Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Lesson of the Evil (2012) in Movies
Nov 15, 2021
*Big band music playing loudly in the background*
Takashi Miike's đđ©đŠ đđ¶đŠđŽđ” - which, yes, is every bit as messy and overstuffed as that sounds; though I fear that if this were leaner you could miss out on the finer details like the weird German folklore stuff or the fleshy gun with the talking eyeball. The third act here is better than anything in even đđźđŠđłđȘđ€đąđŻ đđŽđșđ€đ©đ°, probably the greatest thing Miike has ever done - just as demented, tasteless, and perfectly staged as reported plus it lasts around a solid, uninterrupted 45 minutes. Simultaneously fun and hard to watch in the sense that you can't believe that not only are they actually going for this, but they're going for it *hard* (given the director, I'd expect no less). I'm confident in saying this has the most straight-up brutal use of the shotgun in film history that I've seen. Hideaki Ito is flawless as this fucked-up closet psychopath who just bleeds raw antihero charisma, this kind of character can tire so easily but him and Miike sell it in full - partly because (and this is one of the things I love most about Miike) there's zero pretension to be found here. The precise type of ethically repugnantly, formally playful, feverish trashy thrills you'd expect out of this are exactly what you get - no clichĂ©d moral handwringing or bullshit pulled punches you see in a lot of Western cinema for this genre. This is the real shit, another bonafide cult classic from one of the masters. Plus it's generally bizarre as hell, too.
Takashi Miike's đđ©đŠ đđ¶đŠđŽđ” - which, yes, is every bit as messy and overstuffed as that sounds; though I fear that if this were leaner you could miss out on the finer details like the weird German folklore stuff or the fleshy gun with the talking eyeball. The third act here is better than anything in even đđźđŠđłđȘđ€đąđŻ đđŽđșđ€đ©đ°, probably the greatest thing Miike has ever done - just as demented, tasteless, and perfectly staged as reported plus it lasts around a solid, uninterrupted 45 minutes. Simultaneously fun and hard to watch in the sense that you can't believe that not only are they actually going for this, but they're going for it *hard* (given the director, I'd expect no less). I'm confident in saying this has the most straight-up brutal use of the shotgun in film history that I've seen. Hideaki Ito is flawless as this fucked-up closet psychopath who just bleeds raw antihero charisma, this kind of character can tire so easily but him and Miike sell it in full - partly because (and this is one of the things I love most about Miike) there's zero pretension to be found here. The precise type of ethically repugnantly, formally playful, feverish trashy thrills you'd expect out of this are exactly what you get - no clichĂ©d moral handwringing or bullshit pulled punches you see in a lot of Western cinema for this genre. This is the real shit, another bonafide cult classic from one of the masters. Plus it's generally bizarre as hell, too.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Annabelle: Creation (2017) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Iâve been waiting for quite some time to get the opportunity to watch Annabelle: Creation and thanks to my boyfriend, that chance finally arrived. My interest in the Conjuring universe as a whole began with the introduction of the Warrens in The Conuring. Having been a devout fan of anything paranormal, I knew their names and history long before I watched the fictionalized film. That said, I was definitely curious as to the story behind the doll, Annabelle. (I watched that film shortly after it came out, naturally.)
The plot of Annabelle: Creation is pretty self-explanatory. It delves into the origin of the possessed doll, providing viewers with the history of how it came to be. A la dead girl, Faustian deals, and things going, you guessed it, wrong. This is a bit clichĂ© in the world of hauntings, but I feel Annabelle: Creation pulls it off well enough. Perhaps this is because the film doesnât rely entirely on creepy sounds and eardrum-bursting music to accentuate creepy occurrences. (Yes, the film does have plenty of those, but that doesnât mark every eerie happening.)
Keeping to the feel of being part of the Conjuring universe, there is a reference to the upcoming film, The Nun. I liked this, and am, naturally, looking forward to that film.
Of course, rarely do any of my reviews come without a complaint and in this instance, it has to do with character development. One of the things I love most about horror movies is the building need for certain characters to stay alive. In Annabelle: Creation none of the characters felt overly dynamic except for Janice. Itâs like all the work went into making her the sort of gal you feel sorry for while nothing else is left for the others â especially Mr. Mullins.
Overall, I really enjoyed watching this film and would likely watch it again. While it wasnât extremely original in its design, it did manage to catch me a few times and as a result, my heart rate elevated (and I felt some anxiety with at least one of the scenes). For me, this is a good thing. Couple that with the fact that the movie ends precisely where Annabelle begins, and itâs a pretty solid 4/5 for me.
The plot of Annabelle: Creation is pretty self-explanatory. It delves into the origin of the possessed doll, providing viewers with the history of how it came to be. A la dead girl, Faustian deals, and things going, you guessed it, wrong. This is a bit clichĂ© in the world of hauntings, but I feel Annabelle: Creation pulls it off well enough. Perhaps this is because the film doesnât rely entirely on creepy sounds and eardrum-bursting music to accentuate creepy occurrences. (Yes, the film does have plenty of those, but that doesnât mark every eerie happening.)
Keeping to the feel of being part of the Conjuring universe, there is a reference to the upcoming film, The Nun. I liked this, and am, naturally, looking forward to that film.
Of course, rarely do any of my reviews come without a complaint and in this instance, it has to do with character development. One of the things I love most about horror movies is the building need for certain characters to stay alive. In Annabelle: Creation none of the characters felt overly dynamic except for Janice. Itâs like all the work went into making her the sort of gal you feel sorry for while nothing else is left for the others â especially Mr. Mullins.
Overall, I really enjoyed watching this film and would likely watch it again. While it wasnât extremely original in its design, it did manage to catch me a few times and as a result, my heart rate elevated (and I felt some anxiety with at least one of the scenes). For me, this is a good thing. Couple that with the fact that the movie ends precisely where Annabelle begins, and itâs a pretty solid 4/5 for me.
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Gold In My Veins - Single by Kid Pharaoh in Music
Jun 17, 2019
Kid Pharaoh is a rapper with Egyptian and Australian roots. Not too long ago, he released a music video for his self-produced single, entitled, âGold In My Veinsâ.
âGold on your neck, but I got gold in my brown skin. See yeah with your frontinâ ways. Your stunting chains and big face hundreds man. You hustling, but tell me what you covering? I never needed all that âcause I come from kings. So, what I need a Rollie for? Itâs my time. I donât need no gold to show how I shine. You can quit all that talking and lying.â â lyrics
Shot by Shaq Azhar in Wollongong, NSW, the audiovisual features Kid Pharaoh as the lead protagonist.
He plays an accountant in the office environment of Pharaoh Financial. The accountant comically analyses the expenses of a lavish rapperâs lifestyle. Also, he questions its worth and dismisses its relevance.
âCelebrating my Egyptian heritage and its rich history has always been at the forefront of what I do. But âGold In My Veinsâ allowed me to do so in a way that let me explore a new lane of sounds I was yet to touch. Inspired by the bounce and grooves of early 2000s Pharrell and Neptunes produced music I grew up with.â â Kid Pharaoh
âGold In My Veinsâ tells an interesting tale from Kid Pharaohâs point of view which claims his hip-hop kingship based on his royal ancestry.
Apparently, the savvy emceeâs soul is made of gold, and he is from a lineage of pharaohs who sat on thrones in the Valley of the Kings.
Later, Kid Pharaoh reveals that no one is messing with him because heâs the best in his city, state, and country.
âGold In My Veinsâ contains a relatable storyline, braggadocious raps, and lush instrumentation scented with a hip-hop fragrance.
âYou can tell these rappers I donât need to stunt. You can tell these rappers they donât need to front. With your false claims and your gold chains, I was born from the kings, one thing. You can tell âem keep the gold in your chain âcause yeah I got gold in my veins.â â lyrics
Kid Pharaoh provides a raw and unique voice for an underrepresented Arabic community in Australia.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/kid-pharaoh-gold-in-my-veins/
âGold on your neck, but I got gold in my brown skin. See yeah with your frontinâ ways. Your stunting chains and big face hundreds man. You hustling, but tell me what you covering? I never needed all that âcause I come from kings. So, what I need a Rollie for? Itâs my time. I donât need no gold to show how I shine. You can quit all that talking and lying.â â lyrics
Shot by Shaq Azhar in Wollongong, NSW, the audiovisual features Kid Pharaoh as the lead protagonist.
He plays an accountant in the office environment of Pharaoh Financial. The accountant comically analyses the expenses of a lavish rapperâs lifestyle. Also, he questions its worth and dismisses its relevance.
âCelebrating my Egyptian heritage and its rich history has always been at the forefront of what I do. But âGold In My Veinsâ allowed me to do so in a way that let me explore a new lane of sounds I was yet to touch. Inspired by the bounce and grooves of early 2000s Pharrell and Neptunes produced music I grew up with.â â Kid Pharaoh
âGold In My Veinsâ tells an interesting tale from Kid Pharaohâs point of view which claims his hip-hop kingship based on his royal ancestry.
Apparently, the savvy emceeâs soul is made of gold, and he is from a lineage of pharaohs who sat on thrones in the Valley of the Kings.
Later, Kid Pharaoh reveals that no one is messing with him because heâs the best in his city, state, and country.
âGold In My Veinsâ contains a relatable storyline, braggadocious raps, and lush instrumentation scented with a hip-hop fragrance.
âYou can tell these rappers I donât need to stunt. You can tell these rappers they donât need to front. With your false claims and your gold chains, I was born from the kings, one thing. You can tell âem keep the gold in your chain âcause yeah I got gold in my veins.â â lyrics
Kid Pharaoh provides a raw and unique voice for an underrepresented Arabic community in Australia.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/kid-pharaoh-gold-in-my-veins/
James Dean Bradfield recommended ...For the Whole World to See by Death in Music (curated)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Broken Horses in Books
Aug 12, 2021
A great memoir for music fans
BROKEN HORSES is Brandi Carlile's story. She grew up poor in Seattle, moving constantly as a child. Her family was musical, giving Brandi a love of music as a young child. She knew was gay since she was a teen--something that wasn't always appreciated in her rural town. She tells her story from childhood, where her love of music began, to coming out, to her marriage and life with her two children, to her musical successes.
"I was a mean, scrappy little trailer girl with the wrong clothes and a very sensitive soul that I was hiding behind a bravado that I had developed performing onstage."
I adore Brandi Carlile and have for a long time. Having such a talented out singer in our community makes us all feel proud. "See her, she's one of us!!" Having followed Brandi's career from the beginning, I know a decent amount about her. Hence my problem with a number of celebrity memoirs I read: if I read a memoir about someone I really love and already know a lot about them, if they write a fairly superficial memoir, I only learn so much.
Don't get me wrong, Carlile has written a good and interesting book. She's a fascinating person, and I enjoyed learning about her rather wild journey. I didn't know much about her childhood, so I found those pieces to be the most intriguing. She was a wild and tough kid, who was so musically talented from the beginning. Imagine being one of the people who heard her perform in a pageant or talent show when she was a young kid or teen!
After going through her coming out story, Carlile talks about her musical career, and it's all really amazing, but sometimes feels fast and glossed over. I always love knowing the history of songs, but would have liked knowing more details about things. We skip over full albums, time periods, and more. And, as many celebrity memoirs do, it often feels a bit preachy and overly me-oriented at times (something she'll laughingly and freely admit to). When we get to her meeting her wife, it's a fun story, but also really quick. Still, it's so nice to see a queer woman's story so normalized, and to have someone talk about gay motherhood so matter of factly.
Overall, I'm so glad Carlile decided to share her thoughts on her life. She's such an amazing individual who has lived such an intense and fascinating life so far. I wish she had gone more in-depth with her stories at times, but this is still a great book and certainly worth your time. At some point, I hope to get the audio version, as she sings versions of the songs she discusses in each chapter.
I read this book as part of my new reading project--choosing books off my shelves based on their Goodreads rankings. This is my second book of the project, forcing me out of my comfort zone and to try books in genres I don't usually read!
"I was a mean, scrappy little trailer girl with the wrong clothes and a very sensitive soul that I was hiding behind a bravado that I had developed performing onstage."
I adore Brandi Carlile and have for a long time. Having such a talented out singer in our community makes us all feel proud. "See her, she's one of us!!" Having followed Brandi's career from the beginning, I know a decent amount about her. Hence my problem with a number of celebrity memoirs I read: if I read a memoir about someone I really love and already know a lot about them, if they write a fairly superficial memoir, I only learn so much.
Don't get me wrong, Carlile has written a good and interesting book. She's a fascinating person, and I enjoyed learning about her rather wild journey. I didn't know much about her childhood, so I found those pieces to be the most intriguing. She was a wild and tough kid, who was so musically talented from the beginning. Imagine being one of the people who heard her perform in a pageant or talent show when she was a young kid or teen!
After going through her coming out story, Carlile talks about her musical career, and it's all really amazing, but sometimes feels fast and glossed over. I always love knowing the history of songs, but would have liked knowing more details about things. We skip over full albums, time periods, and more. And, as many celebrity memoirs do, it often feels a bit preachy and overly me-oriented at times (something she'll laughingly and freely admit to). When we get to her meeting her wife, it's a fun story, but also really quick. Still, it's so nice to see a queer woman's story so normalized, and to have someone talk about gay motherhood so matter of factly.
Overall, I'm so glad Carlile decided to share her thoughts on her life. She's such an amazing individual who has lived such an intense and fascinating life so far. I wish she had gone more in-depth with her stories at times, but this is still a great book and certainly worth your time. At some point, I hope to get the audio version, as she sings versions of the songs she discusses in each chapter.
I read this book as part of my new reading project--choosing books off my shelves based on their Goodreads rankings. This is my second book of the project, forcing me out of my comfort zone and to try books in genres I don't usually read!
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Oct 29, 2020 (Updated Oct 29, 2020)
I think this is so good that it actually sort of suffers because of it, if that makes any sense? Starts off phenomenally - exemplifies what the best of horror movies can be and quite honestly does continue most of the way through. The formal precision is just insane, Dean Cundey naturally makes sure this looks nothing short of remarkable and the music is some of the all-time best ever contributed to a horror movie. So simple yet so effective, so suspenseful all these decades later. It never really loses any sort of quality outside of waning some of its tightness near the middle, but despite the fact that it's objectively exemplary it still feels like it lacks something, that oomph that this by all means should have. A huge factor, I think, is that truthfully this overuses a lot of its tricks. I mean Michael Myers, mysterious and intimidating, often framed from below the neck or behind the head is a staggering image in horror history - him disappearing and suddenly reappearing outside of a window or doorway? Truly haunting the first couple times, even a time or two after that. But again, then again, then again? It starts to lose its luster fast and really flattens the eerie wavelength of not really knowing what's going on. Though I think even this movie's fans don't give enough credit to how it (quite obviously and vocally) portrays Laurie, Loomis, and Michael as being tied irreversibly by fate where each attempt at either one getting out is merely one of a never-ending amount of predetermined actions merely to mirror randomness.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017
Four Lads Who Shook The World
Last night the Ron Howard directed Beatles documentary, Eight Days A Week: The Touring Years, premiered in London. As much as I would have loved to attend the premier, I have just started a new year at university and couldnât afford to go both financially and educationally. Therefore I had to settle for going to see it in my local cinema, but it was still an awesome experience. From six oâclock, the cinema streamed the premier in London, hosted by John Bishop and Edith Bowman and featuring interviews from Ron Howard, Paul and Ringo. Then the cinema auctioned off a poster for the film for charity, (which went for ÂŁ100 if you are curious,) then finally the film started.
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isnât a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and youâll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBEâs, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didnât even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of Johnâs more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to âclap their hands and stomp their feet,â as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I donât know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadnât seen before, I wasnât exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didnât already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, whatâs not to love?
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isnât a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and youâll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBEâs, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didnât even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of Johnâs more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to âclap their hands and stomp their feet,â as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I donât know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadnât seen before, I wasnât exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didnât already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, whatâs not to love?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Jimmy's Hall (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Itâs not to often that we folks in America have the opportunity to catch any movies from Ireland.
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself canât remember a âbadâ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, todayâs film for your consideration doesnât go back THAT far. It doesnât even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you itâs NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Irelandâs history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
âJimmyâs Hallâ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth âKenâ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Irelandâs communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the âHallâ, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the âHallâ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a âbad influenceâ, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hallâs committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his familyâs farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ârequired readingâ or in this case ârequired viewingâ. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. Itâs an example of the greater âworld conflictâ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil ⊠nor are all religious figures. Itâs the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content itâs an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. Iâd give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer âThe CameraManâ and on behalf of my fellows at âSkewed & Reviewedâ Iâd like to say thanks for reading and weâll see you at the movies
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself canât remember a âbadâ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, todayâs film for your consideration doesnât go back THAT far. It doesnât even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you itâs NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Irelandâs history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
âJimmyâs Hallâ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth âKenâ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Irelandâs communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the âHallâ, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the âHallâ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a âbad influenceâ, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hallâs committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his familyâs farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ârequired readingâ or in this case ârequired viewingâ. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. Itâs an example of the greater âworld conflictâ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil ⊠nor are all religious figures. Itâs the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content itâs an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. Iâd give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer âThe CameraManâ and on behalf of my fellows at âSkewed & Reviewedâ Iâd like to say thanks for reading and weâll see you at the movies
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Schindler's List (1993) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I've started and restarted this review about five times, I'm not sure where to begin.
It pains me to say it but I think the negatives outweigh the positives on this for me. The sets are incredible though and the fact that they managed to get hoards of people working together is no easy feat. It's certainly an epic achievement.
I have spoken to a few people since seeing it and mentioned the fact that I didn't like it filmed as black and white, I've been surprised at how many condescending responses I had. "Black and white films are difficult for some people to get used to." "They're not to everyone's tastes." For the record I love black and white movies, the issue I have with this one though is that it's so sharp that at times it looks unnatural. The joy of black and white movies is the feeling of a little age to the film. Perhaps this is just the curse of the modern age, but all the shots look amazingly crisp. I know, how often does someone moan about having filming that's too good for a film?
"Remember to take some tissues!" was the response I got when I told people I was going to see it, me being a crier I heeded the warning. I was left mostly unmoved though. The statements of fact and the scenes at Auschwitz certainly made me pause for thought and brought a tear to my eye but the dramatised sections generally didn't hold a lot of impact.
When Schindler has his departing scene it really felt that it should have been more emotional for the viewer but it came across a little hammy. Neeson's acting had been relatively understated the whole way through and they chose that moment for him to depart from that?
Some moments in history only need the facts, and while creatively this was a masterpiece (certainly the music was) I didn't feel that it was possible to get the gravity of the situation. In this instance I would personally like to know the real accounts and that would be achieved better by reading some books on the subject of watching personal recordings from survivors.
What you should do
Most of you have probably already seen Schincler's List, if you haven't then you probably should despite what I said. Without films like this some of us would probably have no knowledge at all about such important moments in history.
Whether they're entirely accurate or not they open up curiosity to learn more.
It pains me to say it but I think the negatives outweigh the positives on this for me. The sets are incredible though and the fact that they managed to get hoards of people working together is no easy feat. It's certainly an epic achievement.
I have spoken to a few people since seeing it and mentioned the fact that I didn't like it filmed as black and white, I've been surprised at how many condescending responses I had. "Black and white films are difficult for some people to get used to." "They're not to everyone's tastes." For the record I love black and white movies, the issue I have with this one though is that it's so sharp that at times it looks unnatural. The joy of black and white movies is the feeling of a little age to the film. Perhaps this is just the curse of the modern age, but all the shots look amazingly crisp. I know, how often does someone moan about having filming that's too good for a film?
"Remember to take some tissues!" was the response I got when I told people I was going to see it, me being a crier I heeded the warning. I was left mostly unmoved though. The statements of fact and the scenes at Auschwitz certainly made me pause for thought and brought a tear to my eye but the dramatised sections generally didn't hold a lot of impact.
When Schindler has his departing scene it really felt that it should have been more emotional for the viewer but it came across a little hammy. Neeson's acting had been relatively understated the whole way through and they chose that moment for him to depart from that?
Some moments in history only need the facts, and while creatively this was a masterpiece (certainly the music was) I didn't feel that it was possible to get the gravity of the situation. In this instance I would personally like to know the real accounts and that would be achieved better by reading some books on the subject of watching personal recordings from survivors.
What you should do
Most of you have probably already seen Schincler's List, if you haven't then you probably should despite what I said. Without films like this some of us would probably have no knowledge at all about such important moments in history.
Whether they're entirely accurate or not they open up curiosity to learn more.
RÉX Regent (349 KP) rated Duck Soup (1933) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
âYouâre a brave man. Go and break through the lines. And remember, while youâre out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, weâll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you areâ Rufus T. Firefly
And the one liners just keep on comingâŠ
Here we have before you one of the most famous entries form The Marx Brothers as they made their indelible mark on Hollywood(land) and the silver screen back in the 1930âs, moving away from their Vaudeville roots to new level of immortally on celluloid.
The fifth film to credit the âThe Marx Brothersâ, Duck Soup in on one hand a sharply written satire on the weakness of mob mentality to willingly promote unwelcome change to their society and their willingness to follow just about any lunatic as long as they like what they hear; as well as a straight forward slapstick comedy of the time, in keeping with its music hall roots.
It is the music hall aspect of this classic which can be harder for a modern audience to take to, unless you are already disposed to this sort of rather dated humour. But as a satire, it is brilliant and still very funny over seventy years on.
Groucho Marx steals the show as Rufus T. Firefly as he leads his unwitting and possibly dimwitted fictional country of Fredonia (geddit?) to war and ultimate destruction. He is a character, whilst not in any way taking off Adolf Hitler, who was of course rising to power in Germany at this very moment, was clearly a reflection on this type of reckless and charismatic leader and as the hilarious final act demonstrates, is all too common in history and even in our present.
And the fact that Fredonia is ultimately doomed, was a coincidental foreshadowing of Nazi Germanyâs fate a decade later, as well as a clear demonstration of the savvy writing.
Witty, whether it is the physical trademark Marx Brothers comedy or the sharp screenplay by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, based on the stage version of the same name, this a classic satire; whilst not being as hard hitting a s Chaplinâs works of the period, with The Great Dictator (1940) springing to mind, it still holds up and makes its point without hammering you over the head it.
So, you can just enjoy the show and/or take away the message, it is really up to you.
Here we have before you one of the most famous entries form The Marx Brothers as they made their indelible mark on Hollywood(land) and the silver screen back in the 1930âs, moving away from their Vaudeville roots to new level of immortally on celluloid.
The fifth film to credit the âThe Marx Brothersâ, Duck Soup in on one hand a sharply written satire on the weakness of mob mentality to willingly promote unwelcome change to their society and their willingness to follow just about any lunatic as long as they like what they hear; as well as a straight forward slapstick comedy of the time, in keeping with its music hall roots.
It is the music hall aspect of this classic which can be harder for a modern audience to take to, unless you are already disposed to this sort of rather dated humour. But as a satire, it is brilliant and still very funny over seventy years on.
Groucho Marx steals the show as Rufus T. Firefly as he leads his unwitting and possibly dimwitted fictional country of Fredonia (geddit?) to war and ultimate destruction. He is a character, whilst not in any way taking off Adolf Hitler, who was of course rising to power in Germany at this very moment, was clearly a reflection on this type of reckless and charismatic leader and as the hilarious final act demonstrates, is all too common in history and even in our present.
And the fact that Fredonia is ultimately doomed, was a coincidental foreshadowing of Nazi Germanyâs fate a decade later, as well as a clear demonstration of the savvy writing.
Witty, whether it is the physical trademark Marx Brothers comedy or the sharp screenplay by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, based on the stage version of the same name, this a classic satire; whilst not being as hard hitting a s Chaplinâs works of the period, with The Great Dictator (1940) springing to mind, it still holds up and makes its point without hammering you over the head it.
So, you can just enjoy the show and/or take away the message, it is really up to you.