Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated The Hunt (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
The Hunt is a gripping yet dramatic look at the persecution of one man in a small Danish town, after he is accused of sexually assaulting a young girl.
With such subject matter being so delicate it needed a careful approach as its something that is so true to life it can resonate with peoples moral views in quite a significant way. Lucas (Mikkelsen) is a nursery teacher, quiet and reclusive he lives alone trying to come to terms with the fact that he is not able to see his son as much as he would like to.
Lucas clearly has a fond affection for the children that he looks after, but his life is torn apart one day by a small white lie that sets the wheels in motion for a real life witch hunt.
The film is hard to watch at times and rightly so, it’s dealing with something that occurs in the real world and it can be stomach churning. But director Thomas Vinterberg gets to the heart of the matter quickly and in such a way that it creates compelling interest.
Former Bond villain and TV Hannibal star Mikkelsen is an exceptional centre piece as a loving father desperate for a way out, and in such a small environment it seems to be a hard task to accomplish. It’s at times like this that you know who your real friends are, and Lucas comes to realise that in the harshest of circumstances as he is slowly but surely chased down by a hunting pack of townsfolk.
How apt it is that Mikkelsen seen hunting deer in the forest at the start, now knows himself what that feeling is like as the hunter now becomes the hunted. It’s a film that genuinely makes you angry, your emotions are pulled one way and then the next as you try to put yourself in the shoes of a number of different people, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing, guilty until proven innocent.
At the start we’re quite sure that Lucas is innocent, but there is enough in the narrative that at times we question ourselves in what is a slow burning story executed with the highest precision. The supporting cast are all brilliant, and do themselves credit to subject matter that must be hard to act against, especially when there are children involved.
People will do evil things when pushed to the limit by what they feel is right or wrong as the case maybe, and its a journey that Vinterberg takes us on in horrifying consequences.
The Hunt expels emotions such as paranoia, guilt and suspicion, all in a community bonded closely by long lasting friendships they have with each other. The closing scene proves that even after time has passed some things are gone but certainly not forgotten.
With such subject matter being so delicate it needed a careful approach as its something that is so true to life it can resonate with peoples moral views in quite a significant way. Lucas (Mikkelsen) is a nursery teacher, quiet and reclusive he lives alone trying to come to terms with the fact that he is not able to see his son as much as he would like to.
Lucas clearly has a fond affection for the children that he looks after, but his life is torn apart one day by a small white lie that sets the wheels in motion for a real life witch hunt.
The film is hard to watch at times and rightly so, it’s dealing with something that occurs in the real world and it can be stomach churning. But director Thomas Vinterberg gets to the heart of the matter quickly and in such a way that it creates compelling interest.
Former Bond villain and TV Hannibal star Mikkelsen is an exceptional centre piece as a loving father desperate for a way out, and in such a small environment it seems to be a hard task to accomplish. It’s at times like this that you know who your real friends are, and Lucas comes to realise that in the harshest of circumstances as he is slowly but surely chased down by a hunting pack of townsfolk.
How apt it is that Mikkelsen seen hunting deer in the forest at the start, now knows himself what that feeling is like as the hunter now becomes the hunted. It’s a film that genuinely makes you angry, your emotions are pulled one way and then the next as you try to put yourself in the shoes of a number of different people, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing, guilty until proven innocent.
At the start we’re quite sure that Lucas is innocent, but there is enough in the narrative that at times we question ourselves in what is a slow burning story executed with the highest precision. The supporting cast are all brilliant, and do themselves credit to subject matter that must be hard to act against, especially when there are children involved.
People will do evil things when pushed to the limit by what they feel is right or wrong as the case maybe, and its a journey that Vinterberg takes us on in horrifying consequences.
The Hunt expels emotions such as paranoia, guilt and suspicion, all in a community bonded closely by long lasting friendships they have with each other. The closing scene proves that even after time has passed some things are gone but certainly not forgotten.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Thumbing Through Thoreau: A Book of Quotations by Henry David Thoreau in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The cover of the book is taken from a beautiful painting of Walden Pond in Concord, Massachusetts where Henry David Thoreau lived and wrote. Unfortunately, the artwork on nearly every page in the text is not nearly as attractive or colorful, and seems rather repetitious after 50 pages or so. According to the cover, Jay Luke's artwork is on the even-numbered pages and Ren Adam's artwork is on the odd-numbered pages, though truthfully I could not distinguish between the two artists' styles.
The book is divided into three sections that each of the quotes could be filed under: "Society & Government", "Spirituality & Nature", and "Love." The quotes that Kenny Luck compiled were indeed thought-provoking. When examining the collection as a whole, I could imagine the kind of man that wrote these words day in and day out. As Luck states: "This book... is my attempt to bring together the best pieces of Thoreau's writings in one collection." Before reading this book, I was not overly familiar with Thoreau's work, and afterwards I realized that the man Thoreau has much in common with my own husband. But I digress.
Some quotes were familiar, such as this one:
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
Many more quotes were unfamiliar, but quite profound:
"I am convinced, that if all men were to live as simply as I then did, thieving and robbery would be unknown."
"What is it [to] be born free and equal, and not to live? What is the value of any political freedom, but as a means to moral freedom?"
"A written word is the choicest of relics."
"The day is an epitome of the year. The night is the winter, the morning and evening are the spring and fall, and the noon is the summer."
"I suspect that the child plucks its first flower awith an insight into its beauty and significance which the subsequent botanist never retains."
"To be married at least should be the one poetical act of a man's life."
"Love is a severe critic."
"The only way to speak the truth is to speak lovingly; only the lover's words are heard."
What I found especially distracting was how the words within each quote varied in font size and color, almost as if Luck did not trust the reader enough to know how to read the work and felt he had to dictate to the reader where the emphasis lay in each quote. While I can not say for sure if this was the aim, I felt like my intelligence was being belittled and undervalued as I flipped through the pages. Plus, these words are Thoreau's, not Kenny Luck's, and only Thoreau would be able to truly say where the emphasis within each sentence should be. Luck is only presuming to make intelligent guesses. While I respect Luck's obsession, which he describes in his introduction, I think he should allow for the words of Thoreau to stand alone, so that each reader can appreciate Thoreau through his or her own interpretation.
"The fact is I am a mystic, a transcendentalist, and a natural philosopher to boot."
The book is divided into three sections that each of the quotes could be filed under: "Society & Government", "Spirituality & Nature", and "Love." The quotes that Kenny Luck compiled were indeed thought-provoking. When examining the collection as a whole, I could imagine the kind of man that wrote these words day in and day out. As Luck states: "This book... is my attempt to bring together the best pieces of Thoreau's writings in one collection." Before reading this book, I was not overly familiar with Thoreau's work, and afterwards I realized that the man Thoreau has much in common with my own husband. But I digress.
Some quotes were familiar, such as this one:
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
Many more quotes were unfamiliar, but quite profound:
"I am convinced, that if all men were to live as simply as I then did, thieving and robbery would be unknown."
"What is it [to] be born free and equal, and not to live? What is the value of any political freedom, but as a means to moral freedom?"
"A written word is the choicest of relics."
"The day is an epitome of the year. The night is the winter, the morning and evening are the spring and fall, and the noon is the summer."
"I suspect that the child plucks its first flower awith an insight into its beauty and significance which the subsequent botanist never retains."
"To be married at least should be the one poetical act of a man's life."
"Love is a severe critic."
"The only way to speak the truth is to speak lovingly; only the lover's words are heard."
What I found especially distracting was how the words within each quote varied in font size and color, almost as if Luck did not trust the reader enough to know how to read the work and felt he had to dictate to the reader where the emphasis lay in each quote. While I can not say for sure if this was the aim, I felt like my intelligence was being belittled and undervalued as I flipped through the pages. Plus, these words are Thoreau's, not Kenny Luck's, and only Thoreau would be able to truly say where the emphasis within each sentence should be. Luck is only presuming to make intelligent guesses. While I respect Luck's obsession, which he describes in his introduction, I think he should allow for the words of Thoreau to stand alone, so that each reader can appreciate Thoreau through his or her own interpretation.
"The fact is I am a mystic, a transcendentalist, and a natural philosopher to boot."
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Sing (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Fun for all the family
Talking animated animals are big business over in Hollywood. After all, Disney’s Zootopia was one of only a handful of films to gross over $1billion last year. Its competitor, The Secret Life of Pets performed well but wasn’t critically successful.
Here, the company behind that second film, Illumination Entertainment, try to get the genre right with Sing. But are we looking at the next superstar of the animated genre?
Koala Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) presides over a once-grand theatre that has recently fallen on hard times. An eternal optimist, he loves his work enormously and will do anything to preserve it. Facing the crumbling of his life’s ambition, he takes one final chance to restore his fading jewel to its former glory by producing a singing competition, with eternal glory facing the winner.
There’s an impressive roster of talent on offer in Sing, something that parents will no doubt enjoy slightly more than the offspring they no doubt have to bring with them. With Matthew McConaughey taking the lead role, Taron Egerton, Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Seth McFarlane to name a few all lend their voices. There’s even a role for Brit-favourite Jennifer Saunders as a grumpy old sheep, it’s not ground-breaking, but it’s immensely likeable stuff.
Illumination Entertainment has brought us the brilliant Despicable Me franchise as well as its ridiculously successful spin-off Minions, but they’ve been criticised heavily for relying too much on the funny yellow critters to cash their paycheques. Thankfully, bar the now infamous company logo, the tic-tac shaped creatures are nowhere to be found and Sing is a vastly entertaining movie, in spite of their absence.
Whilst it’s true that the animation lacks the depth or fluidity of offerings from Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks, there is a certain charm to its simplistic colour palate that children will find endearing. The plot is woefully unoriginal but director Garth Jennings, in his first animated feature, utilises that well, cleverly referencing the many talent shows that feature on our television screens – including those we are sick of.
There are some moral lessons in here too. Tori Kelly’s stage-shy elephant Meena has a great story arc that sees her face her fears and embrace her talents, whilst Taron Egerton’s gorilla Johnny stands up to his criminal father and learns that a life of crime doesn’t always pay.
In fact, only Seth MacFarlane’s obnoxious mouse Mike fails to make an impact on the plot, with his berating of an asthmatic sheep in the cleverly produced opening sequence coming across a little crude in comparison to the rest of the script.
Overall, Sing is a great film to hold the kid’s attention as we approach the half-term holidays. It would be easy to criticise it for lacking an original story, but there’s more to offer here than a half-baked plot. It’s beautifully voiced and reasonably well animated. Illumination Entertainment may not have topped Zootopia, but this is their best offering outside of Despicable Me by a country mile.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/28/fun-for-all-the-family-sing-review/
Here, the company behind that second film, Illumination Entertainment, try to get the genre right with Sing. But are we looking at the next superstar of the animated genre?
Koala Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) presides over a once-grand theatre that has recently fallen on hard times. An eternal optimist, he loves his work enormously and will do anything to preserve it. Facing the crumbling of his life’s ambition, he takes one final chance to restore his fading jewel to its former glory by producing a singing competition, with eternal glory facing the winner.
There’s an impressive roster of talent on offer in Sing, something that parents will no doubt enjoy slightly more than the offspring they no doubt have to bring with them. With Matthew McConaughey taking the lead role, Taron Egerton, Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Seth McFarlane to name a few all lend their voices. There’s even a role for Brit-favourite Jennifer Saunders as a grumpy old sheep, it’s not ground-breaking, but it’s immensely likeable stuff.
Illumination Entertainment has brought us the brilliant Despicable Me franchise as well as its ridiculously successful spin-off Minions, but they’ve been criticised heavily for relying too much on the funny yellow critters to cash their paycheques. Thankfully, bar the now infamous company logo, the tic-tac shaped creatures are nowhere to be found and Sing is a vastly entertaining movie, in spite of their absence.
Whilst it’s true that the animation lacks the depth or fluidity of offerings from Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks, there is a certain charm to its simplistic colour palate that children will find endearing. The plot is woefully unoriginal but director Garth Jennings, in his first animated feature, utilises that well, cleverly referencing the many talent shows that feature on our television screens – including those we are sick of.
There are some moral lessons in here too. Tori Kelly’s stage-shy elephant Meena has a great story arc that sees her face her fears and embrace her talents, whilst Taron Egerton’s gorilla Johnny stands up to his criminal father and learns that a life of crime doesn’t always pay.
In fact, only Seth MacFarlane’s obnoxious mouse Mike fails to make an impact on the plot, with his berating of an asthmatic sheep in the cleverly produced opening sequence coming across a little crude in comparison to the rest of the script.
Overall, Sing is a great film to hold the kid’s attention as we approach the half-term holidays. It would be easy to criticise it for lacking an original story, but there’s more to offer here than a half-baked plot. It’s beautifully voiced and reasonably well animated. Illumination Entertainment may not have topped Zootopia, but this is their best offering outside of Despicable Me by a country mile.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/28/fun-for-all-the-family-sing-review/
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The News: A User's Manual in Books
Aug 5, 2018
I believe this book has the wrong title. Let me explain.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Mary (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Key words here original, clever and dark all these make this something very special. It fuses different motives for each character instead of just using one motive to drive them. Once you have seen this story you will always remember it too. (9/10)
Actor Review: Katharine Isabelle – Mary who enters the world of body modification. Great performances in which she stays calm in every situation which is needed to create a very impressive character. Very haunting character and a welcome addition to horror icons. Star Performance Award (9/10)
mary
Actor Review: Antonio Cupo – Billy club owner and seemingly small time gangster who helps Mary to complete her jobs. Good character which slowly becomes the only moral compass in the film. (7/10)
billy
Actor Review: Tristen Risk – Beatress a lady who spends all her money on making herself into a fictional character. Very quirky character which you will remember once you have first seen her on the screen and hears her voice. (8/10)
beatirce
Actor Review: David Lovgren – Doctor Grant a Doctor who expects the best from his students but also takes advantage of them. Typical take advantage Doctor does enough to drive Mary to the next stage of her spiral into the underworld. Good performance and creates a character that is meant to be disliked. (7/10)
grant
Actor Review: Paula Lindberg – Ruby Realgirl who has presidia done to turn her into a doll. The extremes this character goes to and the final reveal off the work is something you will remember. (8/10)
Director Review: Jen Soska, Sylvia Soska – The second film by the Twisted Twins and this time they step up to a new level giving an original story with some very memorable scenes. (9/10)
Cameo by the Twisted Twins
Cameo by the Twisted Twins
Horror: A welcome addition to the horror genre with some very disturbing scenes. (9/10)
Thriller: Very good build using revenge filled suspense for some actions as well as good suspense to see what Mary will do next. (9/10)
Special Effects: There are some brilliant special effects used to create that body modifications. (9/10)
Believability: People will do some very strange things to their body so you could say this is quite believable. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: Most of the film is set between two locations, Mary’s apartment and a metal strip club for alternative music fans. Both work as this shows the two main places Mary works and makes her money. (8/10)
Suggestion: In the world of horror it is very unusual to see something different. This is that something different and once you have seen it you will remember it. I suggest all horror fans must watch this as it is one of the most original films to come out in a very long time. (Watch)
Best Part: Mary’s revenge on Doctor Grant.
Kill Of The Film: Security guard as it shows how far Mary has gone.
Oscar Chances: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Overall: Dark, delicious and brilliant
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/01/17/american-mary-2012/
Actor Review: Katharine Isabelle – Mary who enters the world of body modification. Great performances in which she stays calm in every situation which is needed to create a very impressive character. Very haunting character and a welcome addition to horror icons. Star Performance Award (9/10)
mary
Actor Review: Antonio Cupo – Billy club owner and seemingly small time gangster who helps Mary to complete her jobs. Good character which slowly becomes the only moral compass in the film. (7/10)
billy
Actor Review: Tristen Risk – Beatress a lady who spends all her money on making herself into a fictional character. Very quirky character which you will remember once you have first seen her on the screen and hears her voice. (8/10)
beatirce
Actor Review: David Lovgren – Doctor Grant a Doctor who expects the best from his students but also takes advantage of them. Typical take advantage Doctor does enough to drive Mary to the next stage of her spiral into the underworld. Good performance and creates a character that is meant to be disliked. (7/10)
grant
Actor Review: Paula Lindberg – Ruby Realgirl who has presidia done to turn her into a doll. The extremes this character goes to and the final reveal off the work is something you will remember. (8/10)
Director Review: Jen Soska, Sylvia Soska – The second film by the Twisted Twins and this time they step up to a new level giving an original story with some very memorable scenes. (9/10)
Cameo by the Twisted Twins
Cameo by the Twisted Twins
Horror: A welcome addition to the horror genre with some very disturbing scenes. (9/10)
Thriller: Very good build using revenge filled suspense for some actions as well as good suspense to see what Mary will do next. (9/10)
Special Effects: There are some brilliant special effects used to create that body modifications. (9/10)
Believability: People will do some very strange things to their body so you could say this is quite believable. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: Most of the film is set between two locations, Mary’s apartment and a metal strip club for alternative music fans. Both work as this shows the two main places Mary works and makes her money. (8/10)
Suggestion: In the world of horror it is very unusual to see something different. This is that something different and once you have seen it you will remember it. I suggest all horror fans must watch this as it is one of the most original films to come out in a very long time. (Watch)
Best Part: Mary’s revenge on Doctor Grant.
Kill Of The Film: Security guard as it shows how far Mary has gone.
Oscar Chances: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Overall: Dark, delicious and brilliant
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/01/17/american-mary-2012/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
…the lasting legacy of Peter Finch’s rants, which began with a breakdown and became the ratings winner in the 1970’s Network driven news media. This is of course, fiction but the commentary on the changing and more corporate driven American media industry of the the time is not without merit.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Josh Napper (40 KP) rated Spare Parts (2015) in Movies
Jun 12, 2019 (Updated Jun 12, 2019)
Plot
With the help of their high school's newest teacher (George Lopez), four Hispanic students form a robotics club. Although they have no experience, the youths set their sights on a national robotics contest. With $800 and parts scavenged from old cars, they build a robot and compete against reigning champion MIT. Along the way, the students learn not only how to build a robot but something far more important: how to forge bonds that will last a lifetime.
What lessons did you learn from this story (theme/moral)? What do you think others will learn from it?
One man can open eyes, and not just one or two eyes but a whole family, team, school, and community. It's not about where you are that truly matters; it’s about the people you are with here that truly matters. Even if you do not get the results you wanted to have when the final second ticks off the clock, you are, and you will always be a winner. No matter how much success you have on your own you are alone, so do it as a team, that way you are and never will be alone.
To summarize it, I liked the whole thing. The fact that the students and even the teacher faced those odds and still went after what they wanted and felt they could do it.
What group of people would like this movie? Who would you recommend it to? Who would you not recommend it to?
I would gladly recommend it to anyone. However, to break it down into smaller groups, I would recommend it to three groups. 1st of all, I would recommend it to students who are told they can’t do something they really wanna do due to one thing or another because the real-life characters of the movie had to go thru the same exact thing. 2nd of all, I would recommend it to teachers and other staff at school, mainly the high school level, so they could take a lesson from this inspiring movie and turn it into their own way of inspiring their students and to get their classmates to work together to turn their little old ideas and dreams into not just reality but also successes. 3rd of all, I would recommend it to people in general who are down on their knees wanting to watch something that would motivate them to not ever give up on their dreams.
What is your final word on the film: Is it good or bad?
The movie Spare Parts is a fantastic film that deals with real-life events. It is kinda incredible that it is simply another movie that was inspired by a true story. Once you look into what the real-life characters had to go thru– their struggle and their success– I was shocked simply due to the unbelievable amount of pain and struggle leading all up to an ending that saw them not only surprise everyone but also themselves. The actors and the actresses completely make it believable that they are not there themselves because it makes you believe they are really going through the events of the movie.
RATING SYSTEM:
1- crap
2- poor
3- decent
4- even
5- Good
6- Great
7- perfect
I give the movie spare parts a movie rating of 6
With the help of their high school's newest teacher (George Lopez), four Hispanic students form a robotics club. Although they have no experience, the youths set their sights on a national robotics contest. With $800 and parts scavenged from old cars, they build a robot and compete against reigning champion MIT. Along the way, the students learn not only how to build a robot but something far more important: how to forge bonds that will last a lifetime.
What lessons did you learn from this story (theme/moral)? What do you think others will learn from it?
One man can open eyes, and not just one or two eyes but a whole family, team, school, and community. It's not about where you are that truly matters; it’s about the people you are with here that truly matters. Even if you do not get the results you wanted to have when the final second ticks off the clock, you are, and you will always be a winner. No matter how much success you have on your own you are alone, so do it as a team, that way you are and never will be alone.
To summarize it, I liked the whole thing. The fact that the students and even the teacher faced those odds and still went after what they wanted and felt they could do it.
What group of people would like this movie? Who would you recommend it to? Who would you not recommend it to?
I would gladly recommend it to anyone. However, to break it down into smaller groups, I would recommend it to three groups. 1st of all, I would recommend it to students who are told they can’t do something they really wanna do due to one thing or another because the real-life characters of the movie had to go thru the same exact thing. 2nd of all, I would recommend it to teachers and other staff at school, mainly the high school level, so they could take a lesson from this inspiring movie and turn it into their own way of inspiring their students and to get their classmates to work together to turn their little old ideas and dreams into not just reality but also successes. 3rd of all, I would recommend it to people in general who are down on their knees wanting to watch something that would motivate them to not ever give up on their dreams.
What is your final word on the film: Is it good or bad?
The movie Spare Parts is a fantastic film that deals with real-life events. It is kinda incredible that it is simply another movie that was inspired by a true story. Once you look into what the real-life characters had to go thru– their struggle and their success– I was shocked simply due to the unbelievable amount of pain and struggle leading all up to an ending that saw them not only surprise everyone but also themselves. The actors and the actresses completely make it believable that they are not there themselves because it makes you believe they are really going through the events of the movie.
RATING SYSTEM:
1- crap
2- poor
3- decent
4- even
5- Good
6- Great
7- perfect
I give the movie spare parts a movie rating of 6
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Life Finds A Way
After really enjoying Jurassic World back in 2015, I was excited when they announced that a sequel was in the works. I felt optimistic about it because the ending of Jurassic World left it wide open for a story continuation, and I didn’t feel like they were just making a new one to milk a franchise. It’s no surprise that I can be hugely critical of sequels, but I was willing to give this one a fighting chance.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is set three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World park, and characters are faced with the dilemma of what to do now a volcano on the island is beginning to erupt. It’s a huge moral dilemma: let the dinosaurs die again, or move them to a safe location where they can thrive. Ultimately, Claire and Owen end up back on Isla Nublar with the help of a rescue team to round up the dinosaurs. As you can expect, things don’t go according to plan and we soon realise the rescue team has other, darker intentions.
Whilst this film is not the strongest in the franchise, it’s still an enjoyable watch. I wasn’t expecting it to be as thought provoking as it was, which was a pleasant surprise. I felt like the storyline had a lot of depth to it, and a lot of emotional moments too. One thing I really love about the Jurassic franchise is how they make you connect and feel emotions towards CGI dinosaurs. You know they aren’t real, yet you get so invested in the narrative that you quickly forget. In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom we see some familiar dinosaurs from the previous films, as well as some new ones too. In classic Jurassic nature, we also see a brand new dinosaur that humans thought was a good idea to create… for some reason.
Another thing that surprised me was the horror-like elements that were present in the film. Without giving too much away, there’s a couple of scenes that are very reminiscent of classic horror and plummets the film into a much darker, creepier atmosphere. These scenes were incredibly well done and didn’t feel out of place, even though they could’ve easily felt too jarring. It was fun to witness the franchise experimenting with this, and enhances the scary side of the dinosaurs. There’s some really impressive shots during these scenes too, that emphasises the imposing nature of these creatures.
My biggest criticism of this film is that I felt like too much was going on, and consequently the narrative felt rushed. Despite it running at just over 2 hours, I almost felt like we needed another half hour to properly tell the story without glossing over some really important plot points. The main narrative was paced okay but then we had random side storylines that seemed unnecessary and just left me confused more than anything. It’s a shame they tried to cram so much into such a short space of time as there was no need to do that.
Long time fans of Jurassic Park should definitely give this a go as I think it’s a solid entry into the franchise, though it doesn’t do enough to ascend above its predecessors. It’s what I’ve described as a “fun, Monday night film” to people who’ve asked, so if you’re looking for a visually impressive blockbuster with loud roars and some creepy elements, this film is perfect for you.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/06/24/life-finds-a-way-jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review/
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is set three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World park, and characters are faced with the dilemma of what to do now a volcano on the island is beginning to erupt. It’s a huge moral dilemma: let the dinosaurs die again, or move them to a safe location where they can thrive. Ultimately, Claire and Owen end up back on Isla Nublar with the help of a rescue team to round up the dinosaurs. As you can expect, things don’t go according to plan and we soon realise the rescue team has other, darker intentions.
Whilst this film is not the strongest in the franchise, it’s still an enjoyable watch. I wasn’t expecting it to be as thought provoking as it was, which was a pleasant surprise. I felt like the storyline had a lot of depth to it, and a lot of emotional moments too. One thing I really love about the Jurassic franchise is how they make you connect and feel emotions towards CGI dinosaurs. You know they aren’t real, yet you get so invested in the narrative that you quickly forget. In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom we see some familiar dinosaurs from the previous films, as well as some new ones too. In classic Jurassic nature, we also see a brand new dinosaur that humans thought was a good idea to create… for some reason.
Another thing that surprised me was the horror-like elements that were present in the film. Without giving too much away, there’s a couple of scenes that are very reminiscent of classic horror and plummets the film into a much darker, creepier atmosphere. These scenes were incredibly well done and didn’t feel out of place, even though they could’ve easily felt too jarring. It was fun to witness the franchise experimenting with this, and enhances the scary side of the dinosaurs. There’s some really impressive shots during these scenes too, that emphasises the imposing nature of these creatures.
My biggest criticism of this film is that I felt like too much was going on, and consequently the narrative felt rushed. Despite it running at just over 2 hours, I almost felt like we needed another half hour to properly tell the story without glossing over some really important plot points. The main narrative was paced okay but then we had random side storylines that seemed unnecessary and just left me confused more than anything. It’s a shame they tried to cram so much into such a short space of time as there was no need to do that.
Long time fans of Jurassic Park should definitely give this a go as I think it’s a solid entry into the franchise, though it doesn’t do enough to ascend above its predecessors. It’s what I’ve described as a “fun, Monday night film” to people who’ve asked, so if you’re looking for a visually impressive blockbuster with loud roars and some creepy elements, this film is perfect for you.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/06/24/life-finds-a-way-jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When his small paper is bought out but a large media conglomerate the free-spirited journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) quits rather write for a company he believes has a low moral compass. His best friend Lance (O’Shea Jackson Jr.) takes him out on the town to drown his sorrows. They decide to go to a charity function to get free drinks and watch Boyz II Men. As chance would have it Fred’s babysitter from high school, Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), is also there. Charlotte happens to be one of the most powerful women in the world. She is currently the Secretary of State and has her eyes set on the on the White House. But she recognizes Fred and they connect for a few moments. This chance meeting seems fortuitous for both. Fred needs a job and Charlotte is in need of a writer to help punch up her speeches. Fred also gets the chance to travel the world with his high school crush. Even though Fred isn’t your normal member of a government official’s entourage, dresses like a child, has a scraggly beard and looks high even when not, he can write. So he gets the chance to write entire speeches. As his role increases he needs to get to know this version of Charlotte a little better, rather than the girl he know in high school. They begin to spend more and more time together getting to know each other. Then a near death experience in Manilla leads to a wild night between the odd couple. But rather than a onetime thing the two begin sneaking away together. But as Charlotte heads toward a Presidential Campaign it seem inevitable that this secret relationship needs to end or go public.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
For those seeking a big dose of magic this holiday season, Disney’s “Into the Woods” aims to deliver just that. Adapted to the silver screen from the original Broadway musical production by Stephen Sondheim, the plot intertwines several of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales to create one story.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.