Search
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 (965 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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 1914, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) traveled from his poverty-stricken existence in Madras, India to Trinity College, Cambridge in the hope that he would have his theories published and be recognized for the mathematical genius he was. While there, despite facing racism, hostility and severe illness, he formed an important relationship with G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) that would lead to breakthroughs in mathematics that are still relevant today.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Suffragette (2015) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: Suffragette starts in 1912, woman still don’t have the right to vote, but the battle for equality continues to wage on with Emmeline Pankhurst (Streep) pushes the campaign through. We follow Maud Watts (Mulligan) who finds herself witnessing one of the campaigns with Violet Miller (Duff) bringing her into their movement.
When the latest campaign gets rejected scenes get violent and Maud finds herself in the middle of the fight, facing time in jail, forced to give up campaigning for equal rights. Now the movement is stronger than ever will look to get the equality for women through.
Thoughts on Suffragette
Characters – Maud Watts is a quiet laundry employee, married with a child, she gets caught in the middle of one of the campaigns for equal rights, she ends up joining the movement as a foot soldier knowing what is right for women everywhere. Violet Miller is one of the foot soldiers that recruits Maud, she has been fight for a while now and knows that she wants the best for her daughter. Edith Ellyn offers a cover for the meetings to make things right for women, she has been campaigning for years next to the leader, Emmeline Pankhurst has been in hiding for years as she keeps the movement going strong to make sure women can get the right to vote. Inspector Arthur Steed is trying to stop the movement from taking over, he puts the women to the test to see who the strong ones are.
Performances – Carey Mulligan is great in the leading role, we see her confliction with Maud’s decisions being made. Helena Bonham Carter is great too which puts her in a supportive role. Anne-Marie Duff is the actress I hadn’t heard of before and she goes toe to toe with the bigger names. Meryl Streep does have a small role in this film, but that doesn’t hide her importance to the story. Brendan Gleeson makes for a good law man in any movie, this is no different.
Story – The story shows the struggles British women had to get the chance to vote, just vote something men had been doing for years. It leaves you to wonder just how this took such a long time to change in a world where we are all meant to be equal. The bravery these women showed shines through because they faced being shamed by their families, the main story follows how Maud Watts went into the world and how it affected her life. While I do understand this is looking at the women’s battle, you do feel like there would have been male supporters in this fight too and them speaking up would have been just as taboo to the ones who wouldn’t look down on them.
Biopic/History – This is a moment, a movement in history that should never have had to happen, but the importance to what it achieved is remarkable.
Settings – The settings show how the everyday location were important to make this movement happen, we feel like we are in 1912 London.
Scene of the Movie – The speech.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – You would think men would have supported this too.
Final Thoughts – This is a look at an important moment in time, it shows how women worked, fought and battled to get equality in Britain.
Overall: Important look at history.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/22/meryl-streep-weekend-suffragette-2015/
When the latest campaign gets rejected scenes get violent and Maud finds herself in the middle of the fight, facing time in jail, forced to give up campaigning for equal rights. Now the movement is stronger than ever will look to get the equality for women through.
Thoughts on Suffragette
Characters – Maud Watts is a quiet laundry employee, married with a child, she gets caught in the middle of one of the campaigns for equal rights, she ends up joining the movement as a foot soldier knowing what is right for women everywhere. Violet Miller is one of the foot soldiers that recruits Maud, she has been fight for a while now and knows that she wants the best for her daughter. Edith Ellyn offers a cover for the meetings to make things right for women, she has been campaigning for years next to the leader, Emmeline Pankhurst has been in hiding for years as she keeps the movement going strong to make sure women can get the right to vote. Inspector Arthur Steed is trying to stop the movement from taking over, he puts the women to the test to see who the strong ones are.
Performances – Carey Mulligan is great in the leading role, we see her confliction with Maud’s decisions being made. Helena Bonham Carter is great too which puts her in a supportive role. Anne-Marie Duff is the actress I hadn’t heard of before and she goes toe to toe with the bigger names. Meryl Streep does have a small role in this film, but that doesn’t hide her importance to the story. Brendan Gleeson makes for a good law man in any movie, this is no different.
Story – The story shows the struggles British women had to get the chance to vote, just vote something men had been doing for years. It leaves you to wonder just how this took such a long time to change in a world where we are all meant to be equal. The bravery these women showed shines through because they faced being shamed by their families, the main story follows how Maud Watts went into the world and how it affected her life. While I do understand this is looking at the women’s battle, you do feel like there would have been male supporters in this fight too and them speaking up would have been just as taboo to the ones who wouldn’t look down on them.
Biopic/History – This is a moment, a movement in history that should never have had to happen, but the importance to what it achieved is remarkable.
Settings – The settings show how the everyday location were important to make this movement happen, we feel like we are in 1912 London.
Scene of the Movie – The speech.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – You would think men would have supported this too.
Final Thoughts – This is a look at an important moment in time, it shows how women worked, fought and battled to get equality in Britain.
Overall: Important look at history.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/22/meryl-streep-weekend-suffragette-2015/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
May 22, 2019
Rocketman isn't the standard music biopic movie you're used to - the formulaic rise to fame and fortune, accompanied by drug and alcohol misuse and a troubled, lonely life. The story of Elton John, the musician whose life this movie is about, certainly does have all of those elements, but Rocketman presents them in such a wonderfully crazy and original way. Weaving classic songs into the storytelling and providing a wonderfully welcome and heart warming fantasy element to the movie.
The story begins with a middle-aged Elton (Taron Egerton), dressed in one of his trademark outrageous outfits (this time a winged devil costume, complete with horns!), as he marches into a group therapy session and informs everyone that he is addicted to cocaine, sex and prescription drugs. “For as long as I can remember I’ve hated myself” he continues, before starting to recall his childhood years. He sees his younger self across the room, looking at him as the first song begins. It's more like something out of a musical though, with both versions of Elton involved in the singing and dancing, not to mention the members of the therapy group too!
That therapy room is where much of the story is told, rejoining Elton at various stages of his recovery as he recounts the moments of his life that shaped him and brought him to the point he's at now. We initially join the younger version of Elton that we saw in the opening number, or Reggie Dwight as he was known back then, tinkling out his first few notes on the family piano and never feeling fully accepted by his family. His dad is uncaring and cold towards him, never once giving him the simple hug he craves, while his mum (brilliantly played by Bryce Dallas Howard) eventually proves herself to be not that much better than dad either as time goes on. Only Reggie's Nan seems to offer him any kind of support and encouragement, and it's not long before Reggie is receiving piano lessons, attending music school and playing small gigs in the local pubs.
Fast forward a few years to Elton as a young man (played by Egerton from now on), as he starts to get noticed by the right people in those pub gigs. He's paired with Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell) where they form the partnership which will last a lifetime - Bernie providing the lyrics, Elton providing the music and the performance. They form a strong friendship, and it's fun to see them growing together as artists, revealing how such classic songs came from such simple beginnings. It's not long before Elton is on the fast track to becoming a global superstar, performing at the Troubadour club in LA where he immediately wows the audience. It's there that he catches the eye of John Reid (Richard Madden), who he starts a disastrous romantic relationship with, as well as taking him on as manager.
From there the movie becomes a rollercoaster ride of emotions, carried along by an outstanding, and I'd say Oscar worthy, performance from Egerton. Singing all of the songs, and portraying perfectly the highs and lows of Elton John's incredible career. As mentioned previously, he's also supported by what is an amazing cast, all sharing the singing duties. Familiar songs that give extra meaning and insight as they seamlessly integrate within the story. And they're also completely bonkers at times too! A song performed underwater, a song where everyone in the bar levitates off the ground, Elton firing up into the sky like a rocket and exploding like a firework! Despite all of this, the movie still manages to feel relatable and believable and is a real joy to watch.
The story begins with a middle-aged Elton (Taron Egerton), dressed in one of his trademark outrageous outfits (this time a winged devil costume, complete with horns!), as he marches into a group therapy session and informs everyone that he is addicted to cocaine, sex and prescription drugs. “For as long as I can remember I’ve hated myself” he continues, before starting to recall his childhood years. He sees his younger self across the room, looking at him as the first song begins. It's more like something out of a musical though, with both versions of Elton involved in the singing and dancing, not to mention the members of the therapy group too!
That therapy room is where much of the story is told, rejoining Elton at various stages of his recovery as he recounts the moments of his life that shaped him and brought him to the point he's at now. We initially join the younger version of Elton that we saw in the opening number, or Reggie Dwight as he was known back then, tinkling out his first few notes on the family piano and never feeling fully accepted by his family. His dad is uncaring and cold towards him, never once giving him the simple hug he craves, while his mum (brilliantly played by Bryce Dallas Howard) eventually proves herself to be not that much better than dad either as time goes on. Only Reggie's Nan seems to offer him any kind of support and encouragement, and it's not long before Reggie is receiving piano lessons, attending music school and playing small gigs in the local pubs.
Fast forward a few years to Elton as a young man (played by Egerton from now on), as he starts to get noticed by the right people in those pub gigs. He's paired with Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell) where they form the partnership which will last a lifetime - Bernie providing the lyrics, Elton providing the music and the performance. They form a strong friendship, and it's fun to see them growing together as artists, revealing how such classic songs came from such simple beginnings. It's not long before Elton is on the fast track to becoming a global superstar, performing at the Troubadour club in LA where he immediately wows the audience. It's there that he catches the eye of John Reid (Richard Madden), who he starts a disastrous romantic relationship with, as well as taking him on as manager.
From there the movie becomes a rollercoaster ride of emotions, carried along by an outstanding, and I'd say Oscar worthy, performance from Egerton. Singing all of the songs, and portraying perfectly the highs and lows of Elton John's incredible career. As mentioned previously, he's also supported by what is an amazing cast, all sharing the singing duties. Familiar songs that give extra meaning and insight as they seamlessly integrate within the story. And they're also completely bonkers at times too! A song performed underwater, a song where everyone in the bar levitates off the ground, Elton firing up into the sky like a rocket and exploding like a firework! Despite all of this, the movie still manages to feel relatable and believable and is a real joy to watch.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
There's a definite fatigue now with films based on music stars and their works, I was already feeling it earlier in the year with Yesterday and Blinded By The Light. While I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about seeing Judy the trailer had me as soon as I heard "Somewhere over the rainbow".
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html