Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Well where do I start? I love the fact that there is no substantial synopsis for this film, a lot have just gone with "the ongoing adventures of Newt Scamander" or similarly vague offerings.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the biggest challenges with an ongoing series is crafting a story that is on par or better than the prior offering and that the characters continue to grow so audiences do not get a rehash of what they have seen before.
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Beautiful Creatures (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Hollywood has seemed to turn to books these days for inspiration to try and bring audiences the latest and greatest to the big screen. Has the industry turned to teen novels to solely follow in the footsteps of the widely known Twilight Saga success to in turn bring more money to the box office? It certainly wouldn’t be a bad idea to do so. With the success of the over saturated archetype of vampires and zombies, the path through the supernatural teen based stories has now led us to witches, or should I say casters. Based on the best selling American young adult series by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, Beautiful Creatures is the first novel in the best selling series. The story is based in a small conservative town of Gatlin, South Carolina and is at first about Ethan Wate (Alden Ehrenreich) a seventeen year old young man who lives with his father that is stuck in morning over the death of his wife and the house keeper Amma (Viola Davis) who is also the towns all knowing librarian. Ethan dreams and hopes that one day he will break free of the small town of Gatlin and go to college far away. Lately though, he has been having a recurring dream of a young woman waiting for him on a Civil War battlefield. Every time he is close to reaching her a lightning bolt strikes just like a gunshot and he dies. Thankfully, it is only a dream but he doesn’t seem to be able to think about anything else other than the woman in his dreams and falls in love with this mystery woman, hoping one day he will be united with the girl of his dreams.
With the beginning of the first day of school a newcomer named Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert) seems to be an outcast because of her families history. Capturing the attention of Ethan he becomes more and more intrigued with her, despite the awful things that the other classmates are saying about her. Lena is the niece of Macon Ravenwood (Jeremy Irons), the owner of the one and only mysterious Gothic Ravenwood Manor. Lena has uncontrollable powers proving that some of what her classmates have been saying is true. Lena has until her sixteenth birthday to undergo the Claiming, a process that throughout the years makes a caster go to the light side or the dark side. The film also features an allstar cast such as: Alden Ehrenreich, (“Tetro”), Emmy Rossum, Thomas Mann, Emma Thompson, Rounding out the cast are Eileen Atkins, Margo Martindale, Zoey Deutch, Tiffany Boone, Rachel Brosnahan, Kyle Gallner, Pruitt Taylor Vince and Sam Gilroy.
The film Beautiful Creatures is a supernatural love story with some of the same ideas and themes as most of these supernatural teen movies based off of best selling novels. However, Beautiful Creatures was a refreshing take on the story of two young lovers, one who is human and the other who is a supernatural being. The scenery and use of the deep southern backdrops added to the mystery of the story. I have not read the book though I plan to, I am unable to comment on how close the movie was to the book. The special effects in the film were not overdone or out of place and were appropriate to each specific scene. Some comedic relief is found throughout the film and is not out of place. The flow of the story is also flawless including the music used for the soundtrack.
This film has been rated PG-13 for violence, scary images and some sexual material. I would recommend this to audiences of a variety of ages from young teen to older adult. Yes this film may have some similarities to other teen/supernatural films but all in all it is a film I definitely would recommend to our readers and I can’t wait for the second installment.
With the beginning of the first day of school a newcomer named Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert) seems to be an outcast because of her families history. Capturing the attention of Ethan he becomes more and more intrigued with her, despite the awful things that the other classmates are saying about her. Lena is the niece of Macon Ravenwood (Jeremy Irons), the owner of the one and only mysterious Gothic Ravenwood Manor. Lena has uncontrollable powers proving that some of what her classmates have been saying is true. Lena has until her sixteenth birthday to undergo the Claiming, a process that throughout the years makes a caster go to the light side or the dark side. The film also features an allstar cast such as: Alden Ehrenreich, (“Tetro”), Emmy Rossum, Thomas Mann, Emma Thompson, Rounding out the cast are Eileen Atkins, Margo Martindale, Zoey Deutch, Tiffany Boone, Rachel Brosnahan, Kyle Gallner, Pruitt Taylor Vince and Sam Gilroy.
The film Beautiful Creatures is a supernatural love story with some of the same ideas and themes as most of these supernatural teen movies based off of best selling novels. However, Beautiful Creatures was a refreshing take on the story of two young lovers, one who is human and the other who is a supernatural being. The scenery and use of the deep southern backdrops added to the mystery of the story. I have not read the book though I plan to, I am unable to comment on how close the movie was to the book. The special effects in the film were not overdone or out of place and were appropriate to each specific scene. Some comedic relief is found throughout the film and is not out of place. The flow of the story is also flawless including the music used for the soundtrack.
This film has been rated PG-13 for violence, scary images and some sexual material. I would recommend this to audiences of a variety of ages from young teen to older adult. Yes this film may have some similarities to other teen/supernatural films but all in all it is a film I definitely would recommend to our readers and I can’t wait for the second installment.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Annihilation (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Lena (Natalie Portman) has spent over a year grieving thinking that her husband has died. Her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), was part of a covert Army team. He would leave on missions and not be able to send any word. But a year was too long. Then as she is painting the bedroom of her house Kane walks up the stairs and into the bedroom. She is overwhelmed by happiness. After the initial flutter of excitement wears off she has so many questions. His responses are short and are not making sense. All of the sudden he starts cough up blood. Lena and Kane are headed to the hospital in the ambulance when government vehicles. Lena is pulled out and drugged and quickly loses consciousness. When she awakes she finds herself in a cell being asked questions by a Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh) about her husband and his sudden appearance. She quickly finds out that her husband and his team were one of several team over the past three years that were sent into a place called The Shimmer. The Shimmer was a growing circle surrounding a light house. Nothing that had gone into this area had returned…until Kane. With Kane on the brink of death Lena is determined to find out what is happening inside. She spent over seven years and in the Army and now was a Biology Professor at Johns Hopkins. This made her uniquely qualified to join Dr. Ventress and her team in the latest expedition into The Shimmer.
The movie is based on a novel of the same name by Jeff VanderMeer. It was written for the screen by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Sunshine), who also directed (also Ex Machina). This film visually very interesting. When they enter The Shimmer you are immediately aware that you are still on Earth but something is definitely different. At times it is gritty and others bright and stunning. The cinematography as a whole make this film worth catching in the theater. The story is definitely original. I thought that the performances were good but at times a little cheesy for how serious of a tone was being set. I thought Natalie Portman had a strong performance. Supporting actors Gina Rodriguez (as Anya Thorensen), Tuva Novotny (as Cass Sheppard) and Tessa Thompson (as Josie Radek) all brought interesting character to life. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s performance felt out of place to me and didn’t gel with the story. I enjoyed the story overall and how the tension built throughout but in the end I was disappointed. The suspense, in my opinion, wound up concluding in an unoriginal way. That is all that I will say to avoid spoilers.
Overall I think this film definitely makes you think about the story after you watch it. I think it is worth watching and coming to your own conclusion. For me it really fell short at the end but up until that point I was definitely interested in where the story was taking me.
The movie is based on a novel of the same name by Jeff VanderMeer. It was written for the screen by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Sunshine), who also directed (also Ex Machina). This film visually very interesting. When they enter The Shimmer you are immediately aware that you are still on Earth but something is definitely different. At times it is gritty and others bright and stunning. The cinematography as a whole make this film worth catching in the theater. The story is definitely original. I thought that the performances were good but at times a little cheesy for how serious of a tone was being set. I thought Natalie Portman had a strong performance. Supporting actors Gina Rodriguez (as Anya Thorensen), Tuva Novotny (as Cass Sheppard) and Tessa Thompson (as Josie Radek) all brought interesting character to life. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s performance felt out of place to me and didn’t gel with the story. I enjoyed the story overall and how the tension built throughout but in the end I was disappointed. The suspense, in my opinion, wound up concluding in an unoriginal way. That is all that I will say to avoid spoilers.
Overall I think this film definitely makes you think about the story after you watch it. I think it is worth watching and coming to your own conclusion. For me it really fell short at the end but up until that point I was definitely interested in where the story was taking me.
Climate Earth 3D
Weather and Education
App
The brand new Climate Earth 3D is a Hi-Def visualization of global weather conditions with forecasts...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Get Out (2017) in Movies
Feb 3, 2020
Psychologcally Disburing
Jordan Peele goes from comedy to horror, as his directorial debut, he does a excellent/fantasic/phenomenal job. Going from one genre to anethor is hard, but Jordan Peele did the impossible, and he successed, all expectations. This film is psycologically twisted, horrorfyng, suspenseful and thrilling till the very end.
So this movie does have a theme, This disturbing film ... is really about how white America has mastered its relationship with black America. Within all of the interracial tension is the white American’s strange envy of the grim determination, melancholy humor, and creative strength of the black race. ... But Peele’s irony is that white America will continue to do what it does despite these truths, and, sadly, so must black America remain hypnotized.
The film also depicts the lack of attention on missing black Americans compared to missing white females. Slate's Damon Young stated the film's premise was "depressingly plausible ... Although black people only comprise 13 percent of America's population, they are 34 percent of America's missing, a reality that exists as the result of a mélange of racial and socioeconomic factors rendering black lives demonstratively less valuable than the lives [of] our white counterparts.
Peele does a excellent of this theme, of the world that we live in today and his views on it.
The Plot: Now that Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) and his girlfriend, Rose (Allison Williams), have reached the meet-the-parents milestone of dating, she invites him for a weekend getaway upstate with Missy and Dean. At first, Chris reads the family's overly accommodating behavior as nervous attempts to deal with their daughter's interracial relationship, but as the weekend progresses, a series of increasingly disturbing discoveries lead him to a truth that he never could have imagined.
This film is a must watch, if you havent seen it, than go and see it. Its psycologically twisted, horrorfying, thrilling, suspenseful and overall excellent.
So this movie does have a theme, This disturbing film ... is really about how white America has mastered its relationship with black America. Within all of the interracial tension is the white American’s strange envy of the grim determination, melancholy humor, and creative strength of the black race. ... But Peele’s irony is that white America will continue to do what it does despite these truths, and, sadly, so must black America remain hypnotized.
The film also depicts the lack of attention on missing black Americans compared to missing white females. Slate's Damon Young stated the film's premise was "depressingly plausible ... Although black people only comprise 13 percent of America's population, they are 34 percent of America's missing, a reality that exists as the result of a mélange of racial and socioeconomic factors rendering black lives demonstratively less valuable than the lives [of] our white counterparts.
Peele does a excellent of this theme, of the world that we live in today and his views on it.
The Plot: Now that Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) and his girlfriend, Rose (Allison Williams), have reached the meet-the-parents milestone of dating, she invites him for a weekend getaway upstate with Missy and Dean. At first, Chris reads the family's overly accommodating behavior as nervous attempts to deal with their daughter's interracial relationship, but as the weekend progresses, a series of increasingly disturbing discoveries lead him to a truth that he never could have imagined.
This film is a must watch, if you havent seen it, than go and see it. Its psycologically twisted, horrorfying, thrilling, suspenseful and overall excellent.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rabid (2019) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
The Antithesis of Horror
I just got done watching a trailer for A Quiet Place Part II and I couldn’t help but think, “Now this is what horror is all about!” It’s gripping and terrifying, keeping your attention the whole way through, even in the quiet moments. Rabid fails at this miserably. Rabid is the story of Sarah (Laura Vandervoort) and complications she experiences post-surgery following her getting hit by a car. Not only does she find herself the victim of a disease that causes her to desire raw flesh, but she also quickly discovers that she is the source of the disease spreading.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Rabid could have gotten to the point a lot faster and didn’t. I was waiting for the kicker that would get my attention. When it finally hit, it was a bit of a shoulder shrug for me. I had to force myself to get into it, telling myself that things would eventually get better.
Characters: 5
Not only were the characters one-dimensional and flat, but they left me with little to no interest in the story at all. I didn’t much care what happened to the protagonist or anyone. Having seen this movie a few weeks ago, I can’t think of any characters that really stood out for me.
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 3
Memorability: 7
Pace: 5
Plot: 3
I thought the story had potential to be intriguing, but it ended up feeling more bland than anything else. Too much of nothing, too much waiting for things to happen. There were no moments or pieces of anything to really connect me to the characters which checked me out of the story as a whole.
Resolution: 5
Overall: 49
There are some indy movies that blow me away and stand out above even the larger in-theatre titles. Rabid falls short for me due to weak story progression and weak characters. I don’t recommend.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Rabid could have gotten to the point a lot faster and didn’t. I was waiting for the kicker that would get my attention. When it finally hit, it was a bit of a shoulder shrug for me. I had to force myself to get into it, telling myself that things would eventually get better.
Characters: 5
Not only were the characters one-dimensional and flat, but they left me with little to no interest in the story at all. I didn’t much care what happened to the protagonist or anyone. Having seen this movie a few weeks ago, I can’t think of any characters that really stood out for me.
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 3
Memorability: 7
Pace: 5
Plot: 3
I thought the story had potential to be intriguing, but it ended up feeling more bland than anything else. Too much of nothing, too much waiting for things to happen. There were no moments or pieces of anything to really connect me to the characters which checked me out of the story as a whole.
Resolution: 5
Overall: 49
There are some indy movies that blow me away and stand out above even the larger in-theatre titles. Rabid falls short for me due to weak story progression and weak characters. I don’t recommend.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 2012, comedy writer/director/actor Seth MacFarlane created and introduced the world to basically a “live action” episode of his hit show Family Guy with the film Ted. I originally thought that film looked stupid. However as absurd as it was, it was still hilarious. Something about a talking “grown up” Teddy Bear was charming enough, but also required you to completely suspend disbelief and just go with whatever ridiculousness what was shown on screen. It was the success of that film that caused me to have higher expectations for MacFarlane’s new film A Million Ways to Die in the West. Sadly, he is a victim of his own success.
Seth MacFarlane takes on the “leading man” role this time around and unfortunately, he is not a leading man. His constant diatribes about how the west can kill you are delivered in his typical long-winded over intelligent style. Only they feel out of place as the rest of the characters and film do not take themselves remotely serious. Truthfully, I found myself not caring about him at all and was more interested in the other characters. Neil Patrick Harris is a standout as a “mustache man” who steals MacFarlane’s girlfriend and the rest of the cast pull off their cookie cutter western characters well.
That is not to say that this film is not funny. It has its funny parts. However they are far between and few are memorable. Because they try to play this movie a bit more “straight” than Ted, it just doesn’t work as well. Perhaps it is because we have seen it all from MacFarlane before and it is just more of the same.
In the end, if you are a MacFarlane fan and go into this film will medium to low expectations, you won’t be disappointed and will probably enjoy this film. But if you are looking for the next best comedy of the summer or something to make you constantly laugh, best you go check out Neighbors as this film is not near as funny.
Seth MacFarlane takes on the “leading man” role this time around and unfortunately, he is not a leading man. His constant diatribes about how the west can kill you are delivered in his typical long-winded over intelligent style. Only they feel out of place as the rest of the characters and film do not take themselves remotely serious. Truthfully, I found myself not caring about him at all and was more interested in the other characters. Neil Patrick Harris is a standout as a “mustache man” who steals MacFarlane’s girlfriend and the rest of the cast pull off their cookie cutter western characters well.
That is not to say that this film is not funny. It has its funny parts. However they are far between and few are memorable. Because they try to play this movie a bit more “straight” than Ted, it just doesn’t work as well. Perhaps it is because we have seen it all from MacFarlane before and it is just more of the same.
In the end, if you are a MacFarlane fan and go into this film will medium to low expectations, you won’t be disappointed and will probably enjoy this film. But if you are looking for the next best comedy of the summer or something to make you constantly laugh, best you go check out Neighbors as this film is not near as funny.