Search
Search results
FahrenLernen
Education
App
You are a driving student and you received the online training FAHREN LERNEN from your driving...
Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats
9.5
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Firefly: Adventures is a cooperative, mission based, skirmish-level game where the players use the...
Sin City (2005)
7.5
Rate It
Movie Watch
Sin City (also known as Frank Miller's Sin City)[3] is a 2005 American neo-noir crime anthology film...
Sin City Frank Miller Robert Rodriguez Comic book
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2017
The cast are great (1 more)
Good tonal balance of horror and comedy
Sloppy technical elements (1 more)
Predictable jumpscares
Time To Float!
Contains spoilers, click to show
The 2017 remake of IT has been highly anticipated by Stephen King fans around the world and being a huge fan of King myself and growing up reading his stuff meant I was looking forward to seeing this. I also loved the original 1990 version when I was younger, so I was really hoping that this wouldn’t suck. Spoilers are going to follow for anyone that cares.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Silk Road (2021) in Movies
Mar 12, 2021
Squandered a promising story
Silk Road is a 2021 thriller from writer/director Tiller Russell focusing on the true story of Ross Ulbricht who created and operated the darknet marketplace of the same name, selling drugs and other illegal items across the globe. On paper, Silk Road sounds like it should be a fascinating, interesting story and even the trailer makes it appear exciting, but unfortunately it never quite manages to pull off what it promises.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.
Find My Device - Bluetooth 4.0
Health & Fitness and Utilities
App
Find Your Lost Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, Hearing Aids And Other Bluetooth 4.0 Devices Fast. Need...
BaM Video Delay for Coaching and Personal Training
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Featured in the TOP 10 SPORTS apps in USA First real video delay - continuously showing what just...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Hitman in Video Games
Oct 19, 2017 (Updated Oct 19, 2017)
Solid mechanics. (1 more)
Allows for player experimentation.
Story is garbage. (1 more)
Lack of cohesion.
Episodic Bloodshed
Before diving in, I feel like I should preface this review by pointing out that although this Hitman game was released episodically over the course of eight months, I bought the entire season digitally and played through all 6 levels consecutively. The main reason being; I am a big fan of the Hitman series, but wasn’t onboard with the stunted release schedule trend that this game was adhering to.
You can look at this game in two different ways. If you accept it as an adaption of the Hitman games that have preceded it, presented in a new format type for a new audience, then it’s great and it totally achieves what it set out to do. If like me, you were hoping for something more like the PS2 era games in the series, you will most likely be disappointed. Whether you love or loathe this new way that Hitman is being presented to us, I think it’s fair to say that it is certainly different to what we are used to.
At this point, after playing through the entire game over the last month or so, I have learned to accept it for what it is and came to the conclusion that it’s not the Hitman I remember from my preteen days and that’s okay. It is a different take on the series’ traditional underlying themes and mechanics, updated for a modern audience and even as a die hard, old school fan of the franchise, I can appreciate that.
My favourite thing about this game is that it allows you, as the player, to decide on the level of respect the game treats you with. What I mean by that is, if you have never touched a Hitman game, or even a stealth game before, this is a fantastic starting point. If you are looking for a my-first-premeditated-murder-simulator experience, this is the best recommendation I can think of. Just buy the entire season, boot up the game, play through each stage in order and on normal difficulty and follow the step by step prompts to take down each target. If you play this way, the game ends up functioning as a Wiki-how for any of the past games in the series and can even be used to train you to be better at stealth games in general. However, if you consider yourself a more of a hardcore, matter-of-fact assassin and want the most immersive and unencumbered version of the experience, you can totally have that also.
I know that it isn’t a popular opinion, but I enjoyed my time with Absolution, (the previous entry in the franchise,) however I agree with the overall belief that that game didn’t know what it wanted to be. This latest Hitman game knows exactly what it wants to be and executes what it sets out to do beautifully. Even if you aren’t a fan of the new way this game plays out, it is irrefutable to say that it doesn’t confidently accomplish its intention.
In addition, the technical elements of the game are fairly solid also. The gameplay is precise but fun, the gameplay graphics are pretty nice to look at and the cut-scene graphics are almost photorealistic. The level design functions well to compliment the tasks that you are assigned meaning, the use of lighting and strategic placement of weapons and items etc doesn’t seem too out of place. I experienced some cosmetic glitches and clipping during my time with the game, but never anything game-breaking. The only technical issue that severely hindered my experience was the online connectivity, or lack thereof. I can recall multiple times where I was in the middle of choosing my custom loadout before endeavouring on my next mission, only to be kicked out of the menu halfway through and told that connectivity to the server had been lost. This grew tedious after around the tenth time it happened and more than once caused me to put the controller down and stop playing for the night as multiple attempts to re-establish a connection were in vain.
Lastly, the story is unfortunately unremarkable; it is just a heartless, tacked on excuse for you to move from one setting to the next, but it functions as a justification for 47 to travel to the various locations where the missions take place. The only other downside to this experience was the feel of the game. This criticism is hard to put into words, but in the six missions; the process going in and out of each location as smoothly as possible, coupled with the focus on gameplay mechanics and the lack of cohesiveness to the story makes for a disjointed experience that I don’t think will stay with me over a significant amount of time other than thinking back and saying, “that stealth game had some really well implemented mechanics.” I don’t think that I will ever feel any real nostalgia for this game, nor will it stand out in my mind for anything other than its technical elements. Although the locations are vast and the opportunities the player can take advantage of are numerous, the game feels brief and somewhat unfinished once you complete it. You really get the feeling of this being part of an ongoing series, rather than a solid standalone game. The lack of any definitive beginning, middle and end sections to the game makes it feel rather unsatisfying once you reach the climax and causes the game overall to be more of a mesh of various missions clumsily thrown together, rather than a progressive chapter it 47’s career. The game I played immediately before Hitman, was Nier: Automata and that game managed to have both solid mechanics and some heart within it too. I know that 47 is supposed to be a cold, calculated, heartless killer, but that doesn’t mean that the games he stars in have to be heartless as well.
Overall, this is a solid stealth game and there is a lot of fun to be had here. Just know going in, if you are a long time Hitman fan, some things are going to be different. That doesn’t mean they will necessarily be bad, but you will certainly see a new spin being put on the tried and tested mechanics of past game in the franchise. If this is your first stealth game, then I would say that there is no better introduction into the genre, especially if you use the Opportunities menu. Unfortunately though, it does seem more like a variation of well made parts, rather than a solid, cohesive whole.
You can look at this game in two different ways. If you accept it as an adaption of the Hitman games that have preceded it, presented in a new format type for a new audience, then it’s great and it totally achieves what it set out to do. If like me, you were hoping for something more like the PS2 era games in the series, you will most likely be disappointed. Whether you love or loathe this new way that Hitman is being presented to us, I think it’s fair to say that it is certainly different to what we are used to.
At this point, after playing through the entire game over the last month or so, I have learned to accept it for what it is and came to the conclusion that it’s not the Hitman I remember from my preteen days and that’s okay. It is a different take on the series’ traditional underlying themes and mechanics, updated for a modern audience and even as a die hard, old school fan of the franchise, I can appreciate that.
My favourite thing about this game is that it allows you, as the player, to decide on the level of respect the game treats you with. What I mean by that is, if you have never touched a Hitman game, or even a stealth game before, this is a fantastic starting point. If you are looking for a my-first-premeditated-murder-simulator experience, this is the best recommendation I can think of. Just buy the entire season, boot up the game, play through each stage in order and on normal difficulty and follow the step by step prompts to take down each target. If you play this way, the game ends up functioning as a Wiki-how for any of the past games in the series and can even be used to train you to be better at stealth games in general. However, if you consider yourself a more of a hardcore, matter-of-fact assassin and want the most immersive and unencumbered version of the experience, you can totally have that also.
I know that it isn’t a popular opinion, but I enjoyed my time with Absolution, (the previous entry in the franchise,) however I agree with the overall belief that that game didn’t know what it wanted to be. This latest Hitman game knows exactly what it wants to be and executes what it sets out to do beautifully. Even if you aren’t a fan of the new way this game plays out, it is irrefutable to say that it doesn’t confidently accomplish its intention.
In addition, the technical elements of the game are fairly solid also. The gameplay is precise but fun, the gameplay graphics are pretty nice to look at and the cut-scene graphics are almost photorealistic. The level design functions well to compliment the tasks that you are assigned meaning, the use of lighting and strategic placement of weapons and items etc doesn’t seem too out of place. I experienced some cosmetic glitches and clipping during my time with the game, but never anything game-breaking. The only technical issue that severely hindered my experience was the online connectivity, or lack thereof. I can recall multiple times where I was in the middle of choosing my custom loadout before endeavouring on my next mission, only to be kicked out of the menu halfway through and told that connectivity to the server had been lost. This grew tedious after around the tenth time it happened and more than once caused me to put the controller down and stop playing for the night as multiple attempts to re-establish a connection were in vain.
Lastly, the story is unfortunately unremarkable; it is just a heartless, tacked on excuse for you to move from one setting to the next, but it functions as a justification for 47 to travel to the various locations where the missions take place. The only other downside to this experience was the feel of the game. This criticism is hard to put into words, but in the six missions; the process going in and out of each location as smoothly as possible, coupled with the focus on gameplay mechanics and the lack of cohesiveness to the story makes for a disjointed experience that I don’t think will stay with me over a significant amount of time other than thinking back and saying, “that stealth game had some really well implemented mechanics.” I don’t think that I will ever feel any real nostalgia for this game, nor will it stand out in my mind for anything other than its technical elements. Although the locations are vast and the opportunities the player can take advantage of are numerous, the game feels brief and somewhat unfinished once you complete it. You really get the feeling of this being part of an ongoing series, rather than a solid standalone game. The lack of any definitive beginning, middle and end sections to the game makes it feel rather unsatisfying once you reach the climax and causes the game overall to be more of a mesh of various missions clumsily thrown together, rather than a progressive chapter it 47’s career. The game I played immediately before Hitman, was Nier: Automata and that game managed to have both solid mechanics and some heart within it too. I know that 47 is supposed to be a cold, calculated, heartless killer, but that doesn’t mean that the games he stars in have to be heartless as well.
Overall, this is a solid stealth game and there is a lot of fun to be had here. Just know going in, if you are a long time Hitman fan, some things are going to be different. That doesn’t mean they will necessarily be bad, but you will certainly see a new spin being put on the tried and tested mechanics of past game in the franchise. If this is your first stealth game, then I would say that there is no better introduction into the genre, especially if you use the Opportunities menu. Unfortunately though, it does seem more like a variation of well made parts, rather than a solid, cohesive whole.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Genocide of One: A Thriller in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Genocide of One completely blew my mind, multiple times. The plot twists just kept happening, new characters kept being introduced and then turning out to be totally different characters than I thought they’d be, and the adrenalin was pumping almost immediately. There were so many little things that became big later, so many details, so many connections, that I feel like if I read it again, it would be just as exciting, maybe more exciting the second time, because I might actually understand it on a deeper level. The ending was fulfilling but left opportunity and excitement. I definitely didn’t want it to end and I would read a sequel or another book by Takano in a heartbeat.
The book switches from one side of the world to the other every chapter. Initially I wasn’t sure how the two totally different stories were connected, but one connection at a time the two sides became one. There was a war thriller and a medical mystery happening at the same time and they were two different aspects of the same problem.
The hardest part of the book was the technical lingo and jargon in the medical chapters. I won’t say it was unnecessary because I’m not sure how else the author could have described the specifics of what went on, and being vague just wouldn’t have worked for this kind of story, but the jargon was a little hard to follow. I got won’t say I understand genetics now, but I do have a pretty good idea of what happened (medically speaking) in the story and I think it added to the book rather than taking away from it, so I’m okay with it.
The narration was excellent and not in any way distracting from the story. Joe Knezevich did an excellent job with all the different voices and accents, American and Japanese.
The bottom line is I loved this story and recommend it to anyone who likes thrillers or adventure stories. There was some violence during the war scenes, but it wasn’t gruesome or grotesque.
The book switches from one side of the world to the other every chapter. Initially I wasn’t sure how the two totally different stories were connected, but one connection at a time the two sides became one. There was a war thriller and a medical mystery happening at the same time and they were two different aspects of the same problem.
The hardest part of the book was the technical lingo and jargon in the medical chapters. I won’t say it was unnecessary because I’m not sure how else the author could have described the specifics of what went on, and being vague just wouldn’t have worked for this kind of story, but the jargon was a little hard to follow. I got won’t say I understand genetics now, but I do have a pretty good idea of what happened (medically speaking) in the story and I think it added to the book rather than taking away from it, so I’m okay with it.
The narration was excellent and not in any way distracting from the story. Joe Knezevich did an excellent job with all the different voices and accents, American and Japanese.
The bottom line is I loved this story and recommend it to anyone who likes thrillers or adventure stories. There was some violence during the war scenes, but it wasn’t gruesome or grotesque.