Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated A United Kingdom (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Untied Kingdom starts in 1947 England where Prince Seretse Khama (Oyelowo) of Bechuanaland (known today as Botswana) is in England studying law, he meets file clerk Ruth Williams (Pike) and the two fall in love.
With tension between Bechuanaland and South Africa high the idea of the soon to be King marrying a white woman would be unheard off. The British government doesn’t want him to become king and Seretse own family don’t want him to become king if he stays with Ruth. With the racial divide still going strong, Seretse pushed for equality over anything else, so he can unite his kingdom when he becomes king.
Thoughts on A United Kingdom
Characters – Seretse Khama is the prince of Bechuanaland he has been studying law in England to prepare for his time as king, he falls in love a white woman in Ruth Williams which throws tensions from his family, government in the air and to prove his love is more important than his traditions and bring the equality between the races together. Ruth Williams is an English clerk whose family has been working to teach Christianity to Africans, she meets and falls in love with Seretse and goes against everyone else’s desires and marries him. Rufus Lancaster is the British liaison in Bechuanaland who leads the opposition from the land, which only shows us just how the English were over controlling.
Performances – David Oyelowo is wonderful in the leading role, showing us once again that he can lead any movie he wants too. Rosamund Pike shines to showing everyone that she can handle to calm roles after the psycho ones in Gone Girl. The rest of the cast are wonderful even if the British characters are as stuck up as you would imagine them to be.
Story – The story follows the lives of King Seretse who marries an English white woman which puts the balance between the racial tension in his home land and British rule. We learn a lot from this movie, because we see how the country was being controlled from outside forces that only saw them as a piece of land. There is a lot to take in and the history lesson about this union that created a chance in the land.
Biopic/Romance – What King Seretse and his wife Ruth achieved for Botswana was incredible and this shows us how their love drove them to achieve this change.
Settings – The settings show us the high society British look at an African country that was following its own traditions to become the independent from this style of rule.
Scene of the Movie – Speech to the ‘tribe’ as the British called them.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Knowing the English were this shallow.
Final Thoughts – This is a good look at how the world was once ruled by people who believe they are in the right to control countries affairs and how their union would change everything.
Overall: History is always worth learning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/05/21/abc-film-challenge-biopics-u-a-united-kingdom-2016/
With tension between Bechuanaland and South Africa high the idea of the soon to be King marrying a white woman would be unheard off. The British government doesn’t want him to become king and Seretse own family don’t want him to become king if he stays with Ruth. With the racial divide still going strong, Seretse pushed for equality over anything else, so he can unite his kingdom when he becomes king.
Thoughts on A United Kingdom
Characters – Seretse Khama is the prince of Bechuanaland he has been studying law in England to prepare for his time as king, he falls in love a white woman in Ruth Williams which throws tensions from his family, government in the air and to prove his love is more important than his traditions and bring the equality between the races together. Ruth Williams is an English clerk whose family has been working to teach Christianity to Africans, she meets and falls in love with Seretse and goes against everyone else’s desires and marries him. Rufus Lancaster is the British liaison in Bechuanaland who leads the opposition from the land, which only shows us just how the English were over controlling.
Performances – David Oyelowo is wonderful in the leading role, showing us once again that he can lead any movie he wants too. Rosamund Pike shines to showing everyone that she can handle to calm roles after the psycho ones in Gone Girl. The rest of the cast are wonderful even if the British characters are as stuck up as you would imagine them to be.
Story – The story follows the lives of King Seretse who marries an English white woman which puts the balance between the racial tension in his home land and British rule. We learn a lot from this movie, because we see how the country was being controlled from outside forces that only saw them as a piece of land. There is a lot to take in and the history lesson about this union that created a chance in the land.
Biopic/Romance – What King Seretse and his wife Ruth achieved for Botswana was incredible and this shows us how their love drove them to achieve this change.
Settings – The settings show us the high society British look at an African country that was following its own traditions to become the independent from this style of rule.
Scene of the Movie – Speech to the ‘tribe’ as the British called them.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Knowing the English were this shallow.
Final Thoughts – This is a good look at how the world was once ruled by people who believe they are in the right to control countries affairs and how their union would change everything.
Overall: History is always worth learning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/05/21/abc-film-challenge-biopics-u-a-united-kingdom-2016/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Jarhead (2005) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Jarhead starts as we meet Anthony Swofford (Gyllenhaal) who joined the marines, it isn’t long before he gets taken by Staff Sgt Sykes (Foxx) to the US Marine Sniper division going through the training regime meeting his spotter Alan Troy (Sarsgaard).
When war breaks out the marines are set to the middle east, where they must adapt to the desert condition before going into to conflict, this will test their psychical shape and their mental health as the waiting is just part of the sniper’s game.
Thoughts on Jarhead
Characters – Anthony Swofford who wrote the book the film is based on, we see how he joined the military out of college and struggled at first through the training regime. Anthony soon discovered he was ready for this life as a sniper, but his time in the gulf sees him start to lose his mind. Alan Troy becomes the best friend of Anthony’s and his spotter, he seems to be the most level-headed marine in the unit. Staff Sgt Sykes is the one running the sniper unit, he demands respect and isn’t afraid to put the marines in their place.
Performances – Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic in the leading role, he shows everyone how he can play the calm soldier, the crazed soldier and the broken man through the scenes of the film which only increase what he is dealing with. Peter Sarsgaard give us a brilliant supporting performance which shows how the fear can be kept inside a calm outer layer. Jamie Foxx brings us the energy of a career military man.
Story – The story follows the experiences of one soldier that joins the marines before being put in the sniper division when war breaks out, he must adapt to life in the desert during the waiting game before the conflict. This story does show us just how difficult adapting to war can be for the soldiers and just how the war can be fought without needing to fire a weapon. It shows us just how the mindset can change over a set amount of time which will see the soldiers make decisions they wouldn’t normally consider making. This does focus on the idea that the main soldier Anthony never truly feels like he was part of the war followed by the effects of returning back from war can have on the soldiers who have returned.
Biopic/War – This film follows Anthony’s experience with war, it shows how war isn’t everything he was planning and how his mindset wasn’t in the right place for parts of his experience. The war side of the film shows us just how different war has become over the years, where the ground soldiers are not as required as once before.
Settings – The film has some wonderful uses of settings with the march sequence showing us just how open the area in question will be for the soldiers.
Scene of the Movie – Returning home.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Slow start.
Final Thoughts – This is a fascinating look at the modern war effort, how the biggest problem is now waiting for the war to begin rather than the fighting.
Overall: Modern war time.
When war breaks out the marines are set to the middle east, where they must adapt to the desert condition before going into to conflict, this will test their psychical shape and their mental health as the waiting is just part of the sniper’s game.
Thoughts on Jarhead
Characters – Anthony Swofford who wrote the book the film is based on, we see how he joined the military out of college and struggled at first through the training regime. Anthony soon discovered he was ready for this life as a sniper, but his time in the gulf sees him start to lose his mind. Alan Troy becomes the best friend of Anthony’s and his spotter, he seems to be the most level-headed marine in the unit. Staff Sgt Sykes is the one running the sniper unit, he demands respect and isn’t afraid to put the marines in their place.
Performances – Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic in the leading role, he shows everyone how he can play the calm soldier, the crazed soldier and the broken man through the scenes of the film which only increase what he is dealing with. Peter Sarsgaard give us a brilliant supporting performance which shows how the fear can be kept inside a calm outer layer. Jamie Foxx brings us the energy of a career military man.
Story – The story follows the experiences of one soldier that joins the marines before being put in the sniper division when war breaks out, he must adapt to life in the desert during the waiting game before the conflict. This story does show us just how difficult adapting to war can be for the soldiers and just how the war can be fought without needing to fire a weapon. It shows us just how the mindset can change over a set amount of time which will see the soldiers make decisions they wouldn’t normally consider making. This does focus on the idea that the main soldier Anthony never truly feels like he was part of the war followed by the effects of returning back from war can have on the soldiers who have returned.
Biopic/War – This film follows Anthony’s experience with war, it shows how war isn’t everything he was planning and how his mindset wasn’t in the right place for parts of his experience. The war side of the film shows us just how different war has become over the years, where the ground soldiers are not as required as once before.
Settings – The film has some wonderful uses of settings with the march sequence showing us just how open the area in question will be for the soldiers.
Scene of the Movie – Returning home.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Slow start.
Final Thoughts – This is a fascinating look at the modern war effort, how the biggest problem is now waiting for the war to begin rather than the fighting.
Overall: Modern war time.
156Reviews (7 KP) rated True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
One of the main things that divides opinion on Ned Kelly is was he on the side of good or bad? Some see him as a kind of freedom fighter, standing up to the British, who at the time that looked to suppress and demean the Australian people. Some see him as a criminal, who murdered innocent people for reasons known only to him. Both of these opinions may be true, neither of them might be, but it's one hell of a gamble to base a film on someone that divides opinion that much.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) in Movies
Oct 7, 2020
And you thought Tenet's timey wimey stuff was confusing?
Thirty-One years after the first Bill and Ted movie, and 29 years after the slightly disappointing sequel, the dudes are back for a three-quel. Older... but not much wiser.
Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are the only ones that can save reality. If they don't play the 'song that will unite humanity' at 7:17 at MP42 then the whole of time and space will unravel. It's already happening, with historical characters zapping here and there at random. There are only two problems: 1) they have no idea where MP42 is and; 2) the no-hoper wedding singers haven't written the song... yet.
Zipping forwards in time, they plan to steal the song from their future selves.
Meanwhile their daughters Thea (Samara Weaving) and Kelly (Kristen Schaal) travel backwards in time to assemble a world-class backing band. (As an aside, it is astonishing how much Weaving looks like Margot Robbie - never a bad thing in my book! If there is ever a biopic requiring a young and old version of her character, they will save a BOMB on the CGI bill!)
Meanwhile (meanwhile) Bill and Ted's princess brides (now Erinn Hayes as Elizabeth and Jayma Mays as Joanna) are unsettled with their marriages and are jumping from time to time to see if they can be happy with any version of Bill and Ted.
Death (William Sadler) quotes a Wyld Stallyns review as "A raging confused mess". And it really applies to this too! The screenplay, by original Bill and Ted writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon, is all over the place. With a scattergun approach to the comedy, some of the lines firmly stick to the wall - making me guffaw with laughter - and others are just plain duds.
Some of the scenes - a "couples therapy" session for example - seem to be desperately trying to be milked for all they're worth. Even the "monkey" after the end titles - with "old dudes" rocking out - isn't worth the wait.
But, contrary to that, it's also difficult not to be swept along with the anarchic joy of the concoction. The movie of course leans heavily on the nostalgic catchphrases and air guitar riffs of years gone by. But there's no shame in that. And there's a star quality cameo at one point that entertains.
Director Dean Parisot - most famous for the minor classic "Galaxy Quest" - manages to rustle all this diverse material into something that overall still manages to leave an overall stupid grin on your face. As a comedy it passes the '6-laugh' test, but - as someone who has never been a great "Bill and Ted" fan - it's not a classic. But I can see how "Bill and Ted" fans, like my daughter Jenn, would have loved it (and she did).
(For the graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies on t'internet here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/06/bill-and-ted-party-on-til-we-drop-dudes/ . Thx.)
Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are the only ones that can save reality. If they don't play the 'song that will unite humanity' at 7:17 at MP42 then the whole of time and space will unravel. It's already happening, with historical characters zapping here and there at random. There are only two problems: 1) they have no idea where MP42 is and; 2) the no-hoper wedding singers haven't written the song... yet.
Zipping forwards in time, they plan to steal the song from their future selves.
Meanwhile their daughters Thea (Samara Weaving) and Kelly (Kristen Schaal) travel backwards in time to assemble a world-class backing band. (As an aside, it is astonishing how much Weaving looks like Margot Robbie - never a bad thing in my book! If there is ever a biopic requiring a young and old version of her character, they will save a BOMB on the CGI bill!)
Meanwhile (meanwhile) Bill and Ted's princess brides (now Erinn Hayes as Elizabeth and Jayma Mays as Joanna) are unsettled with their marriages and are jumping from time to time to see if they can be happy with any version of Bill and Ted.
Death (William Sadler) quotes a Wyld Stallyns review as "A raging confused mess". And it really applies to this too! The screenplay, by original Bill and Ted writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon, is all over the place. With a scattergun approach to the comedy, some of the lines firmly stick to the wall - making me guffaw with laughter - and others are just plain duds.
Some of the scenes - a "couples therapy" session for example - seem to be desperately trying to be milked for all they're worth. Even the "monkey" after the end titles - with "old dudes" rocking out - isn't worth the wait.
But, contrary to that, it's also difficult not to be swept along with the anarchic joy of the concoction. The movie of course leans heavily on the nostalgic catchphrases and air guitar riffs of years gone by. But there's no shame in that. And there's a star quality cameo at one point that entertains.
Director Dean Parisot - most famous for the minor classic "Galaxy Quest" - manages to rustle all this diverse material into something that overall still manages to leave an overall stupid grin on your face. As a comedy it passes the '6-laugh' test, but - as someone who has never been a great "Bill and Ted" fan - it's not a classic. But I can see how "Bill and Ted" fans, like my daughter Jenn, would have loved it (and she did).
(For the graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies on t'internet here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/06/bill-and-ted-party-on-til-we-drop-dudes/ . Thx.)
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Dangerous Method (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Dangerous Method starts as Sabine Spielrein (Knightley) is to an asylum where she is treated by Carl Jung (Fassbender) for her irrational reaction to any stimulation. In the search for answers Carl turns to Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) who has been an expert in the sexual disorders people are meant to have.
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Once Carl gets to the bottom of Sabine’s case he finds himself learn from one of his patients Otto Gross (Cassel) who teaches him to he should be more sexually adventurous and his former patient Sabine is also now ready to embrace her issues. With all this going on Carl learns more from Freud about expressing his sexual side.
A Dangerous Method tries to tell the story of three famous scientific minds, sadly this only seems to show the difference they had through a difficult time in history. I found myself wondering what we were learning about as a lot of the dialogue feels very cloggy throughout. This really disappoints as a film which should be a lot more interesting.
Actor Review
Keira Knightley: Sabina is considered an ill young woman who is struggling with a fantasist that Carl Jung is treating, when he discovers the problem she becomes his mistress and moving towards living a normal life. She uses her newly discovered knowledge to get her way. Keira is solid in this role but never convinces.sabina
Viggo Mortensen: Sigmund Freud is the famous doctor that Carl Jung turns to for advice with dealing with his latest patient Sabina. He gives father like advice to Carl which becomes the opposite to what Carl thinks. Viggo makes for a good Freud but I do feel something was missing in his performance.frued
Michael Fassbender: Carl Jung is the doctor who is treating Sabina, he ends up going through Sigmund Freud to learn about what the problems are where to two become friends but also against each other’s opinions. He also gets involved with Sabina as he has his eyes opened sexually. Michael is good in the leading role but like the rest I feel is missing something.car
Vincent Cassel: Otto Gross is a patient that opens the eyes of Carl, he is seductive with how he speaks, after talking to Carl we see a different side of him. Vincent gives us a solid supporting performance I wish we could have seen more from.
Support Cast: A Dangerous Method doesn’t really have the biggest supporting cast and the ones we do meet sometimes feel almost pointless.
Director Review: David Cronenberg – David is a director we all have high expectations of but this really was a let-down.
Biographical: A Dangerous Method only teaches us the very basic about three very famous scientific minds.
Settings: A Dangerous Method re-creates the settings for this time period all looking very good.
Suggestion: A Dangerous Method is one to miss really, it doesn’t come off with the highest interest levels. (Miss It)
Best Part: Settings look great.
Worst Part: We don’t learn enough about the characters.
Believability: Based on the real people.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them.
Overall: Dull biopic really.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/03/michael-fassbender-weekend-a-dangerous-method-2011/
Darren (1599 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: All the Money in the World starts when John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer) get kidnapped in Rome, the ransom is $17 Million, the only person that can help her mother Gail Harris (Williams) get the money is the estranged billionaire grandfather J Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer) who isn’t willing to pay a single dollar to get his favourite grandson back.
Fletcher Chase (Wahlberg) is recruited to negotiate a deal with the kidnappers, but Getty isn’t willing to spare a dollar to get him back as the situation starts to get out of hand as time starts to run out on getting John Paul Getty III back alive.
REPORT THIS AD
Thoughts on All the Money in the World
Characters – Gail Harris is the mother of John Paul Getty III, she has given up her fortune she could have had from her divorce to keep her son, she must go back to her old father in law to get the money, even after she doesn’t get the money she leads the campaign to save her son. J Paul Getty is the richest man in the world, he has made the money by taking whatever he wants and will never give up money for anything that doesn’t increase his value. Businessman at heart he will only do a deal for his own good. Fletcher Chase is the deal maker, he has been able to negotiate deals for Getty for years and now he is assigned to help retrieve the grandson.
Performances – Michelle Williams is the true star of this movie, she shines in every scene she is in, showing the strength on front of the cameras and the weakness behind them. Christopher Plummer is great in his role which was one that we get to see him take very late in the process. Mark Wahlberg is surprisingly good in his role, taking a supporting position he handles everything without becoming over the top like you would imagine him doing.
Story – The story here follows the kidnapping of the grandchild of the richest man in the world and follows whether he is willing to spend his fortune to get him back alive. We have the concerned mother that will do anything to get him back, even go against the father-in-law. While the story does come off slow at times as we do go through the same process too often, but it does show how greed can drive people to make terrible decisions.
Biopic/Crime/Mystery – This is meant to be about a real person, not sure how real the story is truly about, this could be considered one of the biggest kidnapping cases of all time if is real though.
Settings – The film does use the backdrops wonderfully through the film to make us feel like we are part of the scenes we are watching through, the beauty stands out here.
Scene of the Movie – Williams performance is something to sit and enjoy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel long.
Final Thoughts – This is a good crime thriller, it shows us just how far people will go for money and how far people will go to keep it.
Overall: Long strong movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/04/23/all-the-money-in-the-world-2017/
Fletcher Chase (Wahlberg) is recruited to negotiate a deal with the kidnappers, but Getty isn’t willing to spare a dollar to get him back as the situation starts to get out of hand as time starts to run out on getting John Paul Getty III back alive.
REPORT THIS AD
Thoughts on All the Money in the World
Characters – Gail Harris is the mother of John Paul Getty III, she has given up her fortune she could have had from her divorce to keep her son, she must go back to her old father in law to get the money, even after she doesn’t get the money she leads the campaign to save her son. J Paul Getty is the richest man in the world, he has made the money by taking whatever he wants and will never give up money for anything that doesn’t increase his value. Businessman at heart he will only do a deal for his own good. Fletcher Chase is the deal maker, he has been able to negotiate deals for Getty for years and now he is assigned to help retrieve the grandson.
Performances – Michelle Williams is the true star of this movie, she shines in every scene she is in, showing the strength on front of the cameras and the weakness behind them. Christopher Plummer is great in his role which was one that we get to see him take very late in the process. Mark Wahlberg is surprisingly good in his role, taking a supporting position he handles everything without becoming over the top like you would imagine him doing.
Story – The story here follows the kidnapping of the grandchild of the richest man in the world and follows whether he is willing to spend his fortune to get him back alive. We have the concerned mother that will do anything to get him back, even go against the father-in-law. While the story does come off slow at times as we do go through the same process too often, but it does show how greed can drive people to make terrible decisions.
Biopic/Crime/Mystery – This is meant to be about a real person, not sure how real the story is truly about, this could be considered one of the biggest kidnapping cases of all time if is real though.
Settings – The film does use the backdrops wonderfully through the film to make us feel like we are part of the scenes we are watching through, the beauty stands out here.
Scene of the Movie – Williams performance is something to sit and enjoy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel long.
Final Thoughts – This is a good crime thriller, it shows us just how far people will go for money and how far people will go to keep it.
Overall: Long strong movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/04/23/all-the-money-in-the-world-2017/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tolkien (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Tolkien shows us a snapshot of the author's younger years from orphan to student, from soldier to scholar. I don't know much about his history but I'm familiar with the estate and I was surprised that this went through without their blessing. Not knowing the background I can't say how much is true and how much is artistic license, and sadly in this instance, I'm really not too bothered about finding out. Other biopics have left me with a desire to find out more about the subject matter but this left me rather indifferent about it.
It's not a wildly exciting life story that's captured in the film, what I found more compelling was the way that the creative process was depicted. The way they used visuals to connect everything in his life to his stories was beautifully done. The war scenes are stunning in their simplicity, seeing the colours against the stark backgrounds was incredible and I love how they managed to weave his visions into them. The mist effect was particularly well done.
I love the idea that Tolkien saw all these ideas in what most people would dismiss as life or a trick of the light. At the beginning of the film we see his mother telling the brother a story with the use of a zoetrope. (I'm not sure it's technically a zoetrope, do let me know what it is if I'm wrong.) The way they managed to create the feeling of life in those projections was mesmerising.
I'm quite aware that I haven't mentioned a single member of the cast yet. To be honest, I think I was so engrossed in the visuals that the rest of it was just kind of... there.
I found it difficult to keep track of who was who in his fellowship. I couldn't have told you their names or their individual niches. In fact, near the end I realised I'd got one of their names wrong the entire way through my notes.
Nicholas Hoult isn't an actor I'm particularly excited for in films, he is a consistent performer but I don't think I've seen anything that's wowed me. As Tolkien thought he did bring some surprisingly emotional elements... I definitely hadn't expected to cry at this screening. If I'd have been Edith in the moment where she asks him to tell her a story I'd have fallen in love with him on the spot, it had me leaning in intrigued to see him working everything out.
Visually, the movie is stunning and the feeling it creates is perfect, but everything else in the film felt very non-descript, and a lot of it seemed like it just had a place to make you link it to his writings. Tolkien is more of a nostalgic trip down memory lane than a biopic.
What you should do
The visuals on the big screen were amazing, but I don't think there's enough going on in the rest of the film to warrant a trip to the cinema for it. Try and catch it when it's available on home release though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to create a wall of ideas without getting annoyed that nothing was lined up straight.
It's not a wildly exciting life story that's captured in the film, what I found more compelling was the way that the creative process was depicted. The way they used visuals to connect everything in his life to his stories was beautifully done. The war scenes are stunning in their simplicity, seeing the colours against the stark backgrounds was incredible and I love how they managed to weave his visions into them. The mist effect was particularly well done.
I love the idea that Tolkien saw all these ideas in what most people would dismiss as life or a trick of the light. At the beginning of the film we see his mother telling the brother a story with the use of a zoetrope. (I'm not sure it's technically a zoetrope, do let me know what it is if I'm wrong.) The way they managed to create the feeling of life in those projections was mesmerising.
I'm quite aware that I haven't mentioned a single member of the cast yet. To be honest, I think I was so engrossed in the visuals that the rest of it was just kind of... there.
I found it difficult to keep track of who was who in his fellowship. I couldn't have told you their names or their individual niches. In fact, near the end I realised I'd got one of their names wrong the entire way through my notes.
Nicholas Hoult isn't an actor I'm particularly excited for in films, he is a consistent performer but I don't think I've seen anything that's wowed me. As Tolkien thought he did bring some surprisingly emotional elements... I definitely hadn't expected to cry at this screening. If I'd have been Edith in the moment where she asks him to tell her a story I'd have fallen in love with him on the spot, it had me leaning in intrigued to see him working everything out.
Visually, the movie is stunning and the feeling it creates is perfect, but everything else in the film felt very non-descript, and a lot of it seemed like it just had a place to make you link it to his writings. Tolkien is more of a nostalgic trip down memory lane than a biopic.
What you should do
The visuals on the big screen were amazing, but I don't think there's enough going on in the rest of the film to warrant a trip to the cinema for it. Try and catch it when it's available on home release though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to create a wall of ideas without getting annoyed that nothing was lined up straight.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated On the Basis of Sex (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
In the year 2018, it’s easy to forget how much the times have changed over the last century. We now carry computers around in our pockets, have the internet to conduct worldwide business in a matter of seconds and cars that run on electricity. Considering all of these amazing technological advancements you would think something as simple and no-brainer as equal rights must have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, right? Well, the new movie On the Basis of Sex humbly reminded me that the equal rights movement was not too much longer ago than the invention of the internet and it was just the type of reminder I needed to once again appreciate just how far we have come.
On the Basis of Sex is a biopic detailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s (Felicity Jones) rise from one of the first women “invited” to attend Harvard Law School to becoming the 2nd woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first part of the movie aptly chronicles Mrs. Ginsburg’s experience as a woman at Harvard Law School and then getting her first job as a professor at Rutgers Law School in 1963. Considering she graduated at the top of her class being a professor was not her dream job, but law firms were not looking to hire female lawyers, so she made the best of it. This all leads up to the main focus of the film which is Mrs. Ginsburg representing a Colorado man who has been denied caretaker tax benefits because the tax code specifically applied to women. The movie shows both her struggles and triumphs with the case and why equal rights were so important to her. Although the movie focused on this one case, it was crystal clear that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and this was just one of many cases she would take on to ensure greater equality for woman.
Felicity Jones does an incredible job portraying Mrs. Ginsburg. She brings a swagger to the character and used an authentic sounding Brooklyn accent to boot. Armie Hammer also does a great job playing the ever supportive and unshakable husband Marty Ginsburg. They had great chemistry on screen and did an excellent job showing just how supportive they were to one another. Even though their relationship was not the focus of the film, it was very touching and added a little extra heart to the story. Speaking of the story, it was both engaging and thought provoking, so much so that its effects are still there even after leaving the theater. I enjoyed how the story unfolded and the fact that it never got to preachy or political. As biopics go, there were a few spots that seemed to drag on a bit, but generally the pace never lingered in one spot for too long and it kept my interest the whole time.
On the Basis of Sex was a very good movie and a welcome addition to this year’s holiday movie offerings. If you are looking for something different after a couple of hours with web slinging spider-folk and yellow cars that turn into giant robots then this would be a great movie to check out. With excellent acting, a great inspirational story and even a little bit of heart, I really couldn’t ask for anything more.
On the Basis of Sex is a biopic detailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s (Felicity Jones) rise from one of the first women “invited” to attend Harvard Law School to becoming the 2nd woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first part of the movie aptly chronicles Mrs. Ginsburg’s experience as a woman at Harvard Law School and then getting her first job as a professor at Rutgers Law School in 1963. Considering she graduated at the top of her class being a professor was not her dream job, but law firms were not looking to hire female lawyers, so she made the best of it. This all leads up to the main focus of the film which is Mrs. Ginsburg representing a Colorado man who has been denied caretaker tax benefits because the tax code specifically applied to women. The movie shows both her struggles and triumphs with the case and why equal rights were so important to her. Although the movie focused on this one case, it was crystal clear that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and this was just one of many cases she would take on to ensure greater equality for woman.
Felicity Jones does an incredible job portraying Mrs. Ginsburg. She brings a swagger to the character and used an authentic sounding Brooklyn accent to boot. Armie Hammer also does a great job playing the ever supportive and unshakable husband Marty Ginsburg. They had great chemistry on screen and did an excellent job showing just how supportive they were to one another. Even though their relationship was not the focus of the film, it was very touching and added a little extra heart to the story. Speaking of the story, it was both engaging and thought provoking, so much so that its effects are still there even after leaving the theater. I enjoyed how the story unfolded and the fact that it never got to preachy or political. As biopics go, there were a few spots that seemed to drag on a bit, but generally the pace never lingered in one spot for too long and it kept my interest the whole time.
On the Basis of Sex was a very good movie and a welcome addition to this year’s holiday movie offerings. If you are looking for something different after a couple of hours with web slinging spider-folk and yellow cars that turn into giant robots then this would be a great movie to check out. With excellent acting, a great inspirational story and even a little bit of heart, I really couldn’t ask for anything more.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Just Another Gangster Movie
Story: The Irishman starts with Frank Sheeran (De Niro) recounting his time working under Russell Bufalino (Pesci) starting as a meat delivery man, a chance encounter with Russell brings them together. Russell was the guy that if anybody wanted something done, he would give the green light and expect it done.
Frank continued to rise working under the infamous Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino) who was in battle with the Kennedy’s who were trying to find a way to take down his unions, which does see Frank become the president of his own region.
Thoughts on The Irishman
Characters – Frank Sheeran is the narrator who is looking back through his life as he started as delivery driver before finding himself joining the mobs in the Italian neighbourhood, rising up the ranks from the bottom becoming one of the closest members of Jimmy Hoffa go to man, one of the most trusted hitmen in the mob. Jimmy Hoffa is the man that runs the unions, he has the attention of the Kennedy’s who have never trusted his business, he will always find a way to get his side of the story through without ever getting his hands dirty. He expects respect from everybody he deals with and will give it back, before he runs for office. Russell Bufalino is the one that gives Frank enter into the criminal world, a chance meeting opens the door and he will give the instructions Frank to follow. Peggy is the daughter of Frank that has grown up seeing his action become worse over the years.
Performances – The performances here are almost flawless, we get three of the greatest gangster movie performers in De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, you simply wouldn’t expect anything less from the three. The supporting cast is also wonderful, where once again the acting isn’t the weak part of the film.
Story – The story here follows Frank Sheeran’s rise from delivery man to hitman under one of the leaders of the mobs through the 60’s and 70’s America. Most of the story is Frank recounting his career in the mob, seeing how he often watched the biggest moments in the background, only getting his hands dirty when he needs to. We do need to talk about the length of the film because there is a huge problem here, we have so many scenes we don’t really need, we do also end up going through the routine that every single gangster movie does, which just makes it feel like something we have seen before. The timeline does fill in the random deaths with a headline on screen, even if that person is only in one scene.
Biopic/Crime – We do get to learn the life’s story of a notorious hitman through his own eyes, we see how he isn’t completely good, but he is loyal and always tries to do the right thing in the middle of the criminal world.
Settings – The settings takes us back to the eras we are going through, we have the glamourous locations for parties, the small street locations that show us where the dirty work gets done and a location which means everything to Frank, where it all started.
Scene of the Movie – The taxis.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is just too long.
Final Thoughts – This is a gangster film that gets heavyweight performances in a story that we have seen before that does seem to drag along for way too long.
Overall: Long Drawn Out Gangster Film.
Frank continued to rise working under the infamous Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino) who was in battle with the Kennedy’s who were trying to find a way to take down his unions, which does see Frank become the president of his own region.
Thoughts on The Irishman
Characters – Frank Sheeran is the narrator who is looking back through his life as he started as delivery driver before finding himself joining the mobs in the Italian neighbourhood, rising up the ranks from the bottom becoming one of the closest members of Jimmy Hoffa go to man, one of the most trusted hitmen in the mob. Jimmy Hoffa is the man that runs the unions, he has the attention of the Kennedy’s who have never trusted his business, he will always find a way to get his side of the story through without ever getting his hands dirty. He expects respect from everybody he deals with and will give it back, before he runs for office. Russell Bufalino is the one that gives Frank enter into the criminal world, a chance meeting opens the door and he will give the instructions Frank to follow. Peggy is the daughter of Frank that has grown up seeing his action become worse over the years.
Performances – The performances here are almost flawless, we get three of the greatest gangster movie performers in De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, you simply wouldn’t expect anything less from the three. The supporting cast is also wonderful, where once again the acting isn’t the weak part of the film.
Story – The story here follows Frank Sheeran’s rise from delivery man to hitman under one of the leaders of the mobs through the 60’s and 70’s America. Most of the story is Frank recounting his career in the mob, seeing how he often watched the biggest moments in the background, only getting his hands dirty when he needs to. We do need to talk about the length of the film because there is a huge problem here, we have so many scenes we don’t really need, we do also end up going through the routine that every single gangster movie does, which just makes it feel like something we have seen before. The timeline does fill in the random deaths with a headline on screen, even if that person is only in one scene.
Biopic/Crime – We do get to learn the life’s story of a notorious hitman through his own eyes, we see how he isn’t completely good, but he is loyal and always tries to do the right thing in the middle of the criminal world.
Settings – The settings takes us back to the eras we are going through, we have the glamourous locations for parties, the small street locations that show us where the dirty work gets done and a location which means everything to Frank, where it all started.
Scene of the Movie – The taxis.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is just too long.
Final Thoughts – This is a gangster film that gets heavyweight performances in a story that we have seen before that does seem to drag along for way too long.
Overall: Long Drawn Out Gangster Film.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Another King Fighting Film
Story: The King starts as the war between the English and the Scots continues to rage on, King Henry IV (Mendlesohn) is getting tired of the bloodshed and disloyalty being found in his own soldiers and with his health getting worse he recalls his son Hal (Chalamet) to his side.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.