Search
Search results
Michelle Monoghan recommended A Woman Under the Influence (1975) in Movies (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
What can I say about this one? I left the cinema pondering. I'm still pondering this morning trying to work out what to score it. I wasn't bored, yet I wasn't enthralled. It felt long, but not too long. I could follow the story lines, but some of them didn't quite make sense... It's definitely a contender for Goldilocks of the Year.
I was keen on watching this after seeing the trailer. A star studded cast and an intriguing idea really is all you need to hook people in. I can't decide (I know, it's happening a lot this review) if the trailer gave too much away. Could they have kept more elements back as a surprise? Possibly that wouldn't have left such a sense of anticipation about the film.
Being set in 1969 we're obviously given a lot of classic tunes through the jukebox and singing of Darlene Sweet. The latter is goosebump inducing at times and magical to listen to.
The way this movie is told is very reminiscent of a lot of things to me. I was getting flashes of Kill Bill and Lost, and as Drew Goddard was involved with Lost that's probably not a coincidence. The scenario also made me think of the 2003 film Identity and an episode of Criminal Minds called Paradise.
I enjoyed seeing each person's journey that led them up to the El Royale. You feel much more involved in the story because you switch allegiances between the characters every time you see a new perspective. It also gives you just enough of teaser to something that's going to happen to draw you further in.
The use of intertitle cards felt a little out of place, it's not really a sixties thing and the style of them didn't seem to fit with the film itself. They do their job which is to say "now for a bit of back story on this person" but looking a little less silent movie and a little more El Royale wouldn't have gone amiss.
A whole section of story line seemed to have no conclusion, for reasons that will be partly obvious to you when you see the film. What I can't work out is if I missed something about it that would have left me less confused. This movie could definitely do with a second watch.
What you should do
I'd probably recommend watching this one at home on DVD or streaming with a bunch of movie friends. It feels like it needs discussing more than watching.
You should also probably watch this gif a lot. I'm only sorry that I can't find a longer version without other distractions in it... like the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like the El Royale to live in. Although I think I'd convert the spying corridor into a regular corridor and make the whole place a home rather than a playground for snooping and murder.
I was keen on watching this after seeing the trailer. A star studded cast and an intriguing idea really is all you need to hook people in. I can't decide (I know, it's happening a lot this review) if the trailer gave too much away. Could they have kept more elements back as a surprise? Possibly that wouldn't have left such a sense of anticipation about the film.
Being set in 1969 we're obviously given a lot of classic tunes through the jukebox and singing of Darlene Sweet. The latter is goosebump inducing at times and magical to listen to.
The way this movie is told is very reminiscent of a lot of things to me. I was getting flashes of Kill Bill and Lost, and as Drew Goddard was involved with Lost that's probably not a coincidence. The scenario also made me think of the 2003 film Identity and an episode of Criminal Minds called Paradise.
I enjoyed seeing each person's journey that led them up to the El Royale. You feel much more involved in the story because you switch allegiances between the characters every time you see a new perspective. It also gives you just enough of teaser to something that's going to happen to draw you further in.
The use of intertitle cards felt a little out of place, it's not really a sixties thing and the style of them didn't seem to fit with the film itself. They do their job which is to say "now for a bit of back story on this person" but looking a little less silent movie and a little more El Royale wouldn't have gone amiss.
A whole section of story line seemed to have no conclusion, for reasons that will be partly obvious to you when you see the film. What I can't work out is if I missed something about it that would have left me less confused. This movie could definitely do with a second watch.
What you should do
I'd probably recommend watching this one at home on DVD or streaming with a bunch of movie friends. It feels like it needs discussing more than watching.
You should also probably watch this gif a lot. I'm only sorry that I can't find a longer version without other distractions in it... like the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like the El Royale to live in. Although I think I'd convert the spying corridor into a regular corridor and make the whole place a home rather than a playground for snooping and murder.
Andre Holland recommended Oliver! (1968) in Movies (curated)
David McK (3854 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 8, 2021
Another film gettign the concurrent cinema/Disney+ (behind a paywall) release date, this one is very much a throw-back to the days of yore: the most relevant comparison I can come up with, perhaps, is my understanding of what 'The African Queen' is like (never seen that film) in that both films rely on the star power of their respective leads (here Johnson/Blunt, as opposed to Bogart/Bacall).
Like Disney's earlier 'Pirates of the Caribbean' films, this is also - loosely - based on a theme ride: this time, the setting being a cruise down the Amazon. Like 'Pirates...', this also injects a fair does of the supernatural into the proceedings: I have no idea whether or not that is part of the ride, never having been to any of the Disney resorts.
I also have to say that I felt, at times, that Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson and Emily Blunt came across more as bickering siblings rather than falling-in-love, and that Jack Whitehall's character (the brother of Emily Blunt's character) more-or-less faded into the background for a fair chunk of the movie ...
Like Disney's earlier 'Pirates of the Caribbean' films, this is also - loosely - based on a theme ride: this time, the setting being a cruise down the Amazon. Like 'Pirates...', this also injects a fair does of the supernatural into the proceedings: I have no idea whether or not that is part of the ride, never having been to any of the Disney resorts.
I also have to say that I felt, at times, that Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson and Emily Blunt came across more as bickering siblings rather than falling-in-love, and that Jack Whitehall's character (the brother of Emily Blunt's character) more-or-less faded into the background for a fair chunk of the movie ...
David McK (3854 KP) rated Ice Age: Collision Course (2016) in Movies
Jan 3, 2022
I remember watching the first Ice Age film, way back not long after it came out, in about 2002 or thereabouts.
While it was enjoyable enough, it was also - I felt - nothing special (with Scrat the sabre-toothed squirrel stealing the show).
The franchise itself, as a whole, is proof of the old truism that sequels are never as good as the original, with each instalment struggling to match its predecessor.
This is the fifth movie in said franchise, and the core cast of characters has grown to almost unwieldy proportions: no longer just Sid, Manny and Diego but now also grown to encompass (both literally and metaphorically) their families.
The plot? With a meteor hurtling towards Earth (blame Scrat) an din danger of causing another mass-extinction event, Syd, Manny and co have to find a way of saving their way of life while also coming to terms with the fact that their daughter (wait? When did she appear gain?) is now all grown up and can make her own decisions.
The result? It's a pleasant enough way to spend about an hour and a half or so, but not a film I'd be rushing back to see.
While it was enjoyable enough, it was also - I felt - nothing special (with Scrat the sabre-toothed squirrel stealing the show).
The franchise itself, as a whole, is proof of the old truism that sequels are never as good as the original, with each instalment struggling to match its predecessor.
This is the fifth movie in said franchise, and the core cast of characters has grown to almost unwieldy proportions: no longer just Sid, Manny and Diego but now also grown to encompass (both literally and metaphorically) their families.
The plot? With a meteor hurtling towards Earth (blame Scrat) an din danger of causing another mass-extinction event, Syd, Manny and co have to find a way of saving their way of life while also coming to terms with the fact that their daughter (wait? When did she appear gain?) is now all grown up and can make her own decisions.
The result? It's a pleasant enough way to spend about an hour and a half or so, but not a film I'd be rushing back to see.
Tom Turner (388 KP) rated Ozma of Oz in Books
Apr 30, 2021
If you've seen the 1985 movie Return to Oz you will no doubt recognise elements of this book. While the Gump and Pumpkin Head were pulled from The Marvelous Land of Oz (the previous Oz book.) Pretty much the rest of the movie was taken from this book.
Ozma of Oz configure the perfectly peculiar style from the first two. As I suspected would be the case, also starts to tie loose ends together from the previous works so it definitely starts feeling like the series is one cohesive whole. Because so much of it was familiar from the movie it's hard for me to evaluate the book on its own merits. This is diffent from other adaptations because it wasn't a diet adaptation, so it's impossible to say "Movie did X better while book did Y better." and unlike WWoO the story isn't an institution.
Ultimately it was an enjoyable entry.
Ozma of Oz configure the perfectly peculiar style from the first two. As I suspected would be the case, also starts to tie loose ends together from the previous works so it definitely starts feeling like the series is one cohesive whole. Because so much of it was familiar from the movie it's hard for me to evaluate the book on its own merits. This is diffent from other adaptations because it wasn't a diet adaptation, so it's impossible to say "Movie did X better while book did Y better." and unlike WWoO the story isn't an institution.
Ultimately it was an enjoyable entry.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Freaks (1932) in Movies
Feb 29, 2020 (Updated Feb 29, 2020)
Tod Browning's notorious horror movie remains problematic and uncomfortable to watch nearly a century on from its release. The plot is much more the stuff of a melodrama than a traditional horror movie: a vain and greedy trapeze artist and her lover plot to murder a gullible man enamoured of her for his fortune. What makes the film so queasily memorable is the fact that many of the characters are sideshow 'freaks' of different kinds.
Severely hampered by the fact that many of the cast aren't professional actors, and it shows; also by the fact that several of them don't have English as a first language (some of the dialogue is so heavily accented to be unintelligible). The existing version of the film is fairly thin on plot, too. There is strange tension between the script, which takes pains to make clear that the deformed characters are people, not monsters, and the way that the camera voyeuristically dwells on their physical abnormalities - it's there again in the climax, where the trapeze artist clearly deserves some kind of retribution, but the sequence of the 'freaks' closing in on her is deeply disturbing. A uniquely unsettling movie, and perhaps that's for the best.
Severely hampered by the fact that many of the cast aren't professional actors, and it shows; also by the fact that several of them don't have English as a first language (some of the dialogue is so heavily accented to be unintelligible). The existing version of the film is fairly thin on plot, too. There is strange tension between the script, which takes pains to make clear that the deformed characters are people, not monsters, and the way that the camera voyeuristically dwells on their physical abnormalities - it's there again in the climax, where the trapeze artist clearly deserves some kind of retribution, but the sequence of the 'freaks' closing in on her is deeply disturbing. A uniquely unsettling movie, and perhaps that's for the best.
starwarsluvr (236 KP) rated Divergent in Books
Jan 29, 2018
My best friend told me to read these. When I first started I wasnt sure.. it reminded me of hunger games which I wasnt a fan of for the books. . love the movie but not the point. But I decided to try this anyways and am glad I did. I loved this. . some confusion in it some parts made me mad but overall loved. I've already started the 2nd and loving it also
Rachel Howser Roberts (96 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Jun 24, 2018
Beautiful depiction of Mexican culture
Contains spoilers, click to show
The animation in this movie is beautiful. I love the use of color! The story is cute, if predictable. The music is upbeat and catchy. There were a few things that bothered me. Why does the whole family go by the last name Rivera? Shouldn’t the family branches have taken the men’s last names? Also why doesn’t De La Cruz know that Miguel is not his great-great-grandson?
