Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
World War II was an event that changed America’s standing globally and ensured the end of Hitler’s tyranny over Europe. It witnessed an isolated nation enter the war after being attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The war forced men from all walks of life to step up in defense of their nation and for the freedom of those abroad. Desmond Dawes was one of these men, however, he sought to serve a different function in war. Instead of taking lives, he wanted to save them.
Hacksaw Ridge brings viewers a different perspective of war and the soldiers that were fighting it. Unlike previous films, this one discusses and displays the contributions made by a pacifist, a contentious objector, something that we look at as an anomaly and counter to the personalities and individuals that we are accustomed to seeing in a warfighting capacity. We don’t typically think about those who would resist fighting, other than those who dodged the draft or sought deferments. This film allows for a glimpse into how one man’s principles and faith allow him to resist actively fighting in order to serve as a combat medic in order for his fellow soldiers to return home. The story is harrowing and audiences will find themselves rooting for Private Dawes while questioning how his principles could remain so strong despite all of the obstacles that are put in his way. He wants to serve his country in the war, but does not want to kill in service to it. He is constantly referred to and treated as a coward for his stance. Despite this, he proves himself of heroism that cannot be measured.
The film is beautiful in displaying the various complexities in warfare and individual soldiers’ experiences. We get to see how Dawes is shaped into having the beliefs that guide him in his quest to become a soldier. We see the relationships that he develops in his hometown, his family, and the conflict that erupts between him and other members of his unit. We see that war is more complex than men fighting and killing. There is depth. There is character. These men are not simply numbers on a board or text. There is something about each one of them that played into the success of taking Okinawa as part of the Pacific campaign.
Hacksaw Ridge is not simply a film about one man’s journey to serve his principles and God while struggling against various agents seeking to break his spirit and demean who he is. The battle scenes and brutality rival that of Saving Private Ryan. Audiences seeking to see a traditional “rah rah” war film are going to be surprised with the way that this film will, hopefully, make them think more deeply about the calamity and horror of war. It will hopefully have them think about how far we have come as a people. More importantly, it will make us think differently about the men who served and helped to ensure democracy globally.
The film, overall, is strong with its presentation of information, action, sequences and storytelling. It may surpass previous WWII films with respect to significance and allowing itself to serve as a historical lens to the past. Audiences will be satisfied, shocked, and a bit disgusted with what is on display whether it is how war is conducted or in how we treat others with different beliefs or stances. Hacksaw Ridge may be an instant classic in not only its approach to the Pacific Theater, but in how we look at the soldiers and their contributions to this period.
Hacksaw Ridge brings viewers a different perspective of war and the soldiers that were fighting it. Unlike previous films, this one discusses and displays the contributions made by a pacifist, a contentious objector, something that we look at as an anomaly and counter to the personalities and individuals that we are accustomed to seeing in a warfighting capacity. We don’t typically think about those who would resist fighting, other than those who dodged the draft or sought deferments. This film allows for a glimpse into how one man’s principles and faith allow him to resist actively fighting in order to serve as a combat medic in order for his fellow soldiers to return home. The story is harrowing and audiences will find themselves rooting for Private Dawes while questioning how his principles could remain so strong despite all of the obstacles that are put in his way. He wants to serve his country in the war, but does not want to kill in service to it. He is constantly referred to and treated as a coward for his stance. Despite this, he proves himself of heroism that cannot be measured.
The film is beautiful in displaying the various complexities in warfare and individual soldiers’ experiences. We get to see how Dawes is shaped into having the beliefs that guide him in his quest to become a soldier. We see the relationships that he develops in his hometown, his family, and the conflict that erupts between him and other members of his unit. We see that war is more complex than men fighting and killing. There is depth. There is character. These men are not simply numbers on a board or text. There is something about each one of them that played into the success of taking Okinawa as part of the Pacific campaign.
Hacksaw Ridge is not simply a film about one man’s journey to serve his principles and God while struggling against various agents seeking to break his spirit and demean who he is. The battle scenes and brutality rival that of Saving Private Ryan. Audiences seeking to see a traditional “rah rah” war film are going to be surprised with the way that this film will, hopefully, make them think more deeply about the calamity and horror of war. It will hopefully have them think about how far we have come as a people. More importantly, it will make us think differently about the men who served and helped to ensure democracy globally.
The film, overall, is strong with its presentation of information, action, sequences and storytelling. It may surpass previous WWII films with respect to significance and allowing itself to serve as a historical lens to the past. Audiences will be satisfied, shocked, and a bit disgusted with what is on display whether it is how war is conducted or in how we treat others with different beliefs or stances. Hacksaw Ridge may be an instant classic in not only its approach to the Pacific Theater, but in how we look at the soldiers and their contributions to this period.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Black Hole (1979) in Movies
Nov 22, 2019
Thoughts on The Black Hole
Characters – Dr Hans Reinhardt has been living on this ship alone for years, he has perfected energy harvesting which could help Earth, but has spent his time waiting on the edge of a black hole for somebody to find him, so he can continue to build his army and have witnesses to his desire to travel through one, he is welcoming to guest, while he speech could make him come off like a cult leader, always looking to recruit. Dr Alex Durant is one of the crew that is willing to listen to science over anything else, he quickly starts to see the positives in Hans’ plan looking to accept the idea he has created hoping to remain with him on the ship. Captain Dan Holland is quick to start looking around the ship, learning things aren’t always what they seem, he does what he can to make it look like the crew are following the instructions, but is always looking for the quickest way to safely get his crew off the ship. Charles Pizer is the weapons expert, he isn’t afraid to run into a battle, but he could find himself getting in trouble more often than not. Dr Kate McCrae has seen her father vanish off this ship, she has a connection with the robot which makes her valuable when it comes to dealing with situations that arise. Harry Booth is the engineer who has been worried about everything on board for too long, now he will cause the panic when he doesn’t need to. Vincent is the robot that is always going to help his crew, he isn’t scared of getting into confrontation.
Performances – Maximilian Schell in the lead villainous role does help us believe he can control people on everything in his genius mind. Anthony Perkins does well making see how easily somebody can turn to believe everything. Robert Forster does make for a great captain through the film, while the rest of the cast all work well with each other.
Story – The story here follows a research space travelling crew that discover a block hole and a ship on the edge, only to learn that the man living on the ship is the only one on the ship and he has bigger plans for his genius idea. This is a story that plays into the ideas of space travel that could see a black hole being one of the biggest problems. We see how one person could become made with power and how other could be torn between following him or escaping from him, leading to the crew needing to try and escape before they become his latest victims. This is one that could be something truly special and for the time it most likely was, but we have seen it done so many times through the years and is much better.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action is typical sci-fi action, we have laser guns, explosions and destruction on the ship, it isn’t anything overly fancy, but does what it needs to.
Settings – The film is set on the spaceship which shows the wide corridors and rooms that would be important to long distance space travel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film would have been great for the time, while some of the effects might have dated, they still get the peril over when the meteor strikes.
Scene of the Movie – The Meteor roll.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Harry’s decision.
Final Thoughts – This is a sci-fi film that could have been the first of its type, it opened us up to an idea that could be faced by many if they went into space one day, even if the story seems to have been used a lot more in the future.
Overall: Ground Breaking Sci-Fi.
Rating
Characters – Dr Hans Reinhardt has been living on this ship alone for years, he has perfected energy harvesting which could help Earth, but has spent his time waiting on the edge of a black hole for somebody to find him, so he can continue to build his army and have witnesses to his desire to travel through one, he is welcoming to guest, while he speech could make him come off like a cult leader, always looking to recruit. Dr Alex Durant is one of the crew that is willing to listen to science over anything else, he quickly starts to see the positives in Hans’ plan looking to accept the idea he has created hoping to remain with him on the ship. Captain Dan Holland is quick to start looking around the ship, learning things aren’t always what they seem, he does what he can to make it look like the crew are following the instructions, but is always looking for the quickest way to safely get his crew off the ship. Charles Pizer is the weapons expert, he isn’t afraid to run into a battle, but he could find himself getting in trouble more often than not. Dr Kate McCrae has seen her father vanish off this ship, she has a connection with the robot which makes her valuable when it comes to dealing with situations that arise. Harry Booth is the engineer who has been worried about everything on board for too long, now he will cause the panic when he doesn’t need to. Vincent is the robot that is always going to help his crew, he isn’t scared of getting into confrontation.
Performances – Maximilian Schell in the lead villainous role does help us believe he can control people on everything in his genius mind. Anthony Perkins does well making see how easily somebody can turn to believe everything. Robert Forster does make for a great captain through the film, while the rest of the cast all work well with each other.
Story – The story here follows a research space travelling crew that discover a block hole and a ship on the edge, only to learn that the man living on the ship is the only one on the ship and he has bigger plans for his genius idea. This is a story that plays into the ideas of space travel that could see a black hole being one of the biggest problems. We see how one person could become made with power and how other could be torn between following him or escaping from him, leading to the crew needing to try and escape before they become his latest victims. This is one that could be something truly special and for the time it most likely was, but we have seen it done so many times through the years and is much better.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action is typical sci-fi action, we have laser guns, explosions and destruction on the ship, it isn’t anything overly fancy, but does what it needs to.
Settings – The film is set on the spaceship which shows the wide corridors and rooms that would be important to long distance space travel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film would have been great for the time, while some of the effects might have dated, they still get the peril over when the meteor strikes.
Scene of the Movie – The Meteor roll.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Harry’s decision.
Final Thoughts – This is a sci-fi film that could have been the first of its type, it opened us up to an idea that could be faced by many if they went into space one day, even if the story seems to have been used a lot more in the future.
Overall: Ground Breaking Sci-Fi.
Rating
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
156Reviews (7 KP) rated Dark Waters (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
Films are important.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.
Interactive Telling Time Pro
Education and Games
App
- Selected by Apple as iPhone App of the Week in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Overall New &...
Dinosaur Chess: Learn to Play!
Education and Games
App
** Appysmarts.com: 97/100 EDITOR'S FAVORITE! ** Previously nominated for a BAFTA (Best Interactive...
Arduino Simulator 2X - Learn and DIY Safely
Education and Reference
App
Arduino is a trademark by Arduino LLC / arduino.cc This APP is not official and not supported by...
Arduino Simulator - Learn and DIY Safely
Education and Reference
App
Arduino is a trademark by Arduino LLC / arduino.cc This APP is not official and not supported by...
WeDo: Your second brain.
Productivity, Education and Stickers
App
See why WeDo has been praised by Forbes, Huffington Post, The Verge, Tech Crunch, and more! BEST...
Fuel Hedging and Risk Management: Strategies for Airlines, Shippers and Other Consumers
S. Mohamed Dafir and Vishnu Nandan Gajjala
Book
A hands-on guide to navigating the new fuel markets Fuel Hedging and Risk Management: Strategies for...