Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
What can I say about Cold Pursuit? It's bad. Unfortunately it's not in the "so bad it's good" category.
From its opening with an Oscar Wilde quote and music that sounds like a mix of the 80s and Sherlock Holmes I was intrigued. I knew I wasn't expecting a masterpiece but I had hoped for something entertaining at the very least.
One thing that I was quickly baffled by was the between scene captions, a terrible font pops up with the relevant information and then it blows away as if made by snow... but not every time. I did wonder if even the graphics people got bored of doing it.
SOP for me and new movie releases is that I make 2 A5 sides of notes, for Cold Pursuit I made 7... SEVEN... and the general consensus of most of them was "WTF", "ridiculous" and "why?!" In fact those were probably the most used words on all the pages.
The characters are all over the place. Viking's relationship with his son, the token gay relationship that felt like it had just been wedged in and White Bull's gang dubious frolicking... I just don't even know what to say about it.
I can't sit here and list all the bizarre things, neither of us have the time for that so let's skip to the things I enjoyed. There are just three things, much quicker than covering the other stuff!
Wingman's wife was a star for me, and that nail sharpening technique was inspired... totally stealing that.
One of the scenes has Coxman chasing his next target with his snowplow. He comes up on him quite menacingly and then the film did a great job of fooling me, I was expecting one thing and given another. That part of the scene came together quite well, it's just a shame about what followed.
Viking's son was surprisingly wise in almost all of his scenes, very laid back, just going with the flow. Out of all of it though I loved the scene about fantasy football when he's talking with Mustang. It was was a nice little addition.
That's it, I'm done with the things I liked.
The cinema was "full" when I saw it. There were 30-40 people, which for our cinema and this type of film on opening night in a small screen, wasn't bad at all. There were old and young, there were people who snored and people who laughed, I fell into neither of those last categories. Honestly I was in too much shock to do anything other than pick my jaw up off the floor.
Ultimately Cold Pursuit is another prime example of why you shouldn't put some of your best scenes in the trailers. The whole thing could probably have been sold on lesser scenes in the trailer and then the impact of the bigger ones would have potentially given it a few more stars.
What you should do
I can't in good conscience recommend this to anyone, Neeson has performed much better acts of revenge in many of his other films... just watch one of those... perhaps from behind a snow globe to make it seem like you're watching Cold Pursuit.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Please could I have Coxman's ability to get into places where he clearly doesn't meet the dress code.
From its opening with an Oscar Wilde quote and music that sounds like a mix of the 80s and Sherlock Holmes I was intrigued. I knew I wasn't expecting a masterpiece but I had hoped for something entertaining at the very least.
One thing that I was quickly baffled by was the between scene captions, a terrible font pops up with the relevant information and then it blows away as if made by snow... but not every time. I did wonder if even the graphics people got bored of doing it.
SOP for me and new movie releases is that I make 2 A5 sides of notes, for Cold Pursuit I made 7... SEVEN... and the general consensus of most of them was "WTF", "ridiculous" and "why?!" In fact those were probably the most used words on all the pages.
The characters are all over the place. Viking's relationship with his son, the token gay relationship that felt like it had just been wedged in and White Bull's gang dubious frolicking... I just don't even know what to say about it.
I can't sit here and list all the bizarre things, neither of us have the time for that so let's skip to the things I enjoyed. There are just three things, much quicker than covering the other stuff!
Wingman's wife was a star for me, and that nail sharpening technique was inspired... totally stealing that.
One of the scenes has Coxman chasing his next target with his snowplow. He comes up on him quite menacingly and then the film did a great job of fooling me, I was expecting one thing and given another. That part of the scene came together quite well, it's just a shame about what followed.
Viking's son was surprisingly wise in almost all of his scenes, very laid back, just going with the flow. Out of all of it though I loved the scene about fantasy football when he's talking with Mustang. It was was a nice little addition.
That's it, I'm done with the things I liked.
The cinema was "full" when I saw it. There were 30-40 people, which for our cinema and this type of film on opening night in a small screen, wasn't bad at all. There were old and young, there were people who snored and people who laughed, I fell into neither of those last categories. Honestly I was in too much shock to do anything other than pick my jaw up off the floor.
Ultimately Cold Pursuit is another prime example of why you shouldn't put some of your best scenes in the trailers. The whole thing could probably have been sold on lesser scenes in the trailer and then the impact of the bigger ones would have potentially given it a few more stars.
What you should do
I can't in good conscience recommend this to anyone, Neeson has performed much better acts of revenge in many of his other films... just watch one of those... perhaps from behind a snow globe to make it seem like you're watching Cold Pursuit.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Please could I have Coxman's ability to get into places where he clearly doesn't meet the dress code.
Dailyhunt (Formerly NewsHunt)
News and Book
App
Dailyhunt (Formerly NewsHunt) provides news and videos in 14 Indian languages from leading & local...
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Unmatched: Cobble & Fog in Tabletop Games
Mar 19, 2021
You know when you read a rulebook and you just know you are going to love the game? This was me whilst reading the rulebook for Unmatched: Cobble & Fog. I will go into more detail why I enjoy the game near the end of my review, but just know, I loved it from the start.
In Unmatched: Cobble & Fog (which I will be calling Unmatched from here) players will be taking on the roles of either Dracula and his Sisters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Invisible Man, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a battle to the death to claim victory in this, “Who would win in a fight”-style skirmish fighting game. The last hero standing wins, so as one of my favorite characters in literary history says, “The game is afoot.”
DISCLAIMER: Even though this review is for the Cobble & Fog version of Unmatched, the rules are the same throughout the entire Unmatched family of games. I have the original Unmatched: Battle of Legends, Vol. 1 and it plays exactly the same. I prefer the characters in this version, so that’s why I am reviewing it specifically. -T
To setup, the players will choose which side of the board they wish to play and set it on the table. Next, players will choose their hero and gather all accoutrements associated with their choice. All heroes come with a deck of 30 action cards, a mini of their figure, a character card, at least one health dial (more if their sidekicks have more than one health point), and some characters will have sidekicks that have tokens, or tokens for other reasons. The youngest player places their mini on the space with the number 1 on the board, and then the rest of the players place theirs on subsequently-numbered spaces. Players shuffle their decks of action cards and draw five cards for their first hand.
On a turn a player may take two actions from the choice of: Maneuver, Scheme, Attack. When a player chooses to Maneuver they will draw a card into their hand, then move the amount of spaces noted on their character card (typically two spaces). These movement values may be boosted by also discarding additional cards for their boost value and adding it to the number of spaces moved.
All action cards will specify which character may use it for attack, defense, or Scheme action. These Scheme cards have a lightning bolt icon on them to indicate that they are played face-up to the table, resolved, and then discarded.
Finally, if a melee-based character is positioned adjacent to an opponent, or if a ranged character is in the same zone as an opponent, they may Attack said opponent. To Attack, the active player declares which opponent will be attacked, and each player involved will choose cards from their hands to use in the battle. The attacking player will need to use attack or versatile (either used for attack or defense) cards to try to inflict damage, while the defending player will need to play defense or versatile cards in defense. The difference of the values printed on the cards will determine which character wins the battle and if health points are to be deducted from the health dial.
Many cards will have action instructions that trigger either immediately during battle or even after the battle concludes. Resolve these actions when appropriate and try to stay on your feet.
Play continues in this fashion of moving around the board to gain cards or using the cards to scheme or attack/defend. The winning player is they who survives at the end and vanquishes all foes on the board.
Components. I love everything about the components in this game. The box is great. The insert is really incredible and well thought out. The cards are great quality and the game features spectacular art all around. The minis are cool and luckily are fitted inside colored bases to remind players which mini is theirs. The sidekick tokens are excellent thick plastic and color-matched to the bases of their hero counterparts. The board is nice and double-sided, and all the rest of the cardboard components are excellent.
It’s no secret here – I absolutely love this game. I have always been a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, and this set also includes other interesting characters to play. Each one is highly unique in style and that’s one of the reasons I am so intrigued by this system. I say system because this is not the only game in the Unmatched family. As of today the Unmatched system boasts all of these as playable characters from different sets: King Arthur, Alice, Medusa, and Sinbad from the “Battle of Legends, Vol 1” set; Robert Muldoon and raptors from the “Jurassic Park, InGen vs Raptors” set; the “Robin Hood vs Bigfoot” set; Bruce Lee; and Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Angel from the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” set in addition to these here. I know more Jurassic Park sets are on the horizon, and I just cannot wait to see what other sets will be released in time.
Why do I love this game so much when I am not really a fan of moving and dueling games (I’m looking at you Mage Wars)? In these style of games I feel the movement is unnecessary as I just stand and fight. In this system, the only way to draw more cards from your deck is to enact the Maneuver action. There have been several times where I didn’t necessarily want to initiate a battle, but I saw opponents sitting with no cards in their hand. That means no defense cards can be played. Easy chunks of health taken by picking off the stationary few. Unmatched forces players to move around and I love that. Yes, there are opportunities to unleash giant blows or have double-digit health drops in battle, and that’s just delicious. Also there are times during play where mathing out exactly where to place your mini or sidekick is paramount to lay plans of ambush.
I mentioned earlier that I knew right away I would love this one. Opening the cover of the rulebook sold me immediately. As this set utilizes literary characters found in old timey Europe the game utilizes a period art style as well and I’m still fawning over it. Everything clicks for me and I can now understand why so many people were dying (not literally) to get copies of the game Unmatched is based on, Star Wars: Epic Duels. It is extremely fun and each character is interesting and unique. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a well-earned GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! If you need a skirmish style game with excellent theme and art, you must grab this post haste. If you and I fall on the same side of the coin with our gaming preferences you NEED to have this in your collection.
I don’t know how many other sets I will be looking to add to my collection at this point, but I cannot tell you how excited I would be to pit Bigfoot against Bruce Lee. Or King Arthur against Dracula. It just feels epic and wonderful. Great job to the team at Restoration Games. This is a huge win for my collection.
In Unmatched: Cobble & Fog (which I will be calling Unmatched from here) players will be taking on the roles of either Dracula and his Sisters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Invisible Man, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a battle to the death to claim victory in this, “Who would win in a fight”-style skirmish fighting game. The last hero standing wins, so as one of my favorite characters in literary history says, “The game is afoot.”
DISCLAIMER: Even though this review is for the Cobble & Fog version of Unmatched, the rules are the same throughout the entire Unmatched family of games. I have the original Unmatched: Battle of Legends, Vol. 1 and it plays exactly the same. I prefer the characters in this version, so that’s why I am reviewing it specifically. -T
To setup, the players will choose which side of the board they wish to play and set it on the table. Next, players will choose their hero and gather all accoutrements associated with their choice. All heroes come with a deck of 30 action cards, a mini of their figure, a character card, at least one health dial (more if their sidekicks have more than one health point), and some characters will have sidekicks that have tokens, or tokens for other reasons. The youngest player places their mini on the space with the number 1 on the board, and then the rest of the players place theirs on subsequently-numbered spaces. Players shuffle their decks of action cards and draw five cards for their first hand.
On a turn a player may take two actions from the choice of: Maneuver, Scheme, Attack. When a player chooses to Maneuver they will draw a card into their hand, then move the amount of spaces noted on their character card (typically two spaces). These movement values may be boosted by also discarding additional cards for their boost value and adding it to the number of spaces moved.
All action cards will specify which character may use it for attack, defense, or Scheme action. These Scheme cards have a lightning bolt icon on them to indicate that they are played face-up to the table, resolved, and then discarded.
Finally, if a melee-based character is positioned adjacent to an opponent, or if a ranged character is in the same zone as an opponent, they may Attack said opponent. To Attack, the active player declares which opponent will be attacked, and each player involved will choose cards from their hands to use in the battle. The attacking player will need to use attack or versatile (either used for attack or defense) cards to try to inflict damage, while the defending player will need to play defense or versatile cards in defense. The difference of the values printed on the cards will determine which character wins the battle and if health points are to be deducted from the health dial.
Many cards will have action instructions that trigger either immediately during battle or even after the battle concludes. Resolve these actions when appropriate and try to stay on your feet.
Play continues in this fashion of moving around the board to gain cards or using the cards to scheme or attack/defend. The winning player is they who survives at the end and vanquishes all foes on the board.
Components. I love everything about the components in this game. The box is great. The insert is really incredible and well thought out. The cards are great quality and the game features spectacular art all around. The minis are cool and luckily are fitted inside colored bases to remind players which mini is theirs. The sidekick tokens are excellent thick plastic and color-matched to the bases of their hero counterparts. The board is nice and double-sided, and all the rest of the cardboard components are excellent.
It’s no secret here – I absolutely love this game. I have always been a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, and this set also includes other interesting characters to play. Each one is highly unique in style and that’s one of the reasons I am so intrigued by this system. I say system because this is not the only game in the Unmatched family. As of today the Unmatched system boasts all of these as playable characters from different sets: King Arthur, Alice, Medusa, and Sinbad from the “Battle of Legends, Vol 1” set; Robert Muldoon and raptors from the “Jurassic Park, InGen vs Raptors” set; the “Robin Hood vs Bigfoot” set; Bruce Lee; and Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Angel from the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” set in addition to these here. I know more Jurassic Park sets are on the horizon, and I just cannot wait to see what other sets will be released in time.
Why do I love this game so much when I am not really a fan of moving and dueling games (I’m looking at you Mage Wars)? In these style of games I feel the movement is unnecessary as I just stand and fight. In this system, the only way to draw more cards from your deck is to enact the Maneuver action. There have been several times where I didn’t necessarily want to initiate a battle, but I saw opponents sitting with no cards in their hand. That means no defense cards can be played. Easy chunks of health taken by picking off the stationary few. Unmatched forces players to move around and I love that. Yes, there are opportunities to unleash giant blows or have double-digit health drops in battle, and that’s just delicious. Also there are times during play where mathing out exactly where to place your mini or sidekick is paramount to lay plans of ambush.
I mentioned earlier that I knew right away I would love this one. Opening the cover of the rulebook sold me immediately. As this set utilizes literary characters found in old timey Europe the game utilizes a period art style as well and I’m still fawning over it. Everything clicks for me and I can now understand why so many people were dying (not literally) to get copies of the game Unmatched is based on, Star Wars: Epic Duels. It is extremely fun and each character is interesting and unique. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a well-earned GOLDEN FEATHER AWARD! If you need a skirmish style game with excellent theme and art, you must grab this post haste. If you and I fall on the same side of the coin with our gaming preferences you NEED to have this in your collection.
I don’t know how many other sets I will be looking to add to my collection at this point, but I cannot tell you how excited I would be to pit Bigfoot against Bruce Lee. Or King Arthur against Dracula. It just feels epic and wonderful. Great job to the team at Restoration Games. This is a huge win for my collection.
TerraBlizzard (18 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2019
The heritage to the orignal (5 more)
Sublime acting from a majority of unknowns in the industry.
"Spices" up and make it's own mark in the Disney world.
The addition and alterations.
One liners.
Disney parks hidden in the film.
True to the orignal but a stand alone.
A must watch for all ages and with that comes a range of open doors and closed comments.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Due Date (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Last year, Todd Phillips brought us The Hangover. Along with its massive success, it helped turn its three lead actors into even bigger stars. Included in that line up was Zach Galifianakis, stand-up comedian turned actor who now seems to be Phillips go to guy. So how could Galifianakis possibly top being in the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time? He teams up with the man who became known for his portrayal of Tony Stark in Iron Man and Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, Robert Downey Jr, for the most outrageous comedy of 2010.
Seeing Robert Downey Jr in a film like this after his career exploded from doing Iron Man seems more outstanding than it really is. Or maybe it's just the mere thought of seeing the lead actor from some of the past few years biggest blockbusters in an R-rated comedy that features his character get high and be extremely ill tempered throughout its duration is entertaining in itself and strangely liberating. There isn't source material to follow that if strayed too far away from could cause fans to go into an uproar. Due Date is an original film and it just seems like doing comedy after two superhero films and a film based on the world's most infamous fictional detective would be creative freedom of sorts.
There was some concern that Zach Galifianakis' character in Due Date would be too similar to his character in The Hangover to really deliver a lot of laughs or be distinguishable in comparison. Truth be told, both characters are extremely similar but it works so well. Galifianakis is so funny, it hurts. Ethan Tremblay's ignorance is really what makes the film so incredibly ridiculous, over the top, and just downright hysterical. The blossoming friendship between Peter and Ethan is where the heart of the film truly lies though. The chemistry between both RDJ and Galifianakis is what makes so many scenes in the film so great. Watching Peter be in agony over having to deal with Ethan and his eccentric ways is pure comedy gold.
An interesting note about the film is that nearly every scene from the trailer is in the film. With all the alternate takes and deleted scenes that get shuffled around these days before a film gets released in theaters, that's saying a lot. It does make you wonder what sort of extras will be on the DVD and BD versions of the film though. One scene comes to mind that wasn't in the film, but that's it. Everything else that you've probably memorized ("You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.") is in there.
A few scenes to be on the lookout for, Peter has a certain way of dealing with the kids of a local drug dealer named Heidi (played by Juliette Lewis) that is sure to get an outstanding reaction from a packed theater. Also, the film puts an awkward yet priceless spin on the simple act of masturbating . There are so many gloriously preposterous things that transpire in the film that it should give you plenty of material to talk about with friends for days.
It's safe to consider Due Date as this year's The Hangover and that should definitely be taken as a compliment. It's the same director and one third of the main cast, but Due Date manages to set the bar for ludicrous acts achieved in film. Zach Galifianakis will provide most of the laughs, but it's the chemistry between both him and Robert Downey Jr that makes the comedy feel a bit more genuine than other comedies out there.
Seeing Robert Downey Jr in a film like this after his career exploded from doing Iron Man seems more outstanding than it really is. Or maybe it's just the mere thought of seeing the lead actor from some of the past few years biggest blockbusters in an R-rated comedy that features his character get high and be extremely ill tempered throughout its duration is entertaining in itself and strangely liberating. There isn't source material to follow that if strayed too far away from could cause fans to go into an uproar. Due Date is an original film and it just seems like doing comedy after two superhero films and a film based on the world's most infamous fictional detective would be creative freedom of sorts.
There was some concern that Zach Galifianakis' character in Due Date would be too similar to his character in The Hangover to really deliver a lot of laughs or be distinguishable in comparison. Truth be told, both characters are extremely similar but it works so well. Galifianakis is so funny, it hurts. Ethan Tremblay's ignorance is really what makes the film so incredibly ridiculous, over the top, and just downright hysterical. The blossoming friendship between Peter and Ethan is where the heart of the film truly lies though. The chemistry between both RDJ and Galifianakis is what makes so many scenes in the film so great. Watching Peter be in agony over having to deal with Ethan and his eccentric ways is pure comedy gold.
An interesting note about the film is that nearly every scene from the trailer is in the film. With all the alternate takes and deleted scenes that get shuffled around these days before a film gets released in theaters, that's saying a lot. It does make you wonder what sort of extras will be on the DVD and BD versions of the film though. One scene comes to mind that wasn't in the film, but that's it. Everything else that you've probably memorized ("You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.") is in there.
A few scenes to be on the lookout for, Peter has a certain way of dealing with the kids of a local drug dealer named Heidi (played by Juliette Lewis) that is sure to get an outstanding reaction from a packed theater. Also, the film puts an awkward yet priceless spin on the simple act of masturbating . There are so many gloriously preposterous things that transpire in the film that it should give you plenty of material to talk about with friends for days.
It's safe to consider Due Date as this year's The Hangover and that should definitely be taken as a compliment. It's the same director and one third of the main cast, but Due Date manages to set the bar for ludicrous acts achieved in film. Zach Galifianakis will provide most of the laughs, but it's the chemistry between both him and Robert Downey Jr that makes the comedy feel a bit more genuine than other comedies out there.
Poésie Collection (600 poèmes)
Book and Education
App
Une grande sélection de 616 poésies et fables ! Cette collection inclut les versions intégrales...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.