Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Once Upon A Deadpool (Deadpool 2 PG-13 Version) (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Taking what was old making it new again as long been criticism that is been levied against Hollywood. With abundance equals flooding the theaters as well as reboots; people often cynically ask if Hollywood has run out of new ideas. The latest film to fall under these criteria would be “Once Upon A Deadpool” where audiences are presented with a sanitized version of “Deadpool 2” accompanied by approximately 11 min. worth of new footage at the beginning and spread throughout.
The PG-13 take on what was definitely a very “R” rated film is been met with skeptics who see this as a sign of the pending Disney acquisition of Fox to test the waters to see if audiences will accept a more subdued take on the hero us paving the way for future adventures to be the more box office friendly “PG-13″.
The film cleverly opens with Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), having kidnapped or as he likes to refer to it” involuntary relocation assistance”; Fred Savage as he attempts to re-create the opening of “The Princess Bride” and reads to him a family-friendlier version of “Deadpool 2”.
The film plays out as it did earlier this summer safe for much of the language being removed and use of pixels and cutaways to remove objectionable or an adult content to preserve the “PG-13” rating. What makes it enjoyable are the new seems where Reynolds and Savage exchange banter and debate topics ranging from Nickelback to the pending Disney acquisition of Fox.
I found myself looking forward to the next cutaway to hear what comments would be coming next including a very clever discussion of possible outcomes of Deadpool’s regenerative properties; and how they were not explored in the film due to “lazy writing”.
For me it was mostly a mixed bag as I enjoyed seeing the new footage as any new Deadpool content is always a treat and Reynolds seem to be having a great time returning to the character in an abbreviated fashion.
While the film basically played out as before; I found a sanitized version to not be as appealing simply because one of the joys of the character and the series is not knowing what will come next. How far will a joke be taken, how much Gore is going to be used for comedic effect, what invented a new profanity is going to spew from Deadpool? Much of this is been taken away to what I believe is a detriment to the franchise. One of the joys about the films is that the wise comments come at the audience and a rapid-fire approach. This makes you want to see the film again in order to catch what you witnessed previously. It felt like I was being deprived of this opportunity because while in many ways it was the same film, much of the adage that made the film stand out has been subdued.
While it is great that younger audiences will have an opportunity to experience the character; those of us who’ve seen him and his full uncensored glory will undoubtedly feel that this is a direction that should not be pursued for the future and that audiences want and deserve a fully uncensored Deadpool.
However for a little bit of family fun and a cute new laughs; “Once Upon A Deadpool”, is a pleasant enough distraction.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/once-upon-a-deadpool/
The PG-13 take on what was definitely a very “R” rated film is been met with skeptics who see this as a sign of the pending Disney acquisition of Fox to test the waters to see if audiences will accept a more subdued take on the hero us paving the way for future adventures to be the more box office friendly “PG-13″.
The film cleverly opens with Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), having kidnapped or as he likes to refer to it” involuntary relocation assistance”; Fred Savage as he attempts to re-create the opening of “The Princess Bride” and reads to him a family-friendlier version of “Deadpool 2”.
The film plays out as it did earlier this summer safe for much of the language being removed and use of pixels and cutaways to remove objectionable or an adult content to preserve the “PG-13” rating. What makes it enjoyable are the new seems where Reynolds and Savage exchange banter and debate topics ranging from Nickelback to the pending Disney acquisition of Fox.
I found myself looking forward to the next cutaway to hear what comments would be coming next including a very clever discussion of possible outcomes of Deadpool’s regenerative properties; and how they were not explored in the film due to “lazy writing”.
For me it was mostly a mixed bag as I enjoyed seeing the new footage as any new Deadpool content is always a treat and Reynolds seem to be having a great time returning to the character in an abbreviated fashion.
While the film basically played out as before; I found a sanitized version to not be as appealing simply because one of the joys of the character and the series is not knowing what will come next. How far will a joke be taken, how much Gore is going to be used for comedic effect, what invented a new profanity is going to spew from Deadpool? Much of this is been taken away to what I believe is a detriment to the franchise. One of the joys about the films is that the wise comments come at the audience and a rapid-fire approach. This makes you want to see the film again in order to catch what you witnessed previously. It felt like I was being deprived of this opportunity because while in many ways it was the same film, much of the adage that made the film stand out has been subdued.
While it is great that younger audiences will have an opportunity to experience the character; those of us who’ve seen him and his full uncensored glory will undoubtedly feel that this is a direction that should not be pursued for the future and that audiences want and deserve a fully uncensored Deadpool.
However for a little bit of family fun and a cute new laughs; “Once Upon A Deadpool”, is a pleasant enough distraction.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/once-upon-a-deadpool/
Vizzywig 2014 - Video Editor Multi Camera
Photo & Video and Social Networking
App
The world's first all-in-one, movie-making application for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch that lets...
Choices: Stories You Play
Entertainment and Games
6.9
Rate It
App
One choice can change everything! Fall in love, solve crimes, or embark on epic fantasy adventures...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Fins ain’t what they used to be.
OK, OK, so I must be about the last person in the country – at least, those who want to see this at the cinema – who actually has! Maybe its something about the summer slipping into autumn that made me crave for one last summer blockbuster hoorah! In any case, I feel like a bit of a traitor, since I was very scathing about this film’s trailer when it came out. But – do you know – as a brainless piece of popcorn entertainment, I quite enjoyed it!
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paths of Glory (1957) in Movies
Feb 18, 2024
Early Kubrick Masterpiece
Dore Schary, then head of production of MGM, like Stanley Kubrick’s first film, THE KILLING (1956) so he hired Kubrick to develop film stories from the studios pile of scripts and purchased novels. Finding nothing the he liked, Kubrick remembered reading Humprhey Cobb’s anti-war novel PATHS OF GLORY and suggested that. Schary (like every other studio exec in Hollywood at the time) turned down the opportunity to make this bleak anti-war film.
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Suswatibasu (1702 KP) rated Bad Feminist in Books
Nov 23, 2017
A mixed bag of essays
Roxane Gay is a gifted writer no doubt, but like a lot of her more prominent work, there are huge amounts of autobiographical information that didn't seem completely relevant.
Her essays on the intersection of feminism with misogynistic pop culture was incredibly on point, exploring E.L. James' infamous BDSM novel Fifty Shades of Grey, as well as other popular novels such as Twilight. She briefly mentions rape culture and how all of the above feeds into this notion.
Similarly her discussion on how race is portrayed in major Hollywood motion pictures is accurately disturbing - showing how African Americans are used in plots as a way to prop up white protagonists (The Help, Django Unchained).
Some of her other chapters seemed disconnected as if they were put in the book because there was no other place for it. This appears in the chapter on Scrabble. (Playing Scrabble doesn't make you a bad feminist).
There were a lot of haphazard thoughts that didn't quite thread together with the rest of the book ie. abortion rights, and male politicians' views on body autonomy. Gay was pretty adamant on her views on this, which appeared to showcase her opinion that she truly is a feminist.
The underlying message was that you may have flaws by enjoying aspects of pop culture, but as long as you are aware of how important it is that women receive equal rights, you can be any kind of feminist. But the book does feel as if she's trying to prove it to herself and to the world which seems rather unnecessary. We believe you Roxane.
Her essays on the intersection of feminism with misogynistic pop culture was incredibly on point, exploring E.L. James' infamous BDSM novel Fifty Shades of Grey, as well as other popular novels such as Twilight. She briefly mentions rape culture and how all of the above feeds into this notion.
Similarly her discussion on how race is portrayed in major Hollywood motion pictures is accurately disturbing - showing how African Americans are used in plots as a way to prop up white protagonists (The Help, Django Unchained).
Some of her other chapters seemed disconnected as if they were put in the book because there was no other place for it. This appears in the chapter on Scrabble. (Playing Scrabble doesn't make you a bad feminist).
There were a lot of haphazard thoughts that didn't quite thread together with the rest of the book ie. abortion rights, and male politicians' views on body autonomy. Gay was pretty adamant on her views on this, which appeared to showcase her opinion that she truly is a feminist.
The underlying message was that you may have flaws by enjoying aspects of pop culture, but as long as you are aware of how important it is that women receive equal rights, you can be any kind of feminist. But the book does feel as if she's trying to prove it to herself and to the world which seems rather unnecessary. We believe you Roxane.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bleed For This (2016) in Movies
Aug 11, 2017 (Updated Oct 25, 2017)
Incredible true story (4 more)
Eckhart & Teller are brilliant in the lead performances
The supporting cast are great too
Tight script
Good direction
One Of The Most Remarkable Comebacks In History
If this movie wasn't based in true events, it would be ridiculed for being too far fetched. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that, (as is with the case with all movies based on a 'true' story,) some aspects of the film have been exaggerated for dramatic purposes, but even still, this is an incredible story about triumph over adversity.
The cast are all great, Miles Teller at this point is up there with Christian Bale and Jake Gyllenhaal as a young character actor at the top of his game in my eyes. He is fantastic as Pazienza and does a brilliant job conveying the pain and tragedy that Vinnie faced and the 'nothing will stop me,' attitude that Vinnie possessed. Aaron Eckhart goes from Hollywood heart-throb, to past his prime shlub in this role and he sells it convincingly, he truly is one of the most underrated character actors working today in my opinion.
The rest of the ensemble cast are great. The production is also of an immensely high quality, the sets, sound design and abrupt editing all make up an equally grim and glamorous world that feels realistic and lived in.
Overall this film is definitely worth a watch, whether you are a boxing fan or not, it is a hugely inspirational story that has been brought to life masterfully and is a story that should be witnessed by everybody.
The cast are all great, Miles Teller at this point is up there with Christian Bale and Jake Gyllenhaal as a young character actor at the top of his game in my eyes. He is fantastic as Pazienza and does a brilliant job conveying the pain and tragedy that Vinnie faced and the 'nothing will stop me,' attitude that Vinnie possessed. Aaron Eckhart goes from Hollywood heart-throb, to past his prime shlub in this role and he sells it convincingly, he truly is one of the most underrated character actors working today in my opinion.
The rest of the ensemble cast are great. The production is also of an immensely high quality, the sets, sound design and abrupt editing all make up an equally grim and glamorous world that feels realistic and lived in.
Overall this film is definitely worth a watch, whether you are a boxing fan or not, it is a hugely inspirational story that has been brought to life masterfully and is a story that should be witnessed by everybody.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated She Walks in Beauty in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I knew next to nothing about New York City's gilded age before reading this book, so this was both a history lesson and an eye-opener to the practices of that time period, expecially among the wealthy young women. I had no idea of the extent that corsets were damaging to the body and health of a woman, and it really explains much of the female behavior that has been epitomized in Hollywood's classic films, such as the common fainting spells. It shows that the "modern" world really has not changed very much in regards to the demands put on women to look and act a certain way to be regarded as attractive. The similarities between Hollywood and the Gilded Age are both remarkable and quite sad, from the encouragement of anorexia and the overindulgence of luxury to how the popularity of an individual can be solely determined by the words of the press.
I did enjoy following Clara's rise to fame and infamy, even if the glamour and mystery of it was stripped away, so to speak. The Christian themes of God loving you just as you are and having a purpose beyond the practices of "society" seemed muted and understated throughout the book, but rather than detracting from the plot, it only seemed to enhance it. While I have been under the impression that books that fall in this genre of Christian Fiction should focus mostly on some Christian theme, this particular book did not seem to. The focus seemed more on revealing the truth about what really happened in New York City's Gilded Age through the eyes of a debutante.
I did enjoy following Clara's rise to fame and infamy, even if the glamour and mystery of it was stripped away, so to speak. The Christian themes of God loving you just as you are and having a purpose beyond the practices of "society" seemed muted and understated throughout the book, but rather than detracting from the plot, it only seemed to enhance it. While I have been under the impression that books that fall in this genre of Christian Fiction should focus mostly on some Christian theme, this particular book did not seem to. The focus seemed more on revealing the truth about what really happened in New York City's Gilded Age through the eyes of a debutante.