to make it into a "teen drama full of angst". I would be very worried about letting youngsters watch this series.
The Netflix series is horrific. This oringinally had a certificate of 15, but this was been amended to 18. The tv show definitely does not leave you with the same feelings as the book and most certainly is not for children. The final episode even shows Hannah sitting in a bath and cutting into her veins with a razor blade. Please do not watch this if you liked the book. Jay Asher, you should be ashamed that you had anything to do with this!
Firstly, I don't think this book actively promotes suicide. I actually think it is the intention of the author to make us think about how our actions affect other people's lives. It is not about revenge. It is about changing your actions...making time to talk to that person you think may need someone to talk to....being kinder. Listening to the tapes makes Clay appreciate that a person's actions can influence another's life in ways you do not realise and that making an effort to really get to know someone else can help them be happier if they are struggling.
However, this is definitely not a book to be given to someone who is suffering from depression. This is not a self-help book. Hannah is in a cycle of self-destruction, a downward spiral she is not able to escape from. She has already made up her mind that she cannot carry on and I am not sure she can be diverted from her course in the end. Mr Porter tries to help her talk, but unintentionally confirms the decision she has already made. I have not suffered from depression myself, but am very aware of what this can lead to and I can see that the book could be read in a way which could offer suicide as an option to someone who is in a dark place.
If you are worried about whether to recommend this book, or allow a young person to read this, my advice would be that this is not a story for younger children - this is a dark and sometimes sexual story and does have a rape in it. I would not recommend this book for anyone under the age of 15/16, because of this.
In addition, be aware that this is not a story for someone who suffers from depression as it can be read in a way which seems to offer suicide as an acceptable option if you can see youself in the same place as Hannah finds herself, although this is not its intention. Be aware of who is reading this book. It is, however an interesting read and does open the discussion about suicide, just be careful about who you recommend this to and do talk about it with them both before and afterwards.
Having said all this, I did enjoy reading the book and don't believe that the author intends anything dark by it or suggests intentionally that suicide is a way to get revenge on others.
The Netflix series worries me far more than the book itself. This strings out the story in a way which seems to glamorise Hannah's tapes and the idea of revenge on those that caused her suffering to make it into a "teen drama full of angst". I would be very worried about letting youngsters watch this series.
The Netflix series is horrific. This oringinally had a certificate of 15, but this was been amended to 18. The tv show definitely does not leave you with the same feelings as the book and most certainly is not for children. The final episode even shows Hannah sitting in a bath and cutting into her veins with a razor blade. Please do not watch this if you liked the book. Jay Asher, you should be ashamed that you had anything to do with this!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Christmas Carol (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
The timeless classic A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens has been one of the most beloved and adapted stories in history. There have been numerous movies, plays, radio, and television shows that have told the story for several generations as well as adapted films such as “Scrooged” and “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” which were inspired by the timeless tale of redemption.
The latest version of the film was created by Director Robert Zemeckis (who also wrote the screenplay for the film.) and presents it with stunning 3D effects.
The clever use of animation based on motion capture of the actors brings a new and unique look and style to the film that makes it contemporary yet does not diminish the Victorian England setting of the story.
In case you are one of the few that are not familiar with the tale, the story centers on a miserly curmudgeon, named Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey), who is so tight with a penny that he keeps the coal in his office locked up, forcing his employee Bob Crachit (Gary Oldman), to make do with one tiny piece a day during the cold of winter.
Scrooge has no love for anyone or anything aside from his work, and he spends his life in working and dispensing venom for all those that dare come into his world.
When he is invited to Christmas dinner by his nephew Fred (Colin Firth), Scrooge declines the offer abruptly and berates his nephew about the pointless nature of Christmas and how it serves no purpose. As if he was just getting warmed up, Scrooge then unleashes his fury on a local charity and informs them that if the needy were to die, then perhaps there would be less surplus population in the world.
Alone in his home on Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his old associate Jacob Marley, (Gary Oldman), who passed away seven years earlier. Marley is bound by the long chains he created in his life, and warns Scrooge not to make the mistakes he did and that there is still time for him to find redemption.
Scrooge is visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future who take Scrooge on a journey through his life, and show him the folly of his ways, and offer him a second chance to lead a better life with caring and compassion to all.
The solid cast really shines and many play multiple roles in the film. Carrey gives a strong performance and manages to reign in his over the top energy during the more dramatic parts of the film, and lets it out where appropriate. He subtly infuses comedy into the story without it ever taking the focus from the story.
The 3D effects were a real treat and it truly seemed like it was snowing in the theater and the numerous shots of London were truly amazing. While some may see it as a more modern adaptation, I found the film to be very true to the story, and was not only very entertaining, but a version that even Scrooge himself would enjoy as this is a new holiday classic that sets the bar for future adaptations of the story to aspire to.
The latest version of the film was created by Director Robert Zemeckis (who also wrote the screenplay for the film.) and presents it with stunning 3D effects.
The clever use of animation based on motion capture of the actors brings a new and unique look and style to the film that makes it contemporary yet does not diminish the Victorian England setting of the story.
In case you are one of the few that are not familiar with the tale, the story centers on a miserly curmudgeon, named Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey), who is so tight with a penny that he keeps the coal in his office locked up, forcing his employee Bob Crachit (Gary Oldman), to make do with one tiny piece a day during the cold of winter.
Scrooge has no love for anyone or anything aside from his work, and he spends his life in working and dispensing venom for all those that dare come into his world.
When he is invited to Christmas dinner by his nephew Fred (Colin Firth), Scrooge declines the offer abruptly and berates his nephew about the pointless nature of Christmas and how it serves no purpose. As if he was just getting warmed up, Scrooge then unleashes his fury on a local charity and informs them that if the needy were to die, then perhaps there would be less surplus population in the world.
Alone in his home on Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his old associate Jacob Marley, (Gary Oldman), who passed away seven years earlier. Marley is bound by the long chains he created in his life, and warns Scrooge not to make the mistakes he did and that there is still time for him to find redemption.
Scrooge is visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future who take Scrooge on a journey through his life, and show him the folly of his ways, and offer him a second chance to lead a better life with caring and compassion to all.
The solid cast really shines and many play multiple roles in the film. Carrey gives a strong performance and manages to reign in his over the top energy during the more dramatic parts of the film, and lets it out where appropriate. He subtly infuses comedy into the story without it ever taking the focus from the story.
The 3D effects were a real treat and it truly seemed like it was snowing in the theater and the numerous shots of London were truly amazing. While some may see it as a more modern adaptation, I found the film to be very true to the story, and was not only very entertaining, but a version that even Scrooge himself would enjoy as this is a new holiday classic that sets the bar for future adaptations of the story to aspire to.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in Books
Nov 14, 2019
What can be said about Douglas Adams' freewheeling science fiction comedy that hasn't been said before? Probably nothing but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a review.
I first came to the Hitchhiker's Guide series through this book. It was about 1981 I suppose and it was recommended by a school friend. I hadn't been aware of the radio series (although as luck would have it it was repeated on BBC Radio 4 within a few weeks) and it was a little while before the television adaptation appeared (which for all its faults - mainly a lack of budget - stayed true to the spirit of the books and the radio series rather more successfully than the film).
From the point I opened this and started reading I couldn't get enough Hitchhiker's Guide. Adams' style is so much like a swan on a lake - it all seems effortless on the surface but underneath there's a lot going on. As Adams' friend John Lloyd has commented, he had the ability to write backwards, so he would start with several pages of (what to other people would be) excellent material and after a couple of days' furious writing it would be down to 2 pages, but each sentence a carefully crafted gem. The result is like the difference between beer and vodka. You will enjoy drinking the beer but the distilled and concentrated vodka will knock you out.
There is real genius in the wit, ideas seemingly being pulled from nowhere and taking on a whole new aspect (towels for example). Delightful non-sequitors (especially from aliens who turn out to be pretty ordinary - or frequently less than ordinary), brilliant and inventive word play and sheer imagination and brio run through every page, all joined together by delightful asides from 'the book'.
The story itself is based on the radio series of the same name which was pretty much made up as it went along, Adams following whatever idea seemed to give him the best scope for a quick gag at the time. But somehow this all works and the story is remarkably coherent (although the book does veer away from the thread of the radio series at the very end). It has been said before that it resembles Gulliver's Travels as each new world reveals new wonders (or new banalities shining a light on our own humdrum existences here on Earth).
Oh the story? The book essentially follows one Arthur Dent, a completely unremarkable and normal human being apart from two things. Firstly his house is about to be demolished to make way for a bypass, a fact he was previously unaware of. Secondly his friend Ford Prefect (the book explains the name) is not from Guildford after all but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse. When aliens show up to demolish the whole Earth to make way for an interstellar bypass, Ford saves Arthur from certain death and reveals he is a reporter for a book called The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy and he got stuck on Earth for rather a long time.
Arthur proceeds to have a rather horrible time being shot at, thrown out of spaceships, patronised and generally baffled by everything that is going on around him. But The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy is always on hand to try to explain things.
Incredibly amusing, brilliantly written and ultimately quoteable this not just a good book, it is something that really everyone should read.
I first came to the Hitchhiker's Guide series through this book. It was about 1981 I suppose and it was recommended by a school friend. I hadn't been aware of the radio series (although as luck would have it it was repeated on BBC Radio 4 within a few weeks) and it was a little while before the television adaptation appeared (which for all its faults - mainly a lack of budget - stayed true to the spirit of the books and the radio series rather more successfully than the film).
From the point I opened this and started reading I couldn't get enough Hitchhiker's Guide. Adams' style is so much like a swan on a lake - it all seems effortless on the surface but underneath there's a lot going on. As Adams' friend John Lloyd has commented, he had the ability to write backwards, so he would start with several pages of (what to other people would be) excellent material and after a couple of days' furious writing it would be down to 2 pages, but each sentence a carefully crafted gem. The result is like the difference between beer and vodka. You will enjoy drinking the beer but the distilled and concentrated vodka will knock you out.
There is real genius in the wit, ideas seemingly being pulled from nowhere and taking on a whole new aspect (towels for example). Delightful non-sequitors (especially from aliens who turn out to be pretty ordinary - or frequently less than ordinary), brilliant and inventive word play and sheer imagination and brio run through every page, all joined together by delightful asides from 'the book'.
The story itself is based on the radio series of the same name which was pretty much made up as it went along, Adams following whatever idea seemed to give him the best scope for a quick gag at the time. But somehow this all works and the story is remarkably coherent (although the book does veer away from the thread of the radio series at the very end). It has been said before that it resembles Gulliver's Travels as each new world reveals new wonders (or new banalities shining a light on our own humdrum existences here on Earth).
Oh the story? The book essentially follows one Arthur Dent, a completely unremarkable and normal human being apart from two things. Firstly his house is about to be demolished to make way for a bypass, a fact he was previously unaware of. Secondly his friend Ford Prefect (the book explains the name) is not from Guildford after all but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse. When aliens show up to demolish the whole Earth to make way for an interstellar bypass, Ford saves Arthur from certain death and reveals he is a reporter for a book called The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy and he got stuck on Earth for rather a long time.
Arthur proceeds to have a rather horrible time being shot at, thrown out of spaceships, patronised and generally baffled by everything that is going on around him. But The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy is always on hand to try to explain things.
Incredibly amusing, brilliantly written and ultimately quoteable this not just a good book, it is something that really everyone should read.