Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Singin' in the Rain (1952) in Movies
Mar 28, 2018
Timeless
Hollywood star Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) has to figure out how to save his first "talking picture" film after a negative early screening.
Acting: 10
I was amazed by the versatility of the actors/actresses in the film. To be able to hit lines passionately AND dance and sing through huge musical numbers has to take some serious skill, skill I couldn't even begin to possess. The performances of Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynold transcend time, holding strong an amazing 65 years later!
Reynolds was my favorite as (Kathy Selden). Her charm and humor are effortless and natural. Not only did she hold her own in her every scene, but she made every scene outstanding. I can't believe I am just now learning to appreciate this woman's greatness. I suppose that's what my Movies 365 quest is all about.
Beginning: 9
I suppose I should chime in here as this received my lowest score. Singin' In the Rain gets off to a very solid start as it grabs my attention right from the beginning. It's intriguing and I wasn't quite sure where they were going after the first ten minutes. Did I really enjoy the first ten minutes of the film? Absolutely. Does it compare to some of the best starts in film history. Sadly, not quite, but not far off either. Consider it a minor boo-boo that didn't even require a band-aid.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Compared to other musicals out there, you can't even mention the genre without thinking Singin' In the Rain. The musical numbers are extravagant and phenomenal. What's more, the film doesn't rely just on the music to succeed as the scripted dialogue is every bit as strong. La La Land astounded me. This film blew me away.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Sometimes this can be hard to manage in a musical whether there's too much singing and not enough dialogue scenes or vice versa. This film does an excellent job of seamlessly blending the two. Every song had its purpose and each number is active and fun, keeping you engaged throughout the film. It never got slow at any point.
Plot: 10
The story was an evolving creation. You think something is going to happen then the film takes an entirely different turn. Just when you think you have it all figured out, they throw another surprise in. The plot is clever, intriguing, and unique. I have yet to see anything like it.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
I went into this film wondering what all the hype was about and, after watching, I can say it's not hype. Not by a long shot, not by any means. Singin' In the Rain is amazing today and it's going to be wonderful thirty years from now. It gets all the little things perfectly right like the classic scene where Don is having a conversation about the film as they're walking past different set pieces. Timeless.
Acting: 10
I was amazed by the versatility of the actors/actresses in the film. To be able to hit lines passionately AND dance and sing through huge musical numbers has to take some serious skill, skill I couldn't even begin to possess. The performances of Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynold transcend time, holding strong an amazing 65 years later!
Reynolds was my favorite as (Kathy Selden). Her charm and humor are effortless and natural. Not only did she hold her own in her every scene, but she made every scene outstanding. I can't believe I am just now learning to appreciate this woman's greatness. I suppose that's what my Movies 365 quest is all about.
Beginning: 9
I suppose I should chime in here as this received my lowest score. Singin' In the Rain gets off to a very solid start as it grabs my attention right from the beginning. It's intriguing and I wasn't quite sure where they were going after the first ten minutes. Did I really enjoy the first ten minutes of the film? Absolutely. Does it compare to some of the best starts in film history. Sadly, not quite, but not far off either. Consider it a minor boo-boo that didn't even require a band-aid.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Compared to other musicals out there, you can't even mention the genre without thinking Singin' In the Rain. The musical numbers are extravagant and phenomenal. What's more, the film doesn't rely just on the music to succeed as the scripted dialogue is every bit as strong. La La Land astounded me. This film blew me away.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Sometimes this can be hard to manage in a musical whether there's too much singing and not enough dialogue scenes or vice versa. This film does an excellent job of seamlessly blending the two. Every song had its purpose and each number is active and fun, keeping you engaged throughout the film. It never got slow at any point.
Plot: 10
The story was an evolving creation. You think something is going to happen then the film takes an entirely different turn. Just when you think you have it all figured out, they throw another surprise in. The plot is clever, intriguing, and unique. I have yet to see anything like it.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
I went into this film wondering what all the hype was about and, after watching, I can say it's not hype. Not by a long shot, not by any means. Singin' In the Rain is amazing today and it's going to be wonderful thirty years from now. It gets all the little things perfectly right like the classic scene where Don is having a conversation about the film as they're walking past different set pieces. Timeless.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Saving Mr. Banks (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the greatest Disney classics, “Mary Poppins” has a unique history on its long journey from the page to the silver screen. In “Saving Mr. Banks”, the twenty year battle between Walt Disney and the notoriously difficult author is told in a touching and gripping tale.
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionary - DioDict 3
Reference and Education
App
The complete Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary • Made specially for learners of English • Over...
Tai Chi 108 Yang Classical Form
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
Learn the 108 Yang Tai Chi classical form with these streaming video lessons from Master Yang....
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
Reference and Education
App
100 SAMPLE ENTRIES ONLY. This free download gives you 100 sample entries from the new OALD 9th...
The American Journal of Medicine
Medical and Magazines & Newspapers
App
The American Journal of Medicine AJM, The American Journal of Medicine’s app, now available for...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Disaster with feeling
“Based on true events”. I can’t think of anything more disconcerting when I sit down to watch a film. When it comes to blockbusters inspired by real-life situations, the outcome can be a poignant movie that captures the heart and emotion of the episode – a la American Sniper.
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Lonely Planet USA's National Parks
Lonely Planet, Amy C. Balfour, Sandra Bao and Christopher Pitts
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet USA's National Parks is your...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Happiest Season (2020) in Movies
Jan 4, 2021
Happiest Season definitely makes a refreshing change for a mainstream Christmas movie, but it's a real shame it didn't make it to the big screen.
Abby and Harper are having the most wonderful Christmassy evening, and in the throws of the moment Harper invites Abby to Christmas with her family. There's just one problem though, her family don't know she's gay, and they think Abby is her roommate. Can they survive the holiday season without causing a scene?
As with any festive fodder, there is an element of predictability around it that I think helps with the comforting feeling of it all, and I don't find that an issue in these sorts of things. It's that reassurance that makes them enjoyable.
That being said...
There are a lot of things I found to be frustrating about this film. Maybe it's my relationship history playing a part in it, but there were many points that had me screaming at the screen... let's just look at the rest of it though.
Family drama, classic dynamic, and all the individual characters have a little something mad about them... but that has success in varying degrees for me. Dan Levy as John is horrendously underused, there's even a perfect opportunity to have him in another storyline (that I actually thought we were heading to) but they didn't take it. I found Sloane to be way too far into the bitchy side of the character, and that made her rather unbelievable, and again, there were things in her character that would have been fitting that didn't get included. And those two kids... spawn of Satan, they'll murder us in our sleep.
Kristen Stewart is very good in this, and I'm notoriously not a great fan of her roles. (Though her offerings have been getting progressively better.) I do feel like Abby was done wrong in this film and I would have preferred to see some different outcomes for her... but every situation felt natural and her interactions with Riley and John were high points throughout. Where I come unstuck a little is with Mackenzie Davis and Harper, partly a dislike for the character and partly Davis' style of acting, it just didn't hit the spot for me. I can't say who I could have seen in this role instead, but I think there are a few others that could have taken up the reins and given it a little more pizzazz.
Gold stars all round for Mary Holland as Jane though, so adorable, she must be protected at all costs.
The look of the whole film is so rich and fits the season perfectly. The locations, the outfits, can't fault a single bit there. Design was flawless, I would love to live in that town if that's the aesthetic there. And if I'm being honest, there's nothing bad about this film overall, my issues are entirely personal preferences about acting and story.
Even with my desire to see a different outcome to the film... I cried. And yes, that's because it's a Christmas film and I'm an emotional wreck, that's how this season works, remember?
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/happiest-season-movie-review.html
Abby and Harper are having the most wonderful Christmassy evening, and in the throws of the moment Harper invites Abby to Christmas with her family. There's just one problem though, her family don't know she's gay, and they think Abby is her roommate. Can they survive the holiday season without causing a scene?
As with any festive fodder, there is an element of predictability around it that I think helps with the comforting feeling of it all, and I don't find that an issue in these sorts of things. It's that reassurance that makes them enjoyable.
That being said...
There are a lot of things I found to be frustrating about this film. Maybe it's my relationship history playing a part in it, but there were many points that had me screaming at the screen... let's just look at the rest of it though.
Family drama, classic dynamic, and all the individual characters have a little something mad about them... but that has success in varying degrees for me. Dan Levy as John is horrendously underused, there's even a perfect opportunity to have him in another storyline (that I actually thought we were heading to) but they didn't take it. I found Sloane to be way too far into the bitchy side of the character, and that made her rather unbelievable, and again, there were things in her character that would have been fitting that didn't get included. And those two kids... spawn of Satan, they'll murder us in our sleep.
Kristen Stewart is very good in this, and I'm notoriously not a great fan of her roles. (Though her offerings have been getting progressively better.) I do feel like Abby was done wrong in this film and I would have preferred to see some different outcomes for her... but every situation felt natural and her interactions with Riley and John were high points throughout. Where I come unstuck a little is with Mackenzie Davis and Harper, partly a dislike for the character and partly Davis' style of acting, it just didn't hit the spot for me. I can't say who I could have seen in this role instead, but I think there are a few others that could have taken up the reins and given it a little more pizzazz.
Gold stars all round for Mary Holland as Jane though, so adorable, she must be protected at all costs.
The look of the whole film is so rich and fits the season perfectly. The locations, the outfits, can't fault a single bit there. Design was flawless, I would love to live in that town if that's the aesthetic there. And if I'm being honest, there's nothing bad about this film overall, my issues are entirely personal preferences about acting and story.
Even with my desire to see a different outcome to the film... I cried. And yes, that's because it's a Christmas film and I'm an emotional wreck, that's how this season works, remember?
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/happiest-season-movie-review.html