Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated A Star Is Born (1954) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
A Long Winding Road In Need of a Detour
An aspiring actress gets a her big break when discovered by an alcoholic film star.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
Debbiereadsbook (1608 KP) rated Drake (Twilight Falls #5) in Books
Apr 26, 2021
bloody loved this one!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 5 in the Twilight Falls series, but can be read as a standalone. I would, however, personally recommend you DO read them. It will give you a better feel for this group of men, and they ain’t too shabby either! I’ve not read book 4, Wyatt, though.
Drake meets Roman at Carter (book2) and Elijah’s wedding. There is instant and powerful chemistry. Roman is only in town for the night though. When Drake finds out that Roman bought the house he has been after for years, and then hires Drake to do the renovations, they embark on a mutual arrangement to satisfy their needs. But deep down, Drake knows he can’t be really happy, not ever. And Roman isn’t the happy ever after kind, right?
Oh
My
Days!
I loved this instalment from Twilight Falls, I really did! Drake and Roman have powerful and incendiary chemistry, and it burns right through the book. But very quickly, that changes, gets deeper between them, but neither is willing to say the words they feel.
Roman’s past comes back to haunt him, and I think at THIS point, Drake realises that he’s in too deep. But it takes Roman leaving, for Drake to admit to himself, that just because his PAST was bad, doesn’t mean that HE will carry that forward. He needs Roman and he gets what he wants.
I loved that all the guys from the previous books pop up here, and I loved the band mates of Roman’s and how well everyone gets along, eventually. The manager isn’t too happy with Drake in the beginning, but he sees, he really SEES that Drake is good for Roman.
I have just one comment, and it IS just a comment, rather than anything else!
Does Miles get talked about before, the seventh member of this little group of childhood friends? Indeed, was the name of the group mentioned? I don’t recall, so maybe I missed it, but I’ve been to sleep since I read book 3, so maybe it’s just me not recalling correctly.
Given what occurs here, with Tristan and James, or more what’s IMPLIED here with those two, I assume their book is next. And then? Miles? Since he will be the only one left, and I look forward to reading his book the most now!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 5 in the Twilight Falls series, but can be read as a standalone. I would, however, personally recommend you DO read them. It will give you a better feel for this group of men, and they ain’t too shabby either! I’ve not read book 4, Wyatt, though.
Drake meets Roman at Carter (book2) and Elijah’s wedding. There is instant and powerful chemistry. Roman is only in town for the night though. When Drake finds out that Roman bought the house he has been after for years, and then hires Drake to do the renovations, they embark on a mutual arrangement to satisfy their needs. But deep down, Drake knows he can’t be really happy, not ever. And Roman isn’t the happy ever after kind, right?
Oh
My
Days!
I loved this instalment from Twilight Falls, I really did! Drake and Roman have powerful and incendiary chemistry, and it burns right through the book. But very quickly, that changes, gets deeper between them, but neither is willing to say the words they feel.
Roman’s past comes back to haunt him, and I think at THIS point, Drake realises that he’s in too deep. But it takes Roman leaving, for Drake to admit to himself, that just because his PAST was bad, doesn’t mean that HE will carry that forward. He needs Roman and he gets what he wants.
I loved that all the guys from the previous books pop up here, and I loved the band mates of Roman’s and how well everyone gets along, eventually. The manager isn’t too happy with Drake in the beginning, but he sees, he really SEES that Drake is good for Roman.
I have just one comment, and it IS just a comment, rather than anything else!
Does Miles get talked about before, the seventh member of this little group of childhood friends? Indeed, was the name of the group mentioned? I don’t recall, so maybe I missed it, but I’ve been to sleep since I read book 3, so maybe it’s just me not recalling correctly.
Given what occurs here, with Tristan and James, or more what’s IMPLIED here with those two, I assume their book is next. And then? Miles? Since he will be the only one left, and I look forward to reading his book the most now!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Puppet Show (Washington Poe, #1) in Books
Sep 24, 2020
Tilly and Poe are an absolutely stunning combo. They are total opposites in everything: age, the way they work, IQ levels, but they make such an amazing team together. I really liked Poe and his personality, he has a great analytical mind and strong determination to achieve justice. However, Tilly was my favourite in this book, she is such a unique and original character! She is full of surprises, and her intelligence and naivety are incredibly refreshing. I really liked the way the author portrayed the different relationships between police personnel, all the politics and territorial fights were very amusing to read about, and gave the sense, that the author really knows what he is talking about. His work experience in the police and life in the Lake District was very well utilized in this book.
The narrative was very creatively written. The excitement in this book comes in waves, we have these calm periods, when it seems that not many things happen, and then the author throws in some great twist or turn, and the whole buzz comes back rushing. I really liked the topics which the author discussed in this book, such as workplace bullying, child abuse, politics in the management, etc. The story was told from a single perspective, bringing in a lot of Poe’s personal emotions. Even though it was sufficient to me, I would love to see how Tilly’s brain works and how she is processing different situations.
The setting of the book is constantly changing between different places in Cumbria, and the detailed descriptions made me feel like I am with Poe on this journey. The writing style was very pleasant with short chapters, which really just flew by. I have to add a little warning, this novel does carry some scenes where people might feel disturbed. The ending was very cleverly written, where it rounded the whole story very well, but at the same time, leaving you questioning of what is going to happen next.
To conclude, I think it is a very intriguing and absorbing thriller, filled with very unique but at the same time believable characters, and the plot, that keeps thickening as you go, engrossing you with all the new findings and leads. It was a true page-turner to me and I can not wait for the second book in the series. If you haven’t read it, please do, I think it is worth the time, and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.
The narrative was very creatively written. The excitement in this book comes in waves, we have these calm periods, when it seems that not many things happen, and then the author throws in some great twist or turn, and the whole buzz comes back rushing. I really liked the topics which the author discussed in this book, such as workplace bullying, child abuse, politics in the management, etc. The story was told from a single perspective, bringing in a lot of Poe’s personal emotions. Even though it was sufficient to me, I would love to see how Tilly’s brain works and how she is processing different situations.
The setting of the book is constantly changing between different places in Cumbria, and the detailed descriptions made me feel like I am with Poe on this journey. The writing style was very pleasant with short chapters, which really just flew by. I have to add a little warning, this novel does carry some scenes where people might feel disturbed. The ending was very cleverly written, where it rounded the whole story very well, but at the same time, leaving you questioning of what is going to happen next.
To conclude, I think it is a very intriguing and absorbing thriller, filled with very unique but at the same time believable characters, and the plot, that keeps thickening as you go, engrossing you with all the new findings and leads. It was a true page-turner to me and I can not wait for the second book in the series. If you haven’t read it, please do, I think it is worth the time, and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Ready Player Two in Books
Jan 11, 2021
What happened?!
Until a couple of weeks ago, I hadn’t known this sequel even existed. My joy at finding out there was a sequel was scuppered a little after hearing some not very positive things about it, however I couldn’t not read this after absolutely loving Ready Player One. I was hoping the reviews I’d read were wrong... but unfortunately not.
Right from the start, something feels off about Ready Player Two. It feels a little too forced and the writing style seems rather stilted and basic. All of the pop culture references feel forced and don’t flow, and a lot feel like they’ve been shoehorned in without really contributing to the story (there was a reference to Jodie Whittaker as The Doctor which is great but felt out of place). There was also a lot of explanations that were entirely unnecessary - one example was the description and explanation of Rivendell, which occurred multiple times in the first 100 pages alone. I don’t remember the original being quite so laboured and pedantic when it comes to explaining all of the references. What’s strange though is that there’s also some very subtle references thrown in - a nod to Warden Norton from Shawshank was very much appreciated - and it made me wonder if these were subtle nods or a lack of originality.
The problem with this is that it’s sadly rather dull. The new quest, despite the dire and life threatening consequences, doesn’t come across as particularly exciting or intriguing. It doesn’t help that the quests to gain the seven shards vary from overly descriptive (describing every level of the Sega Ninja game was particularly tedious) to rushed and blink and you’ll miss it, and I just found myself unable to invest very much in the story. I did want to carry on reading, but I’m unsure if this was due to interest or wanting to get to the end and find out if it gets any better. The ending didn’t help either. Some of it was great, but the rest which I won’t reveal gets far too technically complicated and goes a little too sci-fi, even for a novel set in a virtual reality style world.
I really wanted this to be good and instead it was just very disappointing. Another case of an unnecessary sequel, to the point where it has made me want to re-read the original to see if I may have over-egged how good that was too, as I just can’t see how this can be so bad.
Right from the start, something feels off about Ready Player Two. It feels a little too forced and the writing style seems rather stilted and basic. All of the pop culture references feel forced and don’t flow, and a lot feel like they’ve been shoehorned in without really contributing to the story (there was a reference to Jodie Whittaker as The Doctor which is great but felt out of place). There was also a lot of explanations that were entirely unnecessary - one example was the description and explanation of Rivendell, which occurred multiple times in the first 100 pages alone. I don’t remember the original being quite so laboured and pedantic when it comes to explaining all of the references. What’s strange though is that there’s also some very subtle references thrown in - a nod to Warden Norton from Shawshank was very much appreciated - and it made me wonder if these were subtle nods or a lack of originality.
The problem with this is that it’s sadly rather dull. The new quest, despite the dire and life threatening consequences, doesn’t come across as particularly exciting or intriguing. It doesn’t help that the quests to gain the seven shards vary from overly descriptive (describing every level of the Sega Ninja game was particularly tedious) to rushed and blink and you’ll miss it, and I just found myself unable to invest very much in the story. I did want to carry on reading, but I’m unsure if this was due to interest or wanting to get to the end and find out if it gets any better. The ending didn’t help either. Some of it was great, but the rest which I won’t reveal gets far too technically complicated and goes a little too sci-fi, even for a novel set in a virtual reality style world.
I really wanted this to be good and instead it was just very disappointing. Another case of an unnecessary sequel, to the point where it has made me want to re-read the original to see if I may have over-egged how good that was too, as I just can’t see how this can be so bad.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Park (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, this is going to be awash with spoilers because I was absolutely amazed by the reaction I had to it. It's not unheard of for movies to turn out differently to how the trailer portrays them but in this case it felt like a rather low blow. I think there should have been some clues to what lay ahead without having to read reviews.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Gunman (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have an action film on deck for you and ‘no’ it doesn’t star Matt Damon or Jason Statham. This latest film ‘The Gunman’ stars none other than Sean Penn?! Yes, Sean Penn has decided to step into the action genre in his latest film.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Disney: "We're making a film of Artemis Fowl!"
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated 300 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 300 starts by telling us about Leonidas and how he was put through his training as a child before becoming King Leonidas (Butler). When a Persian messenger comes to Sparta with a message from King Xerxes (Santoro) about an impending war Leonidas refuses to back down. Leonidas draws up a battle plan to go against the Persian’s against that out numbers them drastically. The oracles warn Leonidas about going into the battle but Leonidas refuses to back down.
Leonidas selects 300 warriors who have sons to carry on their names to go and fight leaving Sparta behind. One the way to the battle Leonidas and his men learn what the Persians are capable off as they prepare for the battle. We follow King Leonidas and his 300 as they plough through the Persian army defying all of the odds, while another battle for power rages on back at Sparta.
300 shows how determined one group of people were to protect their own land, sure we have comic book style which helps the film enter the fantasy side. It doesn’t have the most original screen story but this is clearly made for the action. We do see how the warriors of Sparta would have been the better in battle even if the actual battle turned into something very fantasy based. Just remember you won’t need to be thinking too much through this film, just relax and enjoy. (7/10)
Actor Review
Gerard Butler: King Leonidas fearless warrior who leads his army of 300 into battle against the Persians against all odds. He goes against all the gods and wishes of their oracle to battle for his people. Gerard gives a good performance showing how he was going to be a lead actor. (8/10)
leonidas
Lena Headey: Queen Gorgo who is left to rule Sparta while the King goes into battle. She has to deal with Theron who stays back might not be as loyal as first thought. Lena gives a good performance and shows how she was always going to be playing a Queen. (7/10)
lena
Dominic West: Theron Spartan who stays behind and tries to use his power in the city to gain power over the people while Leonidas is battling for their freedom. Dominic gives a solid performance as the scheming villain. (6/10)
dom
David Wenham: Dilios warrior who is also the story telling, he provides narration for the story and fills us in on Leonidas’ past. David gives a good performance as the story teller but also warrior who fights for Sparta. (6/10)
david
Michael Fassbender: Stelios one of the fearless warriors who has never faced a real challenge and hopes to find one in this battle. Michael gives a good performance as the greatest warrior of the army in what was his debut role. (7/10)
stelios
Support Cast: 300 supporting cast is filled with warriors on both sides of the fight, they all have their moments in the battle.
Director Review: Zack Snyder – Zack showed why he is such a popular director with his newer style of directing which is both unique and entertaining. (8/10)
Action: 300 has plenty of fights but what did you expect from this kind of war film. (9/10)
Fantasy: 300 uses fantasy for its battles showing how different types of warriors could be looked and the legend created by fear. (8/10)
War: 300 shows of the great battles between the Persians and the Spartans. (10/10)
Settings: 300 creates the settings to look very authentic looking scenery for the battle scenes. (9/10)
Special Effects: 300 uses great effects for the fights and to create the different style of fighters. (9/10)
Suggestion: 300 is one for the action fans to enjoy, it has plenty of fighting but not much in the way of thinking needed. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Stelios Now.
Worst Part: Lots of shouting from Leonidas.
Action Scene Of The Film: The first battle.
Kill Of The Film: Monster creature man vs Leonidas.
Favourite Quote: King Leonidas ‘This is Sparta!’
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has a sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $456 Million
Budget: $65 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes
Tagline: Spartans, prepare for glory!
Overall: THIS IS ‘JUST’ GOOD!
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/16/300-2006/
Leonidas selects 300 warriors who have sons to carry on their names to go and fight leaving Sparta behind. One the way to the battle Leonidas and his men learn what the Persians are capable off as they prepare for the battle. We follow King Leonidas and his 300 as they plough through the Persian army defying all of the odds, while another battle for power rages on back at Sparta.
300 shows how determined one group of people were to protect their own land, sure we have comic book style which helps the film enter the fantasy side. It doesn’t have the most original screen story but this is clearly made for the action. We do see how the warriors of Sparta would have been the better in battle even if the actual battle turned into something very fantasy based. Just remember you won’t need to be thinking too much through this film, just relax and enjoy. (7/10)
Actor Review
Gerard Butler: King Leonidas fearless warrior who leads his army of 300 into battle against the Persians against all odds. He goes against all the gods and wishes of their oracle to battle for his people. Gerard gives a good performance showing how he was going to be a lead actor. (8/10)
leonidas
Lena Headey: Queen Gorgo who is left to rule Sparta while the King goes into battle. She has to deal with Theron who stays back might not be as loyal as first thought. Lena gives a good performance and shows how she was always going to be playing a Queen. (7/10)
lena
Dominic West: Theron Spartan who stays behind and tries to use his power in the city to gain power over the people while Leonidas is battling for their freedom. Dominic gives a solid performance as the scheming villain. (6/10)
dom
David Wenham: Dilios warrior who is also the story telling, he provides narration for the story and fills us in on Leonidas’ past. David gives a good performance as the story teller but also warrior who fights for Sparta. (6/10)
david
Michael Fassbender: Stelios one of the fearless warriors who has never faced a real challenge and hopes to find one in this battle. Michael gives a good performance as the greatest warrior of the army in what was his debut role. (7/10)
stelios
Support Cast: 300 supporting cast is filled with warriors on both sides of the fight, they all have their moments in the battle.
Director Review: Zack Snyder – Zack showed why he is such a popular director with his newer style of directing which is both unique and entertaining. (8/10)
Action: 300 has plenty of fights but what did you expect from this kind of war film. (9/10)
Fantasy: 300 uses fantasy for its battles showing how different types of warriors could be looked and the legend created by fear. (8/10)
War: 300 shows of the great battles between the Persians and the Spartans. (10/10)
Settings: 300 creates the settings to look very authentic looking scenery for the battle scenes. (9/10)
Special Effects: 300 uses great effects for the fights and to create the different style of fighters. (9/10)
Suggestion: 300 is one for the action fans to enjoy, it has plenty of fighting but not much in the way of thinking needed. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Stelios Now.
Worst Part: Lots of shouting from Leonidas.
Action Scene Of The Film: The first battle.
Kill Of The Film: Monster creature man vs Leonidas.
Favourite Quote: King Leonidas ‘This is Sparta!’
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has a sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $456 Million
Budget: $65 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes
Tagline: Spartans, prepare for glory!
Overall: THIS IS ‘JUST’ GOOD!
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/16/300-2006/