Search
Search results
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Part of Your World in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of Your World is based five years after Ursula defeats Ariel, yes you heard me right! The whole miraculous, shiny magic being released from the shell, the little mermaid regaining her voice, the whole harpoon, giant octopus, child scarring scene…never happened!
In this twisted tale Ursula succeeded in tricking Eric into marrying Vanessa; she now rules the Kingdom, with Eric remaining under Ursula’s spell and pretty much clueless to his wife’s evil tendencies. Conversely Ariel is Queen of the Sea, ruling Atlantica in her father’s absence. Oh yeah! Spoiler! Ursula still has Triton in her slimy grasp as well.
NB: Just for clarification this isn’t really a spoiler as you find this out on page 20- please don’t send in complaints.
The book includes all of your favourite characters from the classic 1989 movie: Scuttle, Sebastian, Flounder and even Grimsby and Carlotta! Liz Braswell does such a good job in rejuvenating these characters and reminding us why we loved them in the first place. There wasn’t enough Flounder for my liking but a lot of the story takes place above ground so I can’t really complain- maybe he needs his own tale?
The star of the book has to be Ariel though, she is the Little Mermaid after all…or is she? Braswell’s character is much more mature and tougher than the Little Mermaid we remember. After living as a mute Queen for 5 years Ariel has lost the naïve, childish part of her personality and has become a ruler consumed by guilt and melancholy. Nevertheless, this withdrawal into herself has not dampened her courage and when she learns King Triton may still be alive, she immediately begins her quest to save her father. I’m also relieved to say that I got a very sassy and sarcastic vibe from Ariel at points in the book- a woman after my own heart!
Eric too is not the suave, smouldering-before-it-was-cool character he was back in the day. Instead, overpowered by Ursula’s magic, he is distant and confused: still loved by his people but now labelled as “mad”. He loses himself in music, with his latest opera telling a familiar tale that the reader will surely recognise. Can he regain his memory in time to rescue his kingdom from his wife? Will he and Ariel meet again? Can the new Queen of the Sea rescue Triton or is Ursula just too powerful now?
The original characters of The Little Mermaid are welcomed with open arms into this story and, despite the notable differences in our two protagonists, the remaining characters are comforting and familiar. Braswell also takes the opportunity to introduce us to new characters: Jona the gull, provides quite a modern outlook for a “Disney” character, questioning the world around her with a critical eye. Even background characters such as an hilarious old apple vendor and Vareet, a mute servant girl (whom I was sure was going to have a bigger role than she did) do not fade into the pages. Quite the opposite, thanks to the book’s detail, humour and intrigue, these characters will stay with us for just as long as the story itself.
In summary, Liz Braswell’s novel draws us in hook, line and sinker. Part of Your World is impossible to put down. You will find yourself disparaging Ariel’s former lovestruck personality along with her, experiencing the tension and danger associated with Flotsam and Jetsam and exploring Eric’s kingdom through Braswell’s detailed storytelling.
There’s probably a google-defined order to read the twisted tales in but frankly I don’t care. Try this one first- you won’t regret it!
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog/2019/04/28/part-of-your-world-a-twisted-tale-by-liz-braswell/
In this twisted tale Ursula succeeded in tricking Eric into marrying Vanessa; she now rules the Kingdom, with Eric remaining under Ursula’s spell and pretty much clueless to his wife’s evil tendencies. Conversely Ariel is Queen of the Sea, ruling Atlantica in her father’s absence. Oh yeah! Spoiler! Ursula still has Triton in her slimy grasp as well.
NB: Just for clarification this isn’t really a spoiler as you find this out on page 20- please don’t send in complaints.
The book includes all of your favourite characters from the classic 1989 movie: Scuttle, Sebastian, Flounder and even Grimsby and Carlotta! Liz Braswell does such a good job in rejuvenating these characters and reminding us why we loved them in the first place. There wasn’t enough Flounder for my liking but a lot of the story takes place above ground so I can’t really complain- maybe he needs his own tale?
The star of the book has to be Ariel though, she is the Little Mermaid after all…or is she? Braswell’s character is much more mature and tougher than the Little Mermaid we remember. After living as a mute Queen for 5 years Ariel has lost the naïve, childish part of her personality and has become a ruler consumed by guilt and melancholy. Nevertheless, this withdrawal into herself has not dampened her courage and when she learns King Triton may still be alive, she immediately begins her quest to save her father. I’m also relieved to say that I got a very sassy and sarcastic vibe from Ariel at points in the book- a woman after my own heart!
Eric too is not the suave, smouldering-before-it-was-cool character he was back in the day. Instead, overpowered by Ursula’s magic, he is distant and confused: still loved by his people but now labelled as “mad”. He loses himself in music, with his latest opera telling a familiar tale that the reader will surely recognise. Can he regain his memory in time to rescue his kingdom from his wife? Will he and Ariel meet again? Can the new Queen of the Sea rescue Triton or is Ursula just too powerful now?
The original characters of The Little Mermaid are welcomed with open arms into this story and, despite the notable differences in our two protagonists, the remaining characters are comforting and familiar. Braswell also takes the opportunity to introduce us to new characters: Jona the gull, provides quite a modern outlook for a “Disney” character, questioning the world around her with a critical eye. Even background characters such as an hilarious old apple vendor and Vareet, a mute servant girl (whom I was sure was going to have a bigger role than she did) do not fade into the pages. Quite the opposite, thanks to the book’s detail, humour and intrigue, these characters will stay with us for just as long as the story itself.
In summary, Liz Braswell’s novel draws us in hook, line and sinker. Part of Your World is impossible to put down. You will find yourself disparaging Ariel’s former lovestruck personality along with her, experiencing the tension and danger associated with Flotsam and Jetsam and exploring Eric’s kingdom through Braswell’s detailed storytelling.
There’s probably a google-defined order to read the twisted tales in but frankly I don’t care. Try this one first- you won’t regret it!
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog/2019/04/28/part-of-your-world-a-twisted-tale-by-liz-braswell/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bleed For This (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Bleed for This is the true story of boxer Vinny Pazienza (Miles Teller). Vinny is the type of person that in and out of the ring goes all out to the point he can go no further. This mindset puts him on the verge of being out of boxing after losing three straight fights, which he drastically cuts weight to fight. As he searches for one last chance, he is paired with a new trainer, Kevin Rooney (Aaron Eckhart), who is also seemingly given his last chance to revive his career. Rooney sets out to change the way Vinny trains and convinces him that fighting at a heavier weight will help his body, he previously was taking drastic measures to cut weight for fights. The pair are committed to success even with Vinny’s head strong father’s (Angelo Pazienza played by Ciarán Hinds) disapproving of the change, his mother (Louise Pazienza played by Katey Sagal) not wanting Vinny to get hurt, and his own Manager (Lou Duva played by Ted Levine) saying he should quit boxing all together. After some convincing and a lot of hard work Vinny gets his chance at one last fight. But he is moving up two weight classes and is put into a title fight against a seasoned opponent. Vinny shocks seemingly everyone by overcoming these obstacles and knocking out his favored opponent to become a World Champion.
After the biggest win of his career when everything appears to be going Vinny, his families and Rooney’s way, there is a terrible car accident and Vinny suffers a broken neck. The doctor tells him that he may never walk again, let alone box. With everyone telling him that his boxing career is over, Vinny is single-mindedly determined to do everything he can to get back into the ring. He opts to not have surgery in hopes that his neck can heal on its own and he can return to champion ship form. He has to convince Rooney to train him, find someone willing to fight him, and has to overcome his once over bearing father being unwilling be in his corner for the first time in his life. Even with a mountain of obstacles in his way, he begins his quest to get back into the ring and show everyone that he can do the impossible and regain his past form.
Writer and Director Ben Younger (Prime and Boiler Room) does an excellent job with this inspirational true story. The supporting cast provide solid performances, especial Eckhart and Hinds, but Miles Teller’s performance is what really makes this a fun film to watch. He really seemed to fit into this role really well. His performance was both compelling and fun. There were several times that the film showed actual old footage and footage just made to look old and you really couldn’t tell if it was Teller or the real Vinny Pazienza on the screen. I liked how the boxing sequences were not over dramatized, no mouth pieces flying across the ring, it looked like there was an effort to just keep them as true to the actual fights as possible. I also enjoyed the moments of comedy. For a story full of drama there was a good amount of well-timed comedy, mostly provided by Teller. Visually they did a good job of making the film feel like you were in late 80s and early 90s. There were a couple of slow scenes but overall the film flowed really well.
Overall this was a well done boxing genre movie. Good story, great acting performances and solid directing.
After the biggest win of his career when everything appears to be going Vinny, his families and Rooney’s way, there is a terrible car accident and Vinny suffers a broken neck. The doctor tells him that he may never walk again, let alone box. With everyone telling him that his boxing career is over, Vinny is single-mindedly determined to do everything he can to get back into the ring. He opts to not have surgery in hopes that his neck can heal on its own and he can return to champion ship form. He has to convince Rooney to train him, find someone willing to fight him, and has to overcome his once over bearing father being unwilling be in his corner for the first time in his life. Even with a mountain of obstacles in his way, he begins his quest to get back into the ring and show everyone that he can do the impossible and regain his past form.
Writer and Director Ben Younger (Prime and Boiler Room) does an excellent job with this inspirational true story. The supporting cast provide solid performances, especial Eckhart and Hinds, but Miles Teller’s performance is what really makes this a fun film to watch. He really seemed to fit into this role really well. His performance was both compelling and fun. There were several times that the film showed actual old footage and footage just made to look old and you really couldn’t tell if it was Teller or the real Vinny Pazienza on the screen. I liked how the boxing sequences were not over dramatized, no mouth pieces flying across the ring, it looked like there was an effort to just keep them as true to the actual fights as possible. I also enjoyed the moments of comedy. For a story full of drama there was a good amount of well-timed comedy, mostly provided by Teller. Visually they did a good job of making the film feel like you were in late 80s and early 90s. There were a couple of slow scenes but overall the film flowed really well.
Overall this was a well done boxing genre movie. Good story, great acting performances and solid directing.
xComfort Smart Home
Lifestyle
App
Please update your xComfort Smart Home Controller also to use the new features!! xComfort - Make...
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Why Did I Get Married Too (2010) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020 (Updated Mar 5, 2020)
Part of me almost likes this film more than the first one. I feel like we know the couples a little more, versus the first movie where we meet them in the middle of their marriages, fighting, trying to find each other again. We come out of that film into this one and we see the growth but we still see some problems. You have a better understanding of their dynamics but still questioning some things. The overall arc of this film wasn't very clear and I'm not sure if I like that or if I found it frustrating - I think somewhere in between. I don't like the inconsistency of the characters, it just felt like the whole situation with Patricia and Gavin came out of left field and then we never really got anywhere with it. And then the scene where Gavin is drunk? Just uncomfortable to watch. I feel like that was supposed to be a scene that really meant something, we were supposed to see Gavin and Patricia's disconnect or Gavin's pain or Patricia's lack of pain, I don't know. That all feels like speculation that isn't quite hitting the mark. It was just an unnecessary scene and one that is wildly uncomfortable to watch.
I'm torn about this film. I like it, I think it's good. The plot is just a bit weird and the various relationships and the ways that they function are obviously unhealthy. I also hate the ending. I think it was horrible and then DJ? WEIRD. I think in writing this review I've realized I like the first one more, this one was sucky. Patricia was the character that made me feel it the most. I don't know. I'll end up watching this film again whenever I watch the first one. *facepalm*
I'm torn about this film. I like it, I think it's good. The plot is just a bit weird and the various relationships and the ways that they function are obviously unhealthy. I also hate the ending. I think it was horrible and then DJ? WEIRD. I think in writing this review I've realized I like the first one more, this one was sucky. Patricia was the character that made me feel it the most. I don't know. I'll end up watching this film again whenever I watch the first one. *facepalm*
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Great Gatsby in Books
Mar 20, 2020
I'm so disappointed with this book. I know how many people love it and that it's a classic and something almost everyone's read. I was really hoping it would hold up. Almost everyone I asked said they really liked it and they thought I would enjoy it too. I didn't.
Overall, I didn't really get the point of Nick's character. Or Jordan for that matter. It felt like they were just extras and useless. Gatsby is desperate and it comes across so obviously - is that on purpose? Tom is obviously the worst character - he's misogynistic and racist and a hypocrite. And then Daisy. She's just insecure and probably lonely (I'd be really surprised if she wasn't) and I just found her to be so annoying. She heard all these things about Jay and then automatically decided, "well, my sucky husband is alright. I guess I'll stay with him."
I feel like Nick was just supposed to be some outside character, more of a narrator, but if that's what Fitzgerald wanted, why not just narrate? Why have a whole character who is basically useless but being equal parts annoyed and fascinated by his mysterious neighbor? It just didn't really make any sense. Jordan also felt useless. She was there to stir the pot, let Nick in on the gossip, be his kind-of-friend, kind-of-love-interest but not really.
Apparently, I either missed the whole point of the book or it's really that bad and we've all been brainwashed. I'm going to go with the latter, but it very well could be the former. Don't discount my ability to have things go over my head. I guess I should watch the movie now and see what I think. Leonardo DiCaprio, here I come!
Overall, I didn't really get the point of Nick's character. Or Jordan for that matter. It felt like they were just extras and useless. Gatsby is desperate and it comes across so obviously - is that on purpose? Tom is obviously the worst character - he's misogynistic and racist and a hypocrite. And then Daisy. She's just insecure and probably lonely (I'd be really surprised if she wasn't) and I just found her to be so annoying. She heard all these things about Jay and then automatically decided, "well, my sucky husband is alright. I guess I'll stay with him."
I feel like Nick was just supposed to be some outside character, more of a narrator, but if that's what Fitzgerald wanted, why not just narrate? Why have a whole character who is basically useless but being equal parts annoyed and fascinated by his mysterious neighbor? It just didn't really make any sense. Jordan also felt useless. She was there to stir the pot, let Nick in on the gossip, be his kind-of-friend, kind-of-love-interest but not really.
Apparently, I either missed the whole point of the book or it's really that bad and we've all been brainwashed. I'm going to go with the latter, but it very well could be the former. Don't discount my ability to have things go over my head. I guess I should watch the movie now and see what I think. Leonardo DiCaprio, here I come!
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Sep 12, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
In brief - movie about the world ending makes you wish that the world was ending
Let's be honest - many, if not all natural disaster films are viewed purely for the spectacle. No one is settling down to watch one of these things with the intention of watching some layered character arc, or listen to a fantastic script - 2012 is no different.
The above mentioned spectacle is very formulaic here, as crazy set piece is followed by crazy set piece, complimented with in between scenes of a just-doing-it-for-the-pay-check John Cusack, and his exceptionally boring family (who all somehow manage to be in the exact place of disasters kicking off multiple times).
The scenes of mayhem themselves are laced with Benny Hill-esque antics, and silly dialogue that instantly removes any tension.
As our band of irritatingly mundane survivors trudge through our planet literally cracking apart, they come across a host of 'wacky' characters, who all seem to be jostling for the part of comic relief (not every character needs to be comic relief Roland). And I really wanted pretty much everyone of these characters to just hurry up and get killed by a tornado or whatever.
I did however quite enjoy Woody Harrelson's batshit crazy conspiracy theorist and his gratuitous pickle eating.
It's also always nice to see the likes of Thandie Newton and Chiwetel Ejiofor, even if they're not given much to do here but look all serious.
The CGI is just about starting to age at this point but is still mostly passable, and they're are some pretty memorable visuals here and there.
Overall though 2012 is pretty awful and really not as fun as it thinks it is.
The above mentioned spectacle is very formulaic here, as crazy set piece is followed by crazy set piece, complimented with in between scenes of a just-doing-it-for-the-pay-check John Cusack, and his exceptionally boring family (who all somehow manage to be in the exact place of disasters kicking off multiple times).
The scenes of mayhem themselves are laced with Benny Hill-esque antics, and silly dialogue that instantly removes any tension.
As our band of irritatingly mundane survivors trudge through our planet literally cracking apart, they come across a host of 'wacky' characters, who all seem to be jostling for the part of comic relief (not every character needs to be comic relief Roland). And I really wanted pretty much everyone of these characters to just hurry up and get killed by a tornado or whatever.
I did however quite enjoy Woody Harrelson's batshit crazy conspiracy theorist and his gratuitous pickle eating.
It's also always nice to see the likes of Thandie Newton and Chiwetel Ejiofor, even if they're not given much to do here but look all serious.
The CGI is just about starting to age at this point but is still mostly passable, and they're are some pretty memorable visuals here and there.
Overall though 2012 is pretty awful and really not as fun as it thinks it is.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Rachel McAdams and Dan Stevens steal most of the scenes (1 more)
A real feelgood movie that spoofs the unspoofable pretty well
My lovely farce
Will Ferrell's output over the last few years has been decidedly patchy. I have to go back to "Get Hard" to find one of his movies that really got to my funny bone. But this latest Netflix offering hits the spot for me.
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
We start with the song recently voted the number one Eurovision song of all time by UK viewers: "Waterloo" by Abba. Young Lars Erickssong (LOL) (Alfie Melia) is transfixed watching the 1974 Eurovision winner with his recently bereaved father and local Lothario Erick (Pierce Brosnan). (Mental note to women: never marry Brosnan on screen... he gets through wives faster than you can murder "S.O.S."). Also present are his friends and young Sigrit ("probably not by sister") Ericksdottir (Sophia-Grace Donnelly). Lars vows to one day stand on that stage and make his father and his remote Icelandic fishing village proud.
Now all grown up, Lars (now Will Ferrell) and Sigrit (now Rachel McAdams) are still pursuing their dream of representing Iceland in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. They are, of course, dreadful - - so they should fit right in! But their way is blocked by the immensely talented Katiana (Demi Lovato) and all seems hopeless. Will Sigrit's faith in the power of the Elves see them through?
There's an obvious problem here. The Eurovision Song Contest is in itself so bat-s**t bonkers that it is almost impossible to spoof. (If anyone is not on this wavelength, checkout the genuine Russian entry in this year's (cancelled) contest on Youtube). But the team here (writers Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele and director David "The Judge" Dobkin) do a really great job. I'd love to know what a US audience - who I guess will mostly be unfamiliar with Eurovision - make of this. Since Australia are now honorary Europeans in the contest.... wouldn't it be great if there was a Mexican mariachi band attending and a country and western act from the States? (Brits would love the US to be involved.... as spoofed in the film, there's only one country European's hate more than the UK.... be nice to have someone else to join us in the "nul points" club!)
Wherever you may be on the "Ferrell-funny-or-not-ometer", there's one thing I hope we can all agree on here, and that is that Rachel McAdams continues to shine as a comic lead. She was fantastic in "Game Night" - one of my favourite comedies of recent years - and here she is both gorgeous and hilarious. She knocks it out of the park playing the elf-loving Icelandic pixie with the golden voice. (McAdams "sings" but is significantly "helped" in the mix by Swedish pop star Molly Sandén (aka My Marianne)).
Here she even gets to almost reprise her wonderful "YEESSSSS! Oh no, he died!" line from "Game Night".
Almost matching her in the scene-stealing stakes though is Downton's Dan Stevens as Lemtov: a Russian 'Tom Jones'-like contestant singing "Lion of Love" ("Let's get together; I'm a lion lover; And I hunt for love!"). He's DEFINITELY not gay ("There are no gays in Russia") but are his multi-millions enough to turn Sigrit's head?
For those who love their annual Eurovision parties, there are also an impressive array of nice cameos that will delight.
But where the film-makers really score (no pun intended) is making the music so fitting. Some of the tracks make you think "Yeah, if this was the real content, this might have got my vote". Director Dobkin is quoted as saying "It's okay if it's funny, but it has to be really good music. It has to still be great and just kitschy enough to be Eurovision, because that's part of what's fun about Eurovision" (Source: Vulture). Very true. This success is down to the involvement of pop writer/producer Savan Kotecha on the project: the man behind hits by Katy Petty, Ariana Grande and Ellie Goulding.
A comedy needs to make me laugh, and this one really did - numerous times. It's not just the dialogue. Some of the cut-away scenes are priceless and perfectly executed: jumping whales; a collapsing glacier; a small slamming door!
Sure, it borrows from a number of other sources in its plot: most notably THAT episode of "Father Ted" and the rap-battle scenes from "Pitch Perfect". And sure, some of the outRAGEOUS Icelandic accents sometimes swerve into an alarming mix of Indian, Welsh and Caribbean dialects! But above all, this is movie with real heart. The plot is pretty well signposted, but the finale still packs a (surprisingly) hefty emotional punch, and it leaves you with a really nice afterglow.
As we struggle out of Covid lockdown, it may not be a vaccine, but it is a pretty good medicine for the side-effects. Did I love this? Jaja Ding Dong!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-eurovision-song-contest-the-story-of-fire-saga-2020/ ).
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman Begins‘ ending was a brilliant nod towards the things that were to come, as Gary Oldman’s, newly promoted Lieutenant Jim Gordon flashes The Joker’s calling card, Batman’s revival had now well and truly begun. A film with lesser known villains was about to retread more familiar ground with the introduction of The Joker and Harvey Dent/Two Face.
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 11, 2021
After the MCU rounded up with Endgame I was having Marvel fatigue, I had my issues with the Spider-man movie, and I haven't been thrilled by the TV series that we've been getting on Disney+. I had managed to avoid most of the Black Widow coverage until getting back to the cinema, but even seeing the trailer on the big screen didn't get me pumped for it.
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html