Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dad's Army (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Full of wasted British talent
I may be fairly young in years, but I grew up around comedies like Only Fools & Horses, One Foot in the Grave and of course Dad’s Army. I remember many evenings sitting at home with my dad as he cried with laughter at all three, though it was the latter’s influence that stuck with me the most.
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Silence for the Dead in Books
Mar 29, 2018
Good ghost story, slow dragged out ending
Anything to do with a horror ghost theme and an asylum has to be good right? Well, yes and no. The book was somewhat enjoyable to read but it had its’ moments.
The plot itself was good. It had the elements of a good gothic theme - not scary enough to make people read it in daytime (seriously?) but it had some good decent creep factor in it. It’s enough to set the mood and theme of the book but nothing to make the skin crawl. The element of mystery was also there and the ghost story aspect was good - nothing to blind side you - except perhaps for a little twist in the end (with where the ghost was and who was it manipulating etc etc). It’s pretty much a stable plot with all the main points closed (or is it? *queue creepy organ music*) so I’d have to say the gothic ghost story was what was in it for me.
Character wise. Kitty is likable. She’s resourceful, and a survivor from horrible abuse. Big applause for her for being strong and able to stand up and survive through various ordeals. Captain Mabry stood out for me because I enjoyed reading about his character. He seemed to be the strong stable silent type in the asylum where you have various patients with various issues (most were casualties of World War One) and there was a certain calmness about him that made him likable.
It’s pretty much obvious Kitty and Jack were to be together. The romance aspect in the book was all right. Necessary? I’m not sure perhaps. It’s not really for me. When their romance was more cemented was where the book was starting to take a slight turn downhill.
So near the ending when everything was revealed, all plot holes start to close. Sometimes, depending on the writing, you can stretch it out and make it interesting. Or you can make it drag. This one, unfortunately drags. We’re done with the ghosts, everything was answered, and the last 30 pages or so I just wanted the book to end. The romance of Kitty and Jack intensify and this is where intense eye rolling is also induced. Dear Lord, am I reading this just to see if there’s a scary twist at the end? Or am I wasting my time? Well sadly, I wasted my time. It was good to see what happened to characters like Mabry, and even Matron, but it just dragged way too much. Yeah okay we get it Kitty and Jack forever. Why do we need so many pages of this, am I suddenly reading a romance now?
Other than the ghost story in this book, the romance nearly killed it for me and a dragged out ending. Perhaps a nice twist in the ending would be nice. Or maybe skim the 30 pages and be done. I would say take it or leave it with this book. It was moderately enjoyable for me.
The plot itself was good. It had the elements of a good gothic theme - not scary enough to make people read it in daytime (seriously?) but it had some good decent creep factor in it. It’s enough to set the mood and theme of the book but nothing to make the skin crawl. The element of mystery was also there and the ghost story aspect was good - nothing to blind side you - except perhaps for a little twist in the end (with where the ghost was and who was it manipulating etc etc). It’s pretty much a stable plot with all the main points closed (or is it? *queue creepy organ music*) so I’d have to say the gothic ghost story was what was in it for me.
Character wise. Kitty is likable. She’s resourceful, and a survivor from horrible abuse. Big applause for her for being strong and able to stand up and survive through various ordeals. Captain Mabry stood out for me because I enjoyed reading about his character. He seemed to be the strong stable silent type in the asylum where you have various patients with various issues (most were casualties of World War One) and there was a certain calmness about him that made him likable.
It’s pretty much obvious Kitty and Jack were to be together. The romance aspect in the book was all right. Necessary? I’m not sure perhaps. It’s not really for me. When their romance was more cemented was where the book was starting to take a slight turn downhill.
So near the ending when everything was revealed, all plot holes start to close. Sometimes, depending on the writing, you can stretch it out and make it interesting. Or you can make it drag. This one, unfortunately drags. We’re done with the ghosts, everything was answered, and the last 30 pages or so I just wanted the book to end. The romance of Kitty and Jack intensify and this is where intense eye rolling is also induced. Dear Lord, am I reading this just to see if there’s a scary twist at the end? Or am I wasting my time? Well sadly, I wasted my time. It was good to see what happened to characters like Mabry, and even Matron, but it just dragged way too much. Yeah okay we get it Kitty and Jack forever. Why do we need so many pages of this, am I suddenly reading a romance now?
Other than the ghost story in this book, the romance nearly killed it for me and a dragged out ending. Perhaps a nice twist in the ending would be nice. Or maybe skim the 30 pages and be done. I would say take it or leave it with this book. It was moderately enjoyable for me.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 100 Streets (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 100 Streets starts as we meet our characters, troublemaking drug dealing thief Kingsley (Dramah), former rugby player Max (Elba) who is going through a marriage problem after his own affair with his wife Emily (Arterton) who in an act of revenge is dating photographer Jake (Cullen). The final couple we meet are cabbie George (Creed-Miles) and Kathy (Wareing) who are trying to adopt a child, though his past is causing problems in this pursuit.
As the lives cross-paths the people must learn about the mistakes they make to prevent themselves from making any more mistakes.
Thoughts on 100 Streets
Characters – Max is a former England rugby captain, since retiring he started cheating on his wife and getting caught up with the drugs, seeing his future career going up in smoke, he needs to clean up his own actions in any hope of winning his wife back. Emily is the wife of Max who has been going through the struggles of her husbands action, thinking about getting back into acting and trying to move on with her life. Kingsley is the streetwise drug dealing thief that has been caught up against the law, even though he believes he could go onto something bigger, he receives the guidance required to escape this life. We have a cabbie that makes a terrible mistake and must learn to live with the consequences and a photographer that wants to be part of Emily’s life.
Performances – Idris Elba, Gemma Arterton are both great in their roles in the film, we know and expect it from them. Elsewhere we get the less known actors in Franz Drameh and Charlie Creed-Miles that shine in this film.
Story – The story follows the lives of three people, the problems they are facing and the changes that will define them. We get three different worlds, one is the celebrity world and marriage, where the vices can control someone, the middle-class who just want normal lives which can fall apart from past action and the lower-class that must fight for a chance or face the same circles of crime. The way the three lives cross without interaction shows how people can be going through their own struggles meters away from you. Each life will be changed by the events in the film, which is important to see and we can see how theses moments can do the moments that create a future.
Settings – The film is set in London with the idea that we are within 100 streets of each other, in a position where lives can cross paves.
Scene of the Movie – Leaving the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not sure what will happen with Jake next.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully engaging drama that shows the lives people are living without you knowing within metres of your own life. Strong performances throughout do help the film stand out too.
Overall: Drama well worth watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/02/gemma-arterton-weekend-100-streets-2016/
As the lives cross-paths the people must learn about the mistakes they make to prevent themselves from making any more mistakes.
Thoughts on 100 Streets
Characters – Max is a former England rugby captain, since retiring he started cheating on his wife and getting caught up with the drugs, seeing his future career going up in smoke, he needs to clean up his own actions in any hope of winning his wife back. Emily is the wife of Max who has been going through the struggles of her husbands action, thinking about getting back into acting and trying to move on with her life. Kingsley is the streetwise drug dealing thief that has been caught up against the law, even though he believes he could go onto something bigger, he receives the guidance required to escape this life. We have a cabbie that makes a terrible mistake and must learn to live with the consequences and a photographer that wants to be part of Emily’s life.
Performances – Idris Elba, Gemma Arterton are both great in their roles in the film, we know and expect it from them. Elsewhere we get the less known actors in Franz Drameh and Charlie Creed-Miles that shine in this film.
Story – The story follows the lives of three people, the problems they are facing and the changes that will define them. We get three different worlds, one is the celebrity world and marriage, where the vices can control someone, the middle-class who just want normal lives which can fall apart from past action and the lower-class that must fight for a chance or face the same circles of crime. The way the three lives cross without interaction shows how people can be going through their own struggles meters away from you. Each life will be changed by the events in the film, which is important to see and we can see how theses moments can do the moments that create a future.
Settings – The film is set in London with the idea that we are within 100 streets of each other, in a position where lives can cross paves.
Scene of the Movie – Leaving the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not sure what will happen with Jake next.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully engaging drama that shows the lives people are living without you knowing within metres of your own life. Strong performances throughout do help the film stand out too.
Overall: Drama well worth watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/02/gemma-arterton-weekend-100-streets-2016/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Far Cry (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
On a remote island in the Pacific Northwest, a scientist named Dr. Krieger (Udo Kier) is conducting horrific genetic experiments in his secret facility.
Krieger is attempting to create the ultimate soldier for his financial backers and is not above using his own men as test subjects and fodder for his experiments as the morally lacking Krieger only cares about his work and his funding.
In the film “Far Cry”, Director Uwe Boll has taken the classic 3D shooter from Ubisoft and given it his own unique interpretation.
The film stars Til Schweiger as Jack Carver, a former special forces operative who spends his days as a boat captain chartering tourists on whale watching expeditions when he is not enjoying a beer and sleeping the day away.
Jack is hired by a determined investigative reporter named Valerie Cardinal (Emmanuelle Vaugier), to take her to the island so she can get further proof for her story about the bizarre experiments taking place on the island. Valerie has a personal interest in the story as her uncle Max (Ralf Moeller), is one of those stationed at the island facility.
While Jack is reluctant to go near the island he does agree to anchor of the coast and pick up Valerie in a few hours. Of course things do not go as planned as Valerie is captured and Jack’s boat is destroyed leaving him believed to be dead by the Doctor and his forces.
Jack is not one to let this go, and rescues Valerie and looks to find a way off the island while avoiding the ever present troops. The stubborn Valerie is unwilling to leave until she has the information she needs for her story and ignores the dangers.
As if the Doctor and his soldiers were not trouble enough, the super soldiers have escaped and have caused various factions within the Dr’s forces to turn against one another which results in a pitched battle between the factions and the super soldiers.
What follows is a lot of action that is hampered by a weak plot and bad dialogue, and sadly very disappointing monsters.
The leads in the film have very little chemistry with one another and the characters are wafer thin, even by action movie standards. There are attempts at romance and playful banter that fizzle badly leaving only the action sequences to carry the film. Sadly while they are decent enough, especially a good car chase, they cannot overcome the plot issues and the creatures that do not live up to the hype.
Boll has taken a step back here as his recent films have shown progress especially the solid
“Seed” and “1968 Tunnel Rats”. When I visited the set I learned that the production was not allowed to use large aspects of the game and that aside from names, title, and settings, they had to create a new story that was inspired by the game. While the effort is there, the results come up lacking and do not do justice to the game, premise, or talent assembled.
Krieger is attempting to create the ultimate soldier for his financial backers and is not above using his own men as test subjects and fodder for his experiments as the morally lacking Krieger only cares about his work and his funding.
In the film “Far Cry”, Director Uwe Boll has taken the classic 3D shooter from Ubisoft and given it his own unique interpretation.
The film stars Til Schweiger as Jack Carver, a former special forces operative who spends his days as a boat captain chartering tourists on whale watching expeditions when he is not enjoying a beer and sleeping the day away.
Jack is hired by a determined investigative reporter named Valerie Cardinal (Emmanuelle Vaugier), to take her to the island so she can get further proof for her story about the bizarre experiments taking place on the island. Valerie has a personal interest in the story as her uncle Max (Ralf Moeller), is one of those stationed at the island facility.
While Jack is reluctant to go near the island he does agree to anchor of the coast and pick up Valerie in a few hours. Of course things do not go as planned as Valerie is captured and Jack’s boat is destroyed leaving him believed to be dead by the Doctor and his forces.
Jack is not one to let this go, and rescues Valerie and looks to find a way off the island while avoiding the ever present troops. The stubborn Valerie is unwilling to leave until she has the information she needs for her story and ignores the dangers.
As if the Doctor and his soldiers were not trouble enough, the super soldiers have escaped and have caused various factions within the Dr’s forces to turn against one another which results in a pitched battle between the factions and the super soldiers.
What follows is a lot of action that is hampered by a weak plot and bad dialogue, and sadly very disappointing monsters.
The leads in the film have very little chemistry with one another and the characters are wafer thin, even by action movie standards. There are attempts at romance and playful banter that fizzle badly leaving only the action sequences to carry the film. Sadly while they are decent enough, especially a good car chase, they cannot overcome the plot issues and the creatures that do not live up to the hype.
Boll has taken a step back here as his recent films have shown progress especially the solid
“Seed” and “1968 Tunnel Rats”. When I visited the set I learned that the production was not allowed to use large aspects of the game and that aside from names, title, and settings, they had to create a new story that was inspired by the game. While the effort is there, the results come up lacking and do not do justice to the game, premise, or talent assembled.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Devil's Rejects (2005) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Chinese, Japanese, Dirty knees, look at these!
Shortly after the events of House of 1,000 Corpses, Sheriff Wydell and his band of deputies approach and surround the homestead occupied by everyone's favorite murderous, diabolical, psychotic family. Inside, lazy slumbering quickly turns to mounting a counter offensive when the family realizes what is about to happen. The ensuring shootout claims several victims before the aid of tear gas precedes a law enforcement home invasion. Unfortunately, only one family member is captured while Baby and Otis escape out the back. Baby calls their father, Captain Spaulding, to inform him of the pending doom on his way so he can meet up with them subsequently.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 11, 2020
If you asked me why I skipped seeing this one twice before it's UK release I wouldn't be able to give you a proper answer. I guess I just didn't fancy it, and the second time Odeon outdid Cineworld with a really early Parasite screening so that felt like the sensible choice instead.
Jojo wants to be a good German, but as he's about to go off to a Nazi Youth Camp he worries about how he'll do. Luckily he has a friend to help him through it, Adolf Hitler. The Fuhrer is always with him in spirit.
Recovering at home after an accident Jojo discovers that he's not alone in the house. He discovers Elsa hiding in a wall space upstairs, hidden by his mother. Jojo is torn, he should report her to the authorities but that could be bad news for him and his mother.
I was genuinely surprised about who was turning up to see this. There were a lot of family groups and groups of teenagers. It shouldn't really shock me, everyone has their own interests in a wide variety of things, but I wasn't expecting to see such young people coming to see it.
By far my favourite thing about this film was Sam Rockwell as Captain Klenzendorf, a little bitter with his situation and begrudgingly training the kids for the battles ahead, he's making the best of a bad situation. He's funny, and more importantly, glorious in battle. From the ridiculous to a surprisingly moving scene at the end, he was the performance of the whole film for me.
Child actors have their ups and downs, some have the knack right out of the gate but I didn't really get that from Roman Griffin Davis or Archie Yates. Both got some good moments out of the script but their delivery and the consistency of the characters didn't carry through it as a whole.
Thomasin McKenzie however brought a little something extra to her role of Elsa. I didn't mind her slightly more serious parts in this but it was difficult to get much more out of it when so much revolved around her and Jojo in scenes together. I don't like "awkward" and some of the scenes are *shudder*.
I can't really talk about the film without talking about Taika Waititi as Hitler. I found him quite amusing to begin with but when the character started to change as Jojo did I felt it was a little over the top.
Dramatic moments pop up when you really aren't expecting them, two in particular stuck with me afterwards. One, as I mentioned, with Sam Rockwell and the other with Scarlett Johansson. Rockwell's was a complete surprise, but ScarJo's, though unexpected, was overplayed a lot in the build up.
Jojo Rabbit is a very odd film, I didn't know what to expect at all really and the final result left me no wiser. Entertaining yes, but not something I would have to see again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/jojo-rabbit-movie-review.html
Jojo wants to be a good German, but as he's about to go off to a Nazi Youth Camp he worries about how he'll do. Luckily he has a friend to help him through it, Adolf Hitler. The Fuhrer is always with him in spirit.
Recovering at home after an accident Jojo discovers that he's not alone in the house. He discovers Elsa hiding in a wall space upstairs, hidden by his mother. Jojo is torn, he should report her to the authorities but that could be bad news for him and his mother.
I was genuinely surprised about who was turning up to see this. There were a lot of family groups and groups of teenagers. It shouldn't really shock me, everyone has their own interests in a wide variety of things, but I wasn't expecting to see such young people coming to see it.
By far my favourite thing about this film was Sam Rockwell as Captain Klenzendorf, a little bitter with his situation and begrudgingly training the kids for the battles ahead, he's making the best of a bad situation. He's funny, and more importantly, glorious in battle. From the ridiculous to a surprisingly moving scene at the end, he was the performance of the whole film for me.
Child actors have their ups and downs, some have the knack right out of the gate but I didn't really get that from Roman Griffin Davis or Archie Yates. Both got some good moments out of the script but their delivery and the consistency of the characters didn't carry through it as a whole.
Thomasin McKenzie however brought a little something extra to her role of Elsa. I didn't mind her slightly more serious parts in this but it was difficult to get much more out of it when so much revolved around her and Jojo in scenes together. I don't like "awkward" and some of the scenes are *shudder*.
I can't really talk about the film without talking about Taika Waititi as Hitler. I found him quite amusing to begin with but when the character started to change as Jojo did I felt it was a little over the top.
Dramatic moments pop up when you really aren't expecting them, two in particular stuck with me afterwards. One, as I mentioned, with Sam Rockwell and the other with Scarlett Johansson. Rockwell's was a complete surprise, but ScarJo's, though unexpected, was overplayed a lot in the build up.
Jojo Rabbit is a very odd film, I didn't know what to expect at all really and the final result left me no wiser. Entertaining yes, but not something I would have to see again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/jojo-rabbit-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Korean director Joon-ho Bong takes us on a Science fiction ride with Snowpiercer. Based on the graphic novel Le Transperceneige, Snowpiercer is a story set on a train which acts as a human Noah’s Ark as it is the only place to survive after an attempt to stop global warming caused the planet to over freeze and become inhabitable. Not only is the train humanity’s last salvation, but it also mirrors human society as each portion of the train represents a different class structure. The poor and underprivileged are kept imprisoned in the back of the train, while the first class passengers are living in privilege in the front of the train. When the back of the train has finally had enough, they revolt and attempt to take control of the train and improve their place.
This is the film that Chris Evans chose to do in-between filming The Avengers and Captain America: Winter Soldier. In my opinion, he made a great choice. To me, Evans has always been just blah and one-dimensional. While he does not stray too far from how we have seen him act in the past, this film gives him a chance to show some depth and grit of character that we have not truly seen from him. Everyone looks at him as being the leader and you can see why. He embodies that character. I was impressed by his performance.
Along with Evans, Tilda Swinton helps carry this film from basic Sci-Fi ride to better than average film. She is fantastic in this film. She plays Mason, the governance of the train that helps keep things in order. She is the one that comes down from the front of the train and explains how and why the people in the back should keep their place. She steals the show with her presence every time she is on screen and gives a fantastic performance that causes us to both spite her, but also understand she is doing what is best for the train.
Without revealing too much about the story, the pacing of the film is great. It is not in a rush to get you from point A to point B, but rather takes the time to intertwine character development into story. The first half of the film is the revolt film where we see the dregs of life and the fight for freedom. The second half of the film is the reveal of wonderment where we see how the other side lives. In true Sci-Fi fashion, the story is a social commentary on our current place in society with regards to the richest 1% in the world. The revolt changes to a question of control which in turn changes to a question of true freedom, but at what cost?
I would recommend this film to any Sci-Fi fans or anyone looking for a thoughtful film and change of pace from the big summer blockbuster.
For a more in-depth discussion about the film, be sure to check out our podcast review.
This is the film that Chris Evans chose to do in-between filming The Avengers and Captain America: Winter Soldier. In my opinion, he made a great choice. To me, Evans has always been just blah and one-dimensional. While he does not stray too far from how we have seen him act in the past, this film gives him a chance to show some depth and grit of character that we have not truly seen from him. Everyone looks at him as being the leader and you can see why. He embodies that character. I was impressed by his performance.
Along with Evans, Tilda Swinton helps carry this film from basic Sci-Fi ride to better than average film. She is fantastic in this film. She plays Mason, the governance of the train that helps keep things in order. She is the one that comes down from the front of the train and explains how and why the people in the back should keep their place. She steals the show with her presence every time she is on screen and gives a fantastic performance that causes us to both spite her, but also understand she is doing what is best for the train.
Without revealing too much about the story, the pacing of the film is great. It is not in a rush to get you from point A to point B, but rather takes the time to intertwine character development into story. The first half of the film is the revolt film where we see the dregs of life and the fight for freedom. The second half of the film is the reveal of wonderment where we see how the other side lives. In true Sci-Fi fashion, the story is a social commentary on our current place in society with regards to the richest 1% in the world. The revolt changes to a question of control which in turn changes to a question of true freedom, but at what cost?
I would recommend this film to any Sci-Fi fans or anyone looking for a thoughtful film and change of pace from the big summer blockbuster.
For a more in-depth discussion about the film, be sure to check out our podcast review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Flight (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I’m not good with dramas. I like to watch movies to escape reality and dramas are all about reminding you of the turmoil and awkwardness and unpredictability that is reality. But, only if they’re good. Dramas require an emotional response from the viewer, which can only be achieved through great performances, enhanced by story, music and editing. (don’t quote me I could be missing one). If one or more elements are missing, at best it’s an unexpected comedy, at worst you’ve just wasted time and money that you’ll never get back.
Flight in my opinion delivered. We start off with gratuitous nudity (for me it didn’t add to the story but guys will like it) from flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadine Valazquez) and a man, Captain Whip Whitacker (Denzel Washington) who’s about to hit his rock bottom. After a night of drinking and snorting some cocaine, together they take to the skies only for it to go horribly wrong, the plane begins an uncontrolled nose dive. Lot’s of close up shots put you right into the aircraft and you almost feel as if you’re on the flight as it’s going down (seriously my heart involuntarily started pounding faster).
Afterwards, the movie really hits its’ stride and gets into the gritty reality of what life can become. Denzel does an excellent job of bringing you in to the internal struggles with his demons; he’s so good in his denial. John Goodman plays a drug dealer Harling Mays, almost as a comic relief which actually works. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a criminal attorney sent to help Cpt Whitacker as questions arise about what really caused the plane to crash. He plays a great attorney, not smarmy, not slick, but intelligent and sharp, and in his own way, caring.
Nicole Maggen (Kelly Reilly), a drug addict who we witness goes through a relapse that puts her into the path of Cpt Whitacker. Co-pilot Ken Evans (Brian Geraghty) was a convincingly green pilot whom I would not want flying any plane I’m in. And flight attendant Margaret Tomason (Tamara Tunie), a good friend of Whitackers for several years and Pilots union rep Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) a long time military buddy who comes back into his life because of the crash. I liked both their performances, they really did great in their supporting rolls; you couldn’t have one without the other.
There is a question of devine intervention and redemption, but I think the movie steers clear of being overly religious. (I could have done without Ken Evans wife, overkill in my opinion and not necessary to the story). Anything more I say will spill the beans on the ending, so I’ll leave you with this; it really is unpredictable, you never quite know what Cpt Whitacker’s going to do until he does it. There are beautiful moments and bittersweet moments that create a powerful, emotional ride that I would recommend to someone who likes a good drama. And, even to people like me, who generally try to avoid them.
Flight in my opinion delivered. We start off with gratuitous nudity (for me it didn’t add to the story but guys will like it) from flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadine Valazquez) and a man, Captain Whip Whitacker (Denzel Washington) who’s about to hit his rock bottom. After a night of drinking and snorting some cocaine, together they take to the skies only for it to go horribly wrong, the plane begins an uncontrolled nose dive. Lot’s of close up shots put you right into the aircraft and you almost feel as if you’re on the flight as it’s going down (seriously my heart involuntarily started pounding faster).
Afterwards, the movie really hits its’ stride and gets into the gritty reality of what life can become. Denzel does an excellent job of bringing you in to the internal struggles with his demons; he’s so good in his denial. John Goodman plays a drug dealer Harling Mays, almost as a comic relief which actually works. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a criminal attorney sent to help Cpt Whitacker as questions arise about what really caused the plane to crash. He plays a great attorney, not smarmy, not slick, but intelligent and sharp, and in his own way, caring.
Nicole Maggen (Kelly Reilly), a drug addict who we witness goes through a relapse that puts her into the path of Cpt Whitacker. Co-pilot Ken Evans (Brian Geraghty) was a convincingly green pilot whom I would not want flying any plane I’m in. And flight attendant Margaret Tomason (Tamara Tunie), a good friend of Whitackers for several years and Pilots union rep Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) a long time military buddy who comes back into his life because of the crash. I liked both their performances, they really did great in their supporting rolls; you couldn’t have one without the other.
There is a question of devine intervention and redemption, but I think the movie steers clear of being overly religious. (I could have done without Ken Evans wife, overkill in my opinion and not necessary to the story). Anything more I say will spill the beans on the ending, so I’ll leave you with this; it really is unpredictable, you never quite know what Cpt Whitacker’s going to do until he does it. There are beautiful moments and bittersweet moments that create a powerful, emotional ride that I would recommend to someone who likes a good drama. And, even to people like me, who generally try to avoid them.
Britain's Best Small Hills: A Guide to Short Adventures and Wild Walks with Great Views
Book
Hot on the success of Wilderness Weekends, one of the top selling guides in 2015, award-winning...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021
Hanks Does It Again
Tom Hanks interest in the men who fought in WWII is well known. From his starring role as Capt. Miller is what is (arguably) the definitive film about D-Day, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, to his Executive Producing role in, arguably, the best mini-series ever produced about WWII, BAND OF BROTHERS, Hanks has brought a face to the nameless heroes who fought in the middle of the last century.
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)