Search
Search results
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated 2:HRS (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
The concept of knowing when you’re going to die is a fascinating one, and sparks many philosophical debates. Would you like to know so you can do everything you’ve wanted, or would you rather live in blissful ignorance and take life as it comes? Unfortunately for our protagonist, Tim, he doesn’t really get the opportunity to debate this after encountering a machine that correctly predicts the lifespan of every living thing. The title 2:HRS relates to the time predicted by the machine, which encourages Tim to use his time left wisely.
Whilst it’s a harrowing revelation, the events that follow are predominantly slapstick and family-friendly, with the occasional heartwarming moment thrown in. Tim isn’t alone on his quest to check off his bucket list, being accompanied by two of his school friends who he convinced to ditch a school trip with him. This decision is how they stumbled across the machine in the first palace, so the trio certainly got more than they bargained for that day. Like any adventure, an antagonist is close behind, and in this case its the machine’s inventor who wants to see the prediction come true no matter what.
Despite being an intriguing concept for all ages, 2:HRS falls flat in a lot of places. The script is more cringe-worthy than funny, and whilst I appreciate the target audience is younger than me, I still believe it would’ve benefited from better screenwriting. That being said, the actors worked well with what they were given and gave great performances throughout. I probably laughed about three times throughout the film, so at least I can give them that. The young actors were especially good, and I’m looking forward to seeing their future work as I know they could go far.
Another thing that bothered me was the ending. It ended so abruptly and nothing was really tied up, which was a huge disappointment for me. I didn’t like their decision to leave it so open-ended as it didn’t make sense nor make an impact. It was probably designed to coax one last laugh from audiences, but didn’t work for me sadly. 2:HRS does have some redeeming scenes that I enjoyed a lot, including a moment near the end of the film with Tim and his sister. If the rest of the film had been of that quality, I would have rated it higher.
Overall, 2:HRS feels like an average, forgettable film but an entertaining watch when you’re relaxing on the sofa looking for something light-hearted to stick on. It’s worth a watch, but it’s not a film I’ll be rewatching any time soon.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/07/30/the-clock-is-ticking-my-thoughts-on-2hrs/
Whilst it’s a harrowing revelation, the events that follow are predominantly slapstick and family-friendly, with the occasional heartwarming moment thrown in. Tim isn’t alone on his quest to check off his bucket list, being accompanied by two of his school friends who he convinced to ditch a school trip with him. This decision is how they stumbled across the machine in the first palace, so the trio certainly got more than they bargained for that day. Like any adventure, an antagonist is close behind, and in this case its the machine’s inventor who wants to see the prediction come true no matter what.
Despite being an intriguing concept for all ages, 2:HRS falls flat in a lot of places. The script is more cringe-worthy than funny, and whilst I appreciate the target audience is younger than me, I still believe it would’ve benefited from better screenwriting. That being said, the actors worked well with what they were given and gave great performances throughout. I probably laughed about three times throughout the film, so at least I can give them that. The young actors were especially good, and I’m looking forward to seeing their future work as I know they could go far.
Another thing that bothered me was the ending. It ended so abruptly and nothing was really tied up, which was a huge disappointment for me. I didn’t like their decision to leave it so open-ended as it didn’t make sense nor make an impact. It was probably designed to coax one last laugh from audiences, but didn’t work for me sadly. 2:HRS does have some redeeming scenes that I enjoyed a lot, including a moment near the end of the film with Tim and his sister. If the rest of the film had been of that quality, I would have rated it higher.
Overall, 2:HRS feels like an average, forgettable film but an entertaining watch when you’re relaxing on the sofa looking for something light-hearted to stick on. It’s worth a watch, but it’s not a film I’ll be rewatching any time soon.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/07/30/the-clock-is-ticking-my-thoughts-on-2hrs/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Videodrome: Days of O'Blivion in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book from the author in exchange for an honest review</i>
Written as a prequel to David Cronenberg’s horror film, Lee McGeorge explores the potential scenario that led up to the surrealist events in <i>Videodrome</i>. This short story is more science fiction than horror in nature as it only builds up the background and setting to the point in which the film begins.
<i>Days of O’Blivion</i>, as well as the original film, is set during the cold war between the US and USSR. It is a period of time threatened with atomic weapons of mass destruction, and the competition to create the most superior technology. In this particular scenario, two men: Professor Brian Olivier and his friend Barry have been experimenting with special television technology resulting in interesting outcomes. Their product, which they name <i>Veraceo</i> –a compound of Veracity and Video –, has the ability to make everyone believe what they are seeing on screen to be true. This could be a big boon to advertising establishments, however cause dire consequences if found in the wrong hands, i.e. communists.
Readers, including those unfamiliar with the film, should be able to ascertain several problems this technological advancement could pose, making it all the more foreboding when an unknown but powerful company pays out thousands of dollars to become partners with Brian and Barry. What makes it all the more ominous is Brian’s hesitancy in accepting the offer in contrast with Barry’s excitement. As the technology is adapted further it becomes clear that they are dealing with very dangerous concepts and people – hallucinations being only the smallest of side affects.
Although Lee McGeorge is using an already existing story, he makes this prequel his own by exploring the hows and whys <i>Veraceo</i> came to be developed. His narrative is accurate in terms of the way it builds up to coincide with the film script without damaging or giving new meaning to Cronenberg’s original storyline.
Although not horror as in scary, <i>Days of O’Blivion</i> contains many horrific scenes. Most of these are pornographic in nature and rather disturbing, particularly more so as the story progresses – something that lessened the general enjoyment of the book. The overall nature of the book (and film, probably) may appeal more towards a male market, particularly those with a less delicate temperament.
As with his previous books, which also incorporate pre-existing ideas, Lee McGeorge writes well in a way that engages the reader and even interests those without prior knowledge of the subject. There is also additional digital content alongside this book. Those lucky enough to own a paper back copy will be able to access these using an NFC enabled device.
Written as a prequel to David Cronenberg’s horror film, Lee McGeorge explores the potential scenario that led up to the surrealist events in <i>Videodrome</i>. This short story is more science fiction than horror in nature as it only builds up the background and setting to the point in which the film begins.
<i>Days of O’Blivion</i>, as well as the original film, is set during the cold war between the US and USSR. It is a period of time threatened with atomic weapons of mass destruction, and the competition to create the most superior technology. In this particular scenario, two men: Professor Brian Olivier and his friend Barry have been experimenting with special television technology resulting in interesting outcomes. Their product, which they name <i>Veraceo</i> –a compound of Veracity and Video –, has the ability to make everyone believe what they are seeing on screen to be true. This could be a big boon to advertising establishments, however cause dire consequences if found in the wrong hands, i.e. communists.
Readers, including those unfamiliar with the film, should be able to ascertain several problems this technological advancement could pose, making it all the more foreboding when an unknown but powerful company pays out thousands of dollars to become partners with Brian and Barry. What makes it all the more ominous is Brian’s hesitancy in accepting the offer in contrast with Barry’s excitement. As the technology is adapted further it becomes clear that they are dealing with very dangerous concepts and people – hallucinations being only the smallest of side affects.
Although Lee McGeorge is using an already existing story, he makes this prequel his own by exploring the hows and whys <i>Veraceo</i> came to be developed. His narrative is accurate in terms of the way it builds up to coincide with the film script without damaging or giving new meaning to Cronenberg’s original storyline.
Although not horror as in scary, <i>Days of O’Blivion</i> contains many horrific scenes. Most of these are pornographic in nature and rather disturbing, particularly more so as the story progresses – something that lessened the general enjoyment of the book. The overall nature of the book (and film, probably) may appeal more towards a male market, particularly those with a less delicate temperament.
As with his previous books, which also incorporate pre-existing ideas, Lee McGeorge writes well in a way that engages the reader and even interests those without prior knowledge of the subject. There is also additional digital content alongside this book. Those lucky enough to own a paper back copy will be able to access these using an NFC enabled device.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Jul 18, 2019
The best British film in years!
Despite not really being a fan of The Beatles or their music, when I first saw the trailer for this at the start of the year, I was genuinely intrigued by the concept. An aspiring musician (and huge Beatles fan) is hit by a bus during an inexplicable global blackout, only to wake up to a world in which The Beatles seemingly never existed. As the only one who remembers their songs, he releases them as his own and conquers the music world.
The trailer did a good job of letting you know what to expect without giving too much away, believe it or not. There are a few twists and turns along the way, which were a nice surprise. Ultimately, this IS a British rom-com underneath it all, and the final third is as predictable as every other film in the genre.
Yet this film oozes charm and whimsicality, and sets itself apart from everything that's come before it. Say what you want about Love Actually, but for me, that was the last British film to really make a splash on this level - which was 16 years ago!
The script is amazing. No scene feels unnecessary. No dialogue feels pointless. Richard Curtis, yet again, proves he's a true master of his craft. The lead roles are perfectly cast. Lily James, in particular, puts in another great performance, showing she's worthy of more heavyweight roles (although she's definitely found her niche in this type of film).
What I really loved about this film was how thought-provoking it was. Relative newcomer, Himesh Patel's portrayal of Jack Malek is spot-on, playing with your own emotions and morals, forcing you to ask yourself if you could remain as grounded and humble as he did if something like this happened to you. Despite being over the top at times, it all felt surprisingly real. I can imagine this is exactly how it would play out if something like this were to happen to someone - the media frenzy, the explosion of popularity online, the whirlwind of life-changing moments...
The film is about big moments in your life, and what you choose to do with them when they happen. It's about chasing your dreams and what you would do if you caught them. It's about how to follow your heart when it wants two things at once. I left the cinema smiling, but also genuinely thinking about my entire outlook on life.
Danny Boyle has done an excellent job with this film, and it deserves to go down as one of the best British films in recent years. Whether you're a fan of the music or not, this should not be missed. Near perfect!
The trailer did a good job of letting you know what to expect without giving too much away, believe it or not. There are a few twists and turns along the way, which were a nice surprise. Ultimately, this IS a British rom-com underneath it all, and the final third is as predictable as every other film in the genre.
Yet this film oozes charm and whimsicality, and sets itself apart from everything that's come before it. Say what you want about Love Actually, but for me, that was the last British film to really make a splash on this level - which was 16 years ago!
The script is amazing. No scene feels unnecessary. No dialogue feels pointless. Richard Curtis, yet again, proves he's a true master of his craft. The lead roles are perfectly cast. Lily James, in particular, puts in another great performance, showing she's worthy of more heavyweight roles (although she's definitely found her niche in this type of film).
What I really loved about this film was how thought-provoking it was. Relative newcomer, Himesh Patel's portrayal of Jack Malek is spot-on, playing with your own emotions and morals, forcing you to ask yourself if you could remain as grounded and humble as he did if something like this happened to you. Despite being over the top at times, it all felt surprisingly real. I can imagine this is exactly how it would play out if something like this were to happen to someone - the media frenzy, the explosion of popularity online, the whirlwind of life-changing moments...
The film is about big moments in your life, and what you choose to do with them when they happen. It's about chasing your dreams and what you would do if you caught them. It's about how to follow your heart when it wants two things at once. I left the cinema smiling, but also genuinely thinking about my entire outlook on life.
Danny Boyle has done an excellent job with this film, and it deserves to go down as one of the best British films in recent years. Whether you're a fan of the music or not, this should not be missed. Near perfect!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 6 Underground (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
It’s a Michael Bay film. It’s going to have so many car crashes, explosions, stunts and more of the same. Seriously. It’s Michael Bay…AND Ryan Reynolds. With the script by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who both have worked on Zombieland, Deadpool 1 & 2. Just to clarify, this IS an action movie. It surprises me that it was released at this time of year. I would have thought the typical release would head off the summer blockbuster season. However, Netflix has been sending out an eclectic group of movies to premiere in theaters prior to its streaming release.
The premise that we are set up for: super rich billionaire, Number One (Ryan Reynolds) has curated a team with members that each have a specific set of skills. The small team of specialists are all ghosts in the real world. The work that they do requires the anonymity of nonexistence. Each member of the six -person team have been chosen by Number One. Number Two (Melanie Laurent) is a former CIA Operative, Number Three (Manuel Garcia Rulfo) the very talented assassin, Number Four (Adria Arjona) is the Doctor. She is the one who can remove a bullet while the car is dodging through the traffic at breakneck speed. Number five (Ben Hardy, last seen in Bohemian Rhapsody as Roger Taylor) who is the parkour king. Rounding out the team is Number Six (Dave Franco) the Driver.
To say some parts of the film was subdued would have some people raise their collective eyebrows. However, the characters (Numbers Two to Six), have taken on the witty quips that we, as an audience have long associated with Ryan Reynolds. The writers have dispersed the wit and sarcasm to the other team members. This also helps to provide the comradery and establish the “family” concept that bonds the disparate backgrounds of each member. We are privy to a little bit of information of each team member, but I would have liked to see a little bit more history of each to fill in the personal motivation.
I enjoyed all the car chases, explosions, stunts and the international sites. It’s definitely not the typical fare of the holiday season in the theaters, but it is a very fun action movie that shoots the viewer through the story. The pacing is steady, the humor is a little sarcastic with a side of gentle familial teasing.
If you have had enough of the warm and fuzzies that the season provides in plentitude, Six Underground is a welcomed palate cleanser in this time of Yule. I certainly hope we get to see more of this team in a sequel.
4 out of 5 stars
The premise that we are set up for: super rich billionaire, Number One (Ryan Reynolds) has curated a team with members that each have a specific set of skills. The small team of specialists are all ghosts in the real world. The work that they do requires the anonymity of nonexistence. Each member of the six -person team have been chosen by Number One. Number Two (Melanie Laurent) is a former CIA Operative, Number Three (Manuel Garcia Rulfo) the very talented assassin, Number Four (Adria Arjona) is the Doctor. She is the one who can remove a bullet while the car is dodging through the traffic at breakneck speed. Number five (Ben Hardy, last seen in Bohemian Rhapsody as Roger Taylor) who is the parkour king. Rounding out the team is Number Six (Dave Franco) the Driver.
To say some parts of the film was subdued would have some people raise their collective eyebrows. However, the characters (Numbers Two to Six), have taken on the witty quips that we, as an audience have long associated with Ryan Reynolds. The writers have dispersed the wit and sarcasm to the other team members. This also helps to provide the comradery and establish the “family” concept that bonds the disparate backgrounds of each member. We are privy to a little bit of information of each team member, but I would have liked to see a little bit more history of each to fill in the personal motivation.
I enjoyed all the car chases, explosions, stunts and the international sites. It’s definitely not the typical fare of the holiday season in the theaters, but it is a very fun action movie that shoots the viewer through the story. The pacing is steady, the humor is a little sarcastic with a side of gentle familial teasing.
If you have had enough of the warm and fuzzies that the season provides in plentitude, Six Underground is a welcomed palate cleanser in this time of Yule. I certainly hope we get to see more of this team in a sequel.
4 out of 5 stars
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Well Acted
In 2012, the conservative Pope Benedict - citing failing health - made the rare move of stepping down from the Papacy. He was, ultimately, replaced by the more Liberal Pope Francis. THE TWO POPES is a fictional account of a conversation that these two men had prior to Benedict's stepping down.
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Color Out of Space (2019) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020
You had me at Nicolas Cage.
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Horse Girl (2020) in Movies
Apr 13, 2020
Pacing Was One Problem of Many
In Horse Girl, Sarah (Alison Brie) finds herself confusing her dreams with reality as her visions start to become more and more real.
Acting: 10
I didn’t love this movie, but I did love Brie’s performance as Sarah. It’s an earnest performance and she did extremely well within the confines of the script she was given. With a solid supporting cast in tow, I enjoyed the acting all the way around.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 2
I wasn’t in love with Sarah’s character or at least how she was portrayed. Without giving away any of the story, I’ll just say I think her arc could have been delved into a bit more. In Horse Girl, it felt like the main issue was being skirted more than anything. I also felt like the other characters were just around for the sake of being fillers.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is shot well from a visual standpoint. I love how the dreams blend seamlessly into reality and you have a hard time discerning what’s what at times. It’s those kind of things that keep you guessing and almost manage to salvage the movie.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 3
If I’m being honest, I was mostly bored throughout the movie. Sure there were a couple of moments that piqued my interest, but I think the movie showed it’s hand too fast by presenting the issue, then not really doing much to resolve the issue. I understand the theme of what the movie is supposed to represent, but where is the light in all of it? It felt like a movie descending more and more into darkness with no hope of getting out.
Memorability: 3
Pace: 4
Slow-moving to the point of being painful at times. I remember repeatedly checking the time hoping that things would eventually pick up. I found myself chasing storylines in my head that didn’t even matter. It felt slower overall because I continued to question the direction.
Plot: 3
The attempt to tackle this type of story could have been handled a lot better. If I compare it to another movie that comes to mind, you will automatically know what Horse Girl is about, but I will say said movie handles the topic like night and day compared to this movie. It lacked any kind of cohesiveness to keep me interested.
Resolution: 3
Ends worse than it started. It drained me of hope which is the complete opposite of a movie’s aim. It’s a shame as there were so many different directions they could have chosen.
Overall: 48
About fifteen minutes in, this movie starts to go downhill for me and never really rebounds. Instead, what happens next is a descent into madness that is neither fun nor hopeful.
Acting: 10
I didn’t love this movie, but I did love Brie’s performance as Sarah. It’s an earnest performance and she did extremely well within the confines of the script she was given. With a solid supporting cast in tow, I enjoyed the acting all the way around.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 2
I wasn’t in love with Sarah’s character or at least how she was portrayed. Without giving away any of the story, I’ll just say I think her arc could have been delved into a bit more. In Horse Girl, it felt like the main issue was being skirted more than anything. I also felt like the other characters were just around for the sake of being fillers.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is shot well from a visual standpoint. I love how the dreams blend seamlessly into reality and you have a hard time discerning what’s what at times. It’s those kind of things that keep you guessing and almost manage to salvage the movie.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 3
If I’m being honest, I was mostly bored throughout the movie. Sure there were a couple of moments that piqued my interest, but I think the movie showed it’s hand too fast by presenting the issue, then not really doing much to resolve the issue. I understand the theme of what the movie is supposed to represent, but where is the light in all of it? It felt like a movie descending more and more into darkness with no hope of getting out.
Memorability: 3
Pace: 4
Slow-moving to the point of being painful at times. I remember repeatedly checking the time hoping that things would eventually pick up. I found myself chasing storylines in my head that didn’t even matter. It felt slower overall because I continued to question the direction.
Plot: 3
The attempt to tackle this type of story could have been handled a lot better. If I compare it to another movie that comes to mind, you will automatically know what Horse Girl is about, but I will say said movie handles the topic like night and day compared to this movie. It lacked any kind of cohesiveness to keep me interested.
Resolution: 3
Ends worse than it started. It drained me of hope which is the complete opposite of a movie’s aim. It’s a shame as there were so many different directions they could have chosen.
Overall: 48
About fifteen minutes in, this movie starts to go downhill for me and never really rebounds. Instead, what happens next is a descent into madness that is neither fun nor hopeful.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Laggies (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Laggies is a film that I walked into open minded and a little bit excited where they might take the storyline. As a millennial, I can relate to Keira Knightley’s character Megan as she is approaching 30 and she does not really have any clear direction in life. So when her boyfriend proposes, she freaks out and escapes for a week with her new 16 year old friend and her father. Believable, however rather than this film deciding to become something more akin to 2004’s Garden State, it instead abruptly turns in a “Hollywood” direction, badly.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
Noble Quran with Audio (Holy Koran in English)
Book and Education
App
The Noble Quran, also informally known as the Hilali-Khan translation Interpretation of the...
Historical Books
Book
Historical Books is the sixth of seven full color reproduction books from The Saint John's Bible. Of...