Search
Search results
Just Tattoo Of Us
6.9
Rate It
TV Show
The show follows Charlotte Crosby and Stephen Bear as they open the doors to the 'Just Tattoo of Us'...
Just tattoo of us Tattoo Reality tv
Stealing Candy
Book
Candy hates boarding school. As a junior, graduation is still eons away, and making films is the...
Stewart Lewis Stealing Candy Kidnapping Kidnappers Road trip Romance
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Oct 3, 2021
The Cook and the Gangster (Farthingdale Ranch #5) by Jackie North
8.0
Rate It
Book
“Time cannot erase the love I feel for you, my friend.” Levi has worked very hard to find a...
Contemporary MM Romance
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
République
Games and Entertainment
App
In “Episode 5: Terminus," the fifth and final episode of the thrilling République saga, battle...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an interesting piece. Originally commissioned for a 30 minute documentary piece, Peter Jackson found so much footage and so many stories to tell that he managed to extend it into a feature length production.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Staircase in TV
Jun 27, 2018 (Updated Nov 27, 2018)
Pretty Captivating
I went straight into watching the Staircase immediately after watching Evil Genius and initially was underwhelmed due to the simplicity of this case in comparison to the case in Evil Genius. However, after sticking with the show after a few episodes, I found myself more invested and binged the entire series over the next few days. I never watched the original 9 episodes when they originally aired back in 2004, which I was actually glad of as it allowed me to take in the entire story in a few sittings from start to finish.
There are a lot of interesting characters in this doc and it is really them that keep your interest throughout. Michael Peterson is interesting to watch and listen to, regardless of whether or not you think that he is guilty of the crime he is accused of committing. The rest of the Peterson family are also interesting and it is eye opening, - if slightly harrowing, - to see all of these people go through this decades spanning ordeal. Michael's lawyer, David Rudolph is also pretty entertaining and it is compelling to watch him work.
Out of all of the docs I watched recently, this one provides the most closure and tells the most complete story, which makes sticking with all of it's 13 episodes feel satisfying.
I wanted to add a wee bit onto this review after I went to see David Rudolph speak in Glasgow last night during his, 'Inside The Staircase,' World Tour. It was an interesting night and well worth going to as a fan of the documentary. David brought with him some unseen clips from the show and some unseen autopsy photos. After seeing this fresh evidence, I personally am convinced that the Owl Theory is the most plausible scenario at this point. At first, I thought that the Owl Theory was absurd, but after David laid out all of the evidence to support the theory last night, I don't see how it could have possibly played out any other way. Regardless, this is still a very interesting case and the documentary is well worth a binge if you haven't already seen it.
There are a lot of interesting characters in this doc and it is really them that keep your interest throughout. Michael Peterson is interesting to watch and listen to, regardless of whether or not you think that he is guilty of the crime he is accused of committing. The rest of the Peterson family are also interesting and it is eye opening, - if slightly harrowing, - to see all of these people go through this decades spanning ordeal. Michael's lawyer, David Rudolph is also pretty entertaining and it is compelling to watch him work.
Out of all of the docs I watched recently, this one provides the most closure and tells the most complete story, which makes sticking with all of it's 13 episodes feel satisfying.
I wanted to add a wee bit onto this review after I went to see David Rudolph speak in Glasgow last night during his, 'Inside The Staircase,' World Tour. It was an interesting night and well worth going to as a fan of the documentary. David brought with him some unseen clips from the show and some unseen autopsy photos. After seeing this fresh evidence, I personally am convinced that the Owl Theory is the most plausible scenario at this point. At first, I thought that the Owl Theory was absurd, but after David laid out all of the evidence to support the theory last night, I don't see how it could have possibly played out any other way. Regardless, this is still a very interesting case and the documentary is well worth a binge if you haven't already seen it.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Tri (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
An Inspirational Piece Showing Us that Even in The Face of Adversity, Who are We to not Achieve Greatness??
After having recently watched and reviewed the great Sports Documentary Ice Guardians (See previous posts). When Tri dropped into my lap it felt like the right time to give it a go and boy am I glad I did…
Where do I start with Tri?? Okay. First off this is not so much a documentary as it is a scripted carefully and accurately portrayed story of a Triathletes journey from start to finish. On paper you have to wonder what is there to keep you in this flick, well I am here to tell you fine people, A LOT.
We open the movie with Natalie played by Award Winning Actress Jensen Jacobs. Natalie is an Ultrasound Technician and after an appointment with a cancer suffering patient she is Inspired to sign up for a Triathlon. We find she is met by some hesitance from her friends and family as Natalie has trouble finishing just about everything she stajensen-jacobs-bike-300x157rts. The difference here though is that she signs up with a cast of great characters who all have there own inspiring stories to tell. Natalie is introduced to a world she was not prepared for and must look deep inside herself to get to the end of this journey.
Of course while this is primarily Natalie’s story we have a colorful set of team members for her to rely on. Each member of this team bringing a depth to this movie that… I wont lie to you… not only surprised me at points by moved me at others. This movie starts out as one thing and hits you with a one two punch of Sentiment and Inspiration. Leaving you wondering “who am I to feel sorry for myself? When people can show this kind of strength.”
I am not going to delve any further into this plot wise, because I really want you guys to support this movie and give it your attention. In my humble opinion I can honestly say that I believe this movie should be seen. Not only is this a well made and carefully told story but the acting talent on display is on point and its truly no wonder this movie is a hit with the critics and winning a boat load of awards.
After having recently watched and reviewed the great Sports Documentary Ice Guardians (See previous posts). When Tri dropped into my lap it felt like the right time to give it a go and boy am I glad I did…
Where do I start with Tri?? Okay. First off this is not so much a documentary as it is a scripted carefully and accurately portrayed story of a Triathletes journey from start to finish. On paper you have to wonder what is there to keep you in this flick, well I am here to tell you fine people, A LOT.
We open the movie with Natalie played by Award Winning Actress Jensen Jacobs. Natalie is an Ultrasound Technician and after an appointment with a cancer suffering patient she is Inspired to sign up for a Triathlon. We find she is met by some hesitance from her friends and family as Natalie has trouble finishing just about everything she stajensen-jacobs-bike-300x157rts. The difference here though is that she signs up with a cast of great characters who all have there own inspiring stories to tell. Natalie is introduced to a world she was not prepared for and must look deep inside herself to get to the end of this journey.
Of course while this is primarily Natalie’s story we have a colorful set of team members for her to rely on. Each member of this team bringing a depth to this movie that… I wont lie to you… not only surprised me at points by moved me at others. This movie starts out as one thing and hits you with a one two punch of Sentiment and Inspiration. Leaving you wondering “who am I to feel sorry for myself? When people can show this kind of strength.”
I am not going to delve any further into this plot wise, because I really want you guys to support this movie and give it your attention. In my humble opinion I can honestly say that I believe this movie should be seen. Not only is this a well made and carefully told story but the acting talent on display is on point and its truly no wonder this movie is a hit with the critics and winning a boat load of awards.
Once Were Brothers: Robbie Robertson and The Band (2019)
Movie
Directed by Daniel Roher (Ghosts of Our Forest) and executive produced by Martin Scorsese, Brian...