Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Art of Racing in the Rain (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Another crying dog movie... just what my life needs.
Denny picks up a golden retriever puppy from a farm and the two become firm friends. Enzo learns all about racing and is a constant fixture at the track, it's going to be the two of them forever feeling the wind in their faces.
Then one day Eve comes along, she's there a lot and it doesn't look like she's leaving. Can Enzo adapt to family life?
The card on the film states "scenes of emotional upset"... accurate, and right from the very start too. This was made by a savage person. Originally I had a quadruple bill planned but I wasn't sure I could do this film followed by The Sun Is Also A Star and come out the other end as anything but a gibbering wreck so I split it out. That was probably one of the most sensible things I've ever done, there was so much crying.
The way they show Enzo reacting to everything is spot on. If you've watched those dog videos on Facebook where they subtitle in what the dog's thinking, it's just like that but Enzo has a much better grasp of the English language and the sultry tones of Kevin Costner. Some of the moments are wonderful and it made me wonder if my dog did any of them, and then I cried a bit more.
Milo Ventimiglia plays out leading human, Denny, and he's very convincing with the obsession Denny has for racing. The flipside with the struggle of having to be a dad came across too and there are some poignant scenes that came off beautifully.
I wasn't overly engaged with Amanda Seyfried as Eve until the midpoint of the film. Perhaps I was indifferent about her on Enzo's behalf, we may never know, but at the point where it all turned I thought she gave a wonderful and respectful performance.
There's not a huge extended cast, but it's filled with talented actors who bring something great to their characters, Kathy Baker and Martin Donovan were particularly good as Eve's parents, though you can't help but hate them.
It's nicely done overall, nothing seems out of place, there weren't any frivolous scenes. The way we get to engage with the racing is brilliantly executed, especially the scene at the beginning where he actually races in the rain, very exciting to watch. It's a lovely crying dog film (at what point do we declare this an actual genre?), is it predictable? Yes, but it's still a nice easy watch if you've got a box of tissues handy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-art-of-racing-in-rain-movie-review.html
Denny picks up a golden retriever puppy from a farm and the two become firm friends. Enzo learns all about racing and is a constant fixture at the track, it's going to be the two of them forever feeling the wind in their faces.
Then one day Eve comes along, she's there a lot and it doesn't look like she's leaving. Can Enzo adapt to family life?
The card on the film states "scenes of emotional upset"... accurate, and right from the very start too. This was made by a savage person. Originally I had a quadruple bill planned but I wasn't sure I could do this film followed by The Sun Is Also A Star and come out the other end as anything but a gibbering wreck so I split it out. That was probably one of the most sensible things I've ever done, there was so much crying.
The way they show Enzo reacting to everything is spot on. If you've watched those dog videos on Facebook where they subtitle in what the dog's thinking, it's just like that but Enzo has a much better grasp of the English language and the sultry tones of Kevin Costner. Some of the moments are wonderful and it made me wonder if my dog did any of them, and then I cried a bit more.
Milo Ventimiglia plays out leading human, Denny, and he's very convincing with the obsession Denny has for racing. The flipside with the struggle of having to be a dad came across too and there are some poignant scenes that came off beautifully.
I wasn't overly engaged with Amanda Seyfried as Eve until the midpoint of the film. Perhaps I was indifferent about her on Enzo's behalf, we may never know, but at the point where it all turned I thought she gave a wonderful and respectful performance.
There's not a huge extended cast, but it's filled with talented actors who bring something great to their characters, Kathy Baker and Martin Donovan were particularly good as Eve's parents, though you can't help but hate them.
It's nicely done overall, nothing seems out of place, there weren't any frivolous scenes. The way we get to engage with the racing is brilliantly executed, especially the scene at the beginning where he actually races in the rain, very exciting to watch. It's a lovely crying dog film (at what point do we declare this an actual genre?), is it predictable? Yes, but it's still a nice easy watch if you've got a box of tissues handy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-art-of-racing-in-rain-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Goldfinch (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
The life of Theodore Decker (Ansel Elgort and Oakes Fegley) is for every changed when his mother is killed in an explosion at an art museum. In the same tragic moments when his mother is killed he also makes a decision that will help shape the rest of his life, he takes a rare and valuable painting in the chaos of surrounding. This painting, The Goldfinch, wasn’t something he planned on taking, but having it will be the only thing that brings him comfort in the days ahead. After the tragedy he is temporarily placed with a family he really enjoys. He has a best friend, Andy Barbour (Ryan Foust), and a mother figure in Mrs. Barbour (Nicole Kidman). Theodore also makes a connection to a girl Pippa (Aimee Laurence and later by Ashleigh Cummings) and her caretaker Hobie (Jeffrey Wright). Pippa and her uncle Welty (Robert Joy) were standing right next to Theodore when the explosion that killed his mother happened. Welty also passes away during the explosion but not before he would influence Theodore to take the painting. Thus changing the trajectory of the rest of his life.
This film is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Donna Tartt of the same name. I have not read the book so I cannot make a comparison between the two. The director, John Crowley (Brooklyn and Closed Circuit) makes a visually beautiful film. You can tell that care was taken to make the film have a certain feel and texture. The cast is very good, including those mentioned above and Finn Wolfhard, Sarah Paulson, Aneurin Barnard and more. I particularly thought the casting of Oakes Fegley as the Young Theodore and Ansel Elgort as the adult Theodore was particularly good. The story skipped in sequence and you could see the similarity in the two actors as on character. The overall story is original and fascinating. But the film jumped around and made it feel choppy. Also the run time of two hours and twenty nine minutes somehow felt longer than that. The story moved at a snail’s pace and really seemed like it had no direction. Then in the final 10 minutes it wrapped up in a flash.
I thought overall the performances were good and the story was interesting but how it was presented really lacked. It was slow and developed in a non-compelling way. I could definitely see potential but it fell a little short for me. It did make me want to read the book and see how the author meant for the story to be told. I would recommend seeing this in a theater for the cinematography because it was beautifully shot.
This film is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Donna Tartt of the same name. I have not read the book so I cannot make a comparison between the two. The director, John Crowley (Brooklyn and Closed Circuit) makes a visually beautiful film. You can tell that care was taken to make the film have a certain feel and texture. The cast is very good, including those mentioned above and Finn Wolfhard, Sarah Paulson, Aneurin Barnard and more. I particularly thought the casting of Oakes Fegley as the Young Theodore and Ansel Elgort as the adult Theodore was particularly good. The story skipped in sequence and you could see the similarity in the two actors as on character. The overall story is original and fascinating. But the film jumped around and made it feel choppy. Also the run time of two hours and twenty nine minutes somehow felt longer than that. The story moved at a snail’s pace and really seemed like it had no direction. Then in the final 10 minutes it wrapped up in a flash.
I thought overall the performances were good and the story was interesting but how it was presented really lacked. It was slow and developed in a non-compelling way. I could definitely see potential but it fell a little short for me. It did make me want to read the book and see how the author meant for the story to be told. I would recommend seeing this in a theater for the cinematography because it was beautifully shot.
Larry Eisner (2082 KP) rated Maniac in TV
Oct 3, 2018
Realistic views of mental illness (4 more)
So much vision in the palette and visual storytelling
The acting is top-notch!
Retro-Futurism!!!
Such creativity!
A beautiful, creative series about mental illness
Absurdism at its finest. Full stop.
Maniac is a beautifully written, beautifully shot and masterfully acted work of art. Taking a 70s-80s retro idea of future technology, and making it real, making it believable and all the while throwing crazy funny oddity at the same time is an insane balancing act and it works! My god, it works!
It is episodic and works as such, but it could also very well have been an excellent 5-6 hour film. Every scene is necessary. Every frame is intentional. The jokes hit, the visual universe is consistent, and the whole thing tugs on you like very little film does these days. In fact I hesitate to call it TV. Because while it is indeed episodic, it’s not serialized. It’s one long and perfectly crafted story. It winds and twists and it jumps at the sky but it always has a reason to do so.
And all I can say is that every damn time I forget how great Sally Field is, she kills it. She absolutely kills it. I wouldn’t have cast her or Jonah Hill, but they are PERFECT. I can not recommend this show enough. Honestly it’s the best original content I’ve seen this year. Hands down.
It’s funny, it’s bizarre, and it’s emotional. It gets, via sideways and transverse angles, what it means to be a broken and fragile human, when everyone around you seems to have it together but you.
Please watch it. You won’t regret it.
Maniac is a beautifully written, beautifully shot and masterfully acted work of art. Taking a 70s-80s retro idea of future technology, and making it real, making it believable and all the while throwing crazy funny oddity at the same time is an insane balancing act and it works! My god, it works!
It is episodic and works as such, but it could also very well have been an excellent 5-6 hour film. Every scene is necessary. Every frame is intentional. The jokes hit, the visual universe is consistent, and the whole thing tugs on you like very little film does these days. In fact I hesitate to call it TV. Because while it is indeed episodic, it’s not serialized. It’s one long and perfectly crafted story. It winds and twists and it jumps at the sky but it always has a reason to do so.
And all I can say is that every damn time I forget how great Sally Field is, she kills it. She absolutely kills it. I wouldn’t have cast her or Jonah Hill, but they are PERFECT. I can not recommend this show enough. Honestly it’s the best original content I’ve seen this year. Hands down.
It’s funny, it’s bizarre, and it’s emotional. It gets, via sideways and transverse angles, what it means to be a broken and fragile human, when everyone around you seems to have it together but you.
Please watch it. You won’t regret it.
Tourism and the Creative Industries: Theories, Policies and Practice
Philip Long and Nigel D. Morpeth
Book
This book focuses on the theoretical, policy and practice linkages and disjunctures between tourism...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Ever since Netflix have proven themselves as a fantastic streaming platform, everyone gets hyped about their ‘Originals’. Velvet Buzzsaw was no exception, and when the first trailer dropped I was so excited to watch it. Everything about it seemed great; it was written and directed by Dan Gilroy (the guy who gave us the fantastic Nightcrawler), and the cast was incredible. Who could say no to Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo AND Toni Collette? Not me. Unfortunately, this wonderful mix didn’t live up to my expectations at all and left me feeling very disappointed.
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
There was some genuine surprise when I saw this had been made as an Amazon Original. I thought the character of Borat was old news, there certainly couldn’t be anyone left, in America or otherwise, that wasn’t wise to the joke by now, and aware of Sasha Baron Cohen’s desire to satirise the hell out of everything dumb folk may stand for. For it to work people have to believe 100% that he is a real person, this is what made the first film so incredible to watch – the opened mouthed awe at the pure audacity of the performer and the pure stupidity of the “victims”. But, I guess he figured a way around it, and also realised that no one but Borat could better lampoon the very worst aspects of the America the Trump era has created.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Los Angeles of 2028 is a riot laden area where Martial Law is the norm and brutality is a way of life. Amidst this setting, the Hotel Artemis is open for business.. The Artemis is not your typical hotel as it provides emergency medical services to members who engage in criminal activities.
The Nurse (Jodie Foster) runs the facility and with the help of her massive Orderly Everest (Dave Bautista), they ensure that only members get admitted and follow the rules as well as receive state of the art care while in the facility.
Guests at the facility are giving names based on the suite in which they are assigned which involve geographical locales and there are a very strict set of rules they must follow such as no guns, bombs, killing other guests, and so on.
The Hotel Artemis is not a simple stitch and bandage facility as they offer advanced medical services such as Nanites, replacement organ printing, robotic A.I. medical treatment and other services which in 2018 seem like Science Fiction.
Enter Waikiki (Sterling K. Brown), who has tried to leave his criminal past behind him yet was savvy enough to keep paying his membership fees at the Artemis all the while. He and his brother have been injured in a heist and with the city under a deadly riot, they make their way to the Artemis to get treatment and hide out from the chaos outside.
Thanks to their services, the hotel is rarely empty and an Arms Dealer named Acapulco (Charlie Day), and an assassin named Nice (Sofia Boutella), are also in residence. The fact that Nice and Waikiki have a past association makes things a bit interesting as guests are always mindful of those around them even though the strict rules of membership exist to ward off any threats or danger to the guests or staff.
Complications arise when the near capacity hotel is informed that the Wolf King of L.A. (Jeff Goldblum) is en- route. The Nurse opts to follow the rules of first come first served and in doing so enrages his son (Zachary Quinto), who decided to barricade the Hotel to make sure nobody gets in before his father, who incidentally owns the facility.
As if this was not enough of a complication, a police officer from troubled past of The Nurse arrives begging for help which sets a very dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is a very fresh and entertaining story filled with interesting characters, strong performances, and just enough action to keep the film moving along but yet keeping the focus as a character based drama.
First time Director Drew Pearce gets the most of his cast and has used his script to create a very entertaining and unique film that is well worth a watch. It is so nice to see Jodie Foster showing us once again that she is one of the most gifted actresses of our time as the two-time Oscar winner goes all in to portray a very damaged and troubled character who for what she lacks in glamour; more than makes up for with a determined strength.
I hope this film is a success as I would love to see more stories from the Hotel as I really enjoyed the film from start to finish.
http://sknr.net/2018/06/07/hotel-artemis/
The Nurse (Jodie Foster) runs the facility and with the help of her massive Orderly Everest (Dave Bautista), they ensure that only members get admitted and follow the rules as well as receive state of the art care while in the facility.
Guests at the facility are giving names based on the suite in which they are assigned which involve geographical locales and there are a very strict set of rules they must follow such as no guns, bombs, killing other guests, and so on.
The Hotel Artemis is not a simple stitch and bandage facility as they offer advanced medical services such as Nanites, replacement organ printing, robotic A.I. medical treatment and other services which in 2018 seem like Science Fiction.
Enter Waikiki (Sterling K. Brown), who has tried to leave his criminal past behind him yet was savvy enough to keep paying his membership fees at the Artemis all the while. He and his brother have been injured in a heist and with the city under a deadly riot, they make their way to the Artemis to get treatment and hide out from the chaos outside.
Thanks to their services, the hotel is rarely empty and an Arms Dealer named Acapulco (Charlie Day), and an assassin named Nice (Sofia Boutella), are also in residence. The fact that Nice and Waikiki have a past association makes things a bit interesting as guests are always mindful of those around them even though the strict rules of membership exist to ward off any threats or danger to the guests or staff.
Complications arise when the near capacity hotel is informed that the Wolf King of L.A. (Jeff Goldblum) is en- route. The Nurse opts to follow the rules of first come first served and in doing so enrages his son (Zachary Quinto), who decided to barricade the Hotel to make sure nobody gets in before his father, who incidentally owns the facility.
As if this was not enough of a complication, a police officer from troubled past of The Nurse arrives begging for help which sets a very dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is a very fresh and entertaining story filled with interesting characters, strong performances, and just enough action to keep the film moving along but yet keeping the focus as a character based drama.
First time Director Drew Pearce gets the most of his cast and has used his script to create a very entertaining and unique film that is well worth a watch. It is so nice to see Jodie Foster showing us once again that she is one of the most gifted actresses of our time as the two-time Oscar winner goes all in to portray a very damaged and troubled character who for what she lacks in glamour; more than makes up for with a determined strength.
I hope this film is a success as I would love to see more stories from the Hotel as I really enjoyed the film from start to finish.
http://sknr.net/2018/06/07/hotel-artemis/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 19, 2019
Verdict: Visual Spectacular
Story: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker starts as the resistance led by General Leia (Fisher) has been regrouping with Finn (Boyega), Poe (Isaac) and C-3PO on their own mission, Rey continuing her training and Kylo Ren (Driver) is continuing his desire for power by going in search for Emperor Palpatine who has been waiting for his chance to return to power.
As the truth about Rey’s past comes to light, the destiny of the characters will come through in the epic battle that will be all or nothing for the galaxy’s future.
Thoughts on Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Characters – Rey is continuing her training in the art of a Jedi, she is still learning her place in the force, she starts to suffer visions which will fill in moments from her past, including glimpse of what happened to her parents. She is still communicating with Kylo, she will finally get to learn the truth and take her place in the history of the galaxy. Kylo Ren is searching for complete power, a force which will see him take to victory, he makes the deal and now he will look to gain all the control of the galaxy once and for all. Finn continues to learn more about the other victims in the galaxy, learning how he could lead them in the future, while Poe is still learning his place in the war, with his past being used to unlock clues along the way.
Performances – We have had the four newer members of the Star Wars universe taking the centre stage this time, nobody does anything wrong, they give the safe performances without doing anything overly outstanding like we saw in the final chapter of a long awaited saga.
Story – The story here follows the latest attempts for the resistance looking to put an end to the first order, only to learn of a bigger threat to the whole galaxy. The story here is the third part of the latest saga, after many people didn’t like the Last Jedi’s choices, the seem to spend most of the film trying to erase most of what wasn’t liked, we have twists that just seem completely out of nowhere in a bad way, rather than ones that are placed together well. While there are weaknesses here, we could well have some nice developments between Rey and Kylo, which is the highlight of the story, otherwise it just ends up being the same as most Star Wars, feeling very safe, with the ideas that we get plenty of bait related moments, which seem like they want to have a big impact, only they didn’t let the impact last long enough.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in the film is big, it will entertain even if it does feel like more of what we have seen before. We know this franchise is the backbone of the sci-fi genre and like nothing before and this never lets us down.
Settings – The film uses the different planets to give us difference environments which is all nice, we have seen it a lot before, but it works for the film.
Special Effects – The effects in the film do come off looking almost flawless, like always.
Scene of the Movie – Rey vs Kylo on water.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spy
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining movie that might have flaws in the story, it will complete the saga well.
Overall: Safe conclusion.
Story: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker starts as the resistance led by General Leia (Fisher) has been regrouping with Finn (Boyega), Poe (Isaac) and C-3PO on their own mission, Rey continuing her training and Kylo Ren (Driver) is continuing his desire for power by going in search for Emperor Palpatine who has been waiting for his chance to return to power.
As the truth about Rey’s past comes to light, the destiny of the characters will come through in the epic battle that will be all or nothing for the galaxy’s future.
Thoughts on Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Characters – Rey is continuing her training in the art of a Jedi, she is still learning her place in the force, she starts to suffer visions which will fill in moments from her past, including glimpse of what happened to her parents. She is still communicating with Kylo, she will finally get to learn the truth and take her place in the history of the galaxy. Kylo Ren is searching for complete power, a force which will see him take to victory, he makes the deal and now he will look to gain all the control of the galaxy once and for all. Finn continues to learn more about the other victims in the galaxy, learning how he could lead them in the future, while Poe is still learning his place in the war, with his past being used to unlock clues along the way.
Performances – We have had the four newer members of the Star Wars universe taking the centre stage this time, nobody does anything wrong, they give the safe performances without doing anything overly outstanding like we saw in the final chapter of a long awaited saga.
Story – The story here follows the latest attempts for the resistance looking to put an end to the first order, only to learn of a bigger threat to the whole galaxy. The story here is the third part of the latest saga, after many people didn’t like the Last Jedi’s choices, the seem to spend most of the film trying to erase most of what wasn’t liked, we have twists that just seem completely out of nowhere in a bad way, rather than ones that are placed together well. While there are weaknesses here, we could well have some nice developments between Rey and Kylo, which is the highlight of the story, otherwise it just ends up being the same as most Star Wars, feeling very safe, with the ideas that we get plenty of bait related moments, which seem like they want to have a big impact, only they didn’t let the impact last long enough.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in the film is big, it will entertain even if it does feel like more of what we have seen before. We know this franchise is the backbone of the sci-fi genre and like nothing before and this never lets us down.
Settings – The film uses the different planets to give us difference environments which is all nice, we have seen it a lot before, but it works for the film.
Special Effects – The effects in the film do come off looking almost flawless, like always.
Scene of the Movie – Rey vs Kylo on water.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spy
Final Thoughts – This is an entertaining movie that might have flaws in the story, it will complete the saga well.
Overall: Safe conclusion.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Pretentious. Is a word that sends shivers down my spine much more than any pseudo horror movie. It conveys the idea that the creator of a work is out of control, resorting to shock value over intelligent content. If the creator meant it all, then it is not pretentious, only dangerous.
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
Enlight Photofox
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
9.0
Rate It
App
You’ll never believe what you can create on iPhone with Enlight Photofox. Whether you’re an...