Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The 2nd best star wars film
The Star Wars universe just got a whole lot bigger. When Rogue One: A Star Wars Story was announced by Disney a couple of years ago, diehard fans of the sci-fi saga met the news with a huge dose of scepticism.
After all, the prequel trilogy was an unmitigated disaster, doing all it could to destroy not only the greatest villain in the history of film, but the series itself. Then Gareth Edwards was announced as director, whose film credits include the brilliant Monsters and Godzilla, which was critically praised but received a lukewarm reception publically.
THEN Disney announced the film was undergoing “heavy” reshoots to its first cut, reportedly due to executives being unhappy with the finished product’s tone.
So it’s clear that it’s not been plain sailing for Rogue One, but that headline isn’t a misprint – the finished article is just that damn good. But why?
In a time of conflict, a group of unlikely heroes band together on a mission to steal the plans to the Death Star, the Empire’s ultimate weapon of destruction. This key event in the Star Wars timeline brings together ordinary people who choose to do extraordinary things, and in doing so, become part of something greater than themselves.
If you cast your minds back to 1977 and the release of A New Hope, Rogue One takes place just before those events, acting as a stop-gap between the ending of Revenge of the Sith and the film that started it all.
A cast that includes Felicity Jones, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn and Mads Mikkelsen all gel together incredibly well to form one of the most coherent ensemble groups the galaxy has ever seen. Not since the introduction of Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia has the Star Wars franchise been so superbly kept afloat. Jones in particular is excellent and adds yet another leading lady to a franchise that loves putting women at the forefront, and rightly so.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is sublime. Director Gareth Edwards is renowned for his stunning shot choices and Rogue One is no exception. The intense variety of planets created from photo-realistic CGI and real landscapes adds an immersive quality that it has to be said, was lacking somewhat in The Force Awakens.
Then there is the much publicised return of Lord Vader. The aforementioned villain has been playing heavy on the minds of Star Wars fans for years after he was ridiculously robbed of any street cred at the climax of Revenge of the Sith. Mercifully, Edwards keeps his appearances to but a few, though he does loom heavy throughout the course of the film’s 133 minute running time, and returns to the dark presence he once was – it’s also nice to see James Earl Jones returning to the series.
There are Star Wars easter eggs abound, some only noticeable to diehards, whilst others smack you in the face with their lack of subtlety – though each and every one is placed at a point where the film feels better because of it. I’m not going to mention any by name, but a couple of old faces received cheers from the audience.
Any negatives? Well, Forest Whitaker’s Saw Gerrera fails to make a lasting impact and feels a little too much like executives wanted to shoehorn the Clone Wars television series into the film, and as much as it pains me to say, Michael Giacchino’s bombastic score, whilst brimming with nostalgia, doesn’t hit the right notes 100% of the time – with some musical elements feeling a little out of place with what is occurring on the screen.
Then there’s the dreaded reshoots. Well, they’re not noticeable… unless you’ve been watching the trailers, from which there are numerous scenes that aren’t included in the final cut. That’s a shame, though they’ll feature on the extended edition that will no doubt follow when the film is released on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Overall, Rogue One is better than anyone could have hoped. 2016 has been one of the worst years in decades for disappointing blockbusters and as it nears its end, we have one of the best yet. Smartly written with a heartfelt and engaging story, it adds a new and exciting layer to the Star Wars saga, and what’s even more impressive is its ability to make A New Hope a better film because of its existence.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/16/the-2nd-best-star-wars-film-rogue-one-review/
After all, the prequel trilogy was an unmitigated disaster, doing all it could to destroy not only the greatest villain in the history of film, but the series itself. Then Gareth Edwards was announced as director, whose film credits include the brilliant Monsters and Godzilla, which was critically praised but received a lukewarm reception publically.
THEN Disney announced the film was undergoing “heavy” reshoots to its first cut, reportedly due to executives being unhappy with the finished product’s tone.
So it’s clear that it’s not been plain sailing for Rogue One, but that headline isn’t a misprint – the finished article is just that damn good. But why?
In a time of conflict, a group of unlikely heroes band together on a mission to steal the plans to the Death Star, the Empire’s ultimate weapon of destruction. This key event in the Star Wars timeline brings together ordinary people who choose to do extraordinary things, and in doing so, become part of something greater than themselves.
If you cast your minds back to 1977 and the release of A New Hope, Rogue One takes place just before those events, acting as a stop-gap between the ending of Revenge of the Sith and the film that started it all.
A cast that includes Felicity Jones, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn and Mads Mikkelsen all gel together incredibly well to form one of the most coherent ensemble groups the galaxy has ever seen. Not since the introduction of Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia has the Star Wars franchise been so superbly kept afloat. Jones in particular is excellent and adds yet another leading lady to a franchise that loves putting women at the forefront, and rightly so.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is sublime. Director Gareth Edwards is renowned for his stunning shot choices and Rogue One is no exception. The intense variety of planets created from photo-realistic CGI and real landscapes adds an immersive quality that it has to be said, was lacking somewhat in The Force Awakens.
Then there is the much publicised return of Lord Vader. The aforementioned villain has been playing heavy on the minds of Star Wars fans for years after he was ridiculously robbed of any street cred at the climax of Revenge of the Sith. Mercifully, Edwards keeps his appearances to but a few, though he does loom heavy throughout the course of the film’s 133 minute running time, and returns to the dark presence he once was – it’s also nice to see James Earl Jones returning to the series.
There are Star Wars easter eggs abound, some only noticeable to diehards, whilst others smack you in the face with their lack of subtlety – though each and every one is placed at a point where the film feels better because of it. I’m not going to mention any by name, but a couple of old faces received cheers from the audience.
Any negatives? Well, Forest Whitaker’s Saw Gerrera fails to make a lasting impact and feels a little too much like executives wanted to shoehorn the Clone Wars television series into the film, and as much as it pains me to say, Michael Giacchino’s bombastic score, whilst brimming with nostalgia, doesn’t hit the right notes 100% of the time – with some musical elements feeling a little out of place with what is occurring on the screen.
Then there’s the dreaded reshoots. Well, they’re not noticeable… unless you’ve been watching the trailers, from which there are numerous scenes that aren’t included in the final cut. That’s a shame, though they’ll feature on the extended edition that will no doubt follow when the film is released on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Overall, Rogue One is better than anyone could have hoped. 2016 has been one of the worst years in decades for disappointing blockbusters and as it nears its end, we have one of the best yet. Smartly written with a heartfelt and engaging story, it adds a new and exciting layer to the Star Wars saga, and what’s even more impressive is its ability to make A New Hope a better film because of its existence.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/16/the-2nd-best-star-wars-film-rogue-one-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Superman Returns (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been nearly twenty years since Superman graced the silver screen. This fact is outstanding when you consider that numerous attempts to revive the franchise and two successful television series have occurred in the nearly two decades since 1987’s “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace”.
Amidst much speculation and rumors of a soaring budget that is reported to be over $250 Million, Superman Returns has arrived.
Under the direction of Bryan Singer, who successfully launched the first two films in the “X-Men” series, Brandon Routh dons the tights and capes of the late Christopher Reeve, as the man of steel and his mild mannered alter ego Clark Kent.
As the films opens, it is explained that Superman has been gone five years as he has traveled to what astronomers believe are the remains of his home planet Krypton which was destroyed when he was an infant.
Soon after his return, Clark visits his adopted mother in his hometown of Smallville before returning to Metropolis and his job at the Daily Planet. His happy homecoming is short-lived when Clark realizes that his beloved Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now a single mom with a fiancée named Richard (James Marsden).
As if this is not enough, Superman is shortly thereafter called into action to save Lois and the passengers of a plane and space shuttle encounter a deadly situation when a press conference goes awry.
In a spectacle of action and visual brilliance Superman not only saves the day, but makes a highly visible and triumphant return that signals to the world that he is back.
As happy as the majority of the world is to have their champion back, Lois is very conflicted about his return. She believes he abandoned humanity and left her without even saying goodbye. Such is the extent of Lois’s anger toward Superman; she has written a story entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman” for which she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
As upset as Lois is about the return of Superman, there is one individual who is seething mad over his return and that is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who plans to use his recently acquired wealth to hatch his latest plot and end the threat of Superman once and for all.
Lex plans to use the crystals and knowledge he has pilfered from Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude to craft a new landmass, where he will rule supreme. The fact that billions of innocents will be killed in the process is of no consequence to the power mad Luthor, setting the stage for several high tech action sequences and daring adventures as Superman sets out to save the day.
Despite numerous concerns I had over the film, I am happy to say that the series is in great hands, and the combination of Spacey, Bosworth, Routh, and Singer have not only produced the best film of Summer 2006, but have paved the way for what looks to be a series of films that, while true to the source materials, is not afraid to push the envelope to modernize Superman.
Routh was solid, not only looked the part perfectly, but handled the dual roles of Clark and Superman with and easygoing charm and manner that is highly effective. His ability to portray Superman as a being with deep emotions as well as power is key to the film as the audience is given a chance to see more than just the man with the muscles. Bosworth is also to be commended for her portrayal of a strong and capable Lois who is anything but the stock damsel in distress. The chemistry between Routh and Bosworth is good which is vital, as this is much more than effects and action.
The humanity and compassion that drives the film is an unexpected bonus. Despite the amazing action sequences, this is a story with deep emotional and psychological themes that are rarely seen in films of this nature.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that Spacey was not allowed to really let Lex be truly evil. Sure he talks a good fight, and in a few sequences is not above getting his hands dirty. But, for a film as grand as this, the diabolic plot Luthor is trying to hatch just does not seem diabolic enough.
One could also say that at a running time of nearly two hours and forty minutes that perhaps 20 minutes or so could have been trimmed towards the end to help the pacing of the final segments of the film.
That being said, the impressive mix of action, humor, romance, and cast gives Superman Returns a highly winning formula.
Amidst much speculation and rumors of a soaring budget that is reported to be over $250 Million, Superman Returns has arrived.
Under the direction of Bryan Singer, who successfully launched the first two films in the “X-Men” series, Brandon Routh dons the tights and capes of the late Christopher Reeve, as the man of steel and his mild mannered alter ego Clark Kent.
As the films opens, it is explained that Superman has been gone five years as he has traveled to what astronomers believe are the remains of his home planet Krypton which was destroyed when he was an infant.
Soon after his return, Clark visits his adopted mother in his hometown of Smallville before returning to Metropolis and his job at the Daily Planet. His happy homecoming is short-lived when Clark realizes that his beloved Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now a single mom with a fiancée named Richard (James Marsden).
As if this is not enough, Superman is shortly thereafter called into action to save Lois and the passengers of a plane and space shuttle encounter a deadly situation when a press conference goes awry.
In a spectacle of action and visual brilliance Superman not only saves the day, but makes a highly visible and triumphant return that signals to the world that he is back.
As happy as the majority of the world is to have their champion back, Lois is very conflicted about his return. She believes he abandoned humanity and left her without even saying goodbye. Such is the extent of Lois’s anger toward Superman; she has written a story entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman” for which she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
As upset as Lois is about the return of Superman, there is one individual who is seething mad over his return and that is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who plans to use his recently acquired wealth to hatch his latest plot and end the threat of Superman once and for all.
Lex plans to use the crystals and knowledge he has pilfered from Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude to craft a new landmass, where he will rule supreme. The fact that billions of innocents will be killed in the process is of no consequence to the power mad Luthor, setting the stage for several high tech action sequences and daring adventures as Superman sets out to save the day.
Despite numerous concerns I had over the film, I am happy to say that the series is in great hands, and the combination of Spacey, Bosworth, Routh, and Singer have not only produced the best film of Summer 2006, but have paved the way for what looks to be a series of films that, while true to the source materials, is not afraid to push the envelope to modernize Superman.
Routh was solid, not only looked the part perfectly, but handled the dual roles of Clark and Superman with and easygoing charm and manner that is highly effective. His ability to portray Superman as a being with deep emotions as well as power is key to the film as the audience is given a chance to see more than just the man with the muscles. Bosworth is also to be commended for her portrayal of a strong and capable Lois who is anything but the stock damsel in distress. The chemistry between Routh and Bosworth is good which is vital, as this is much more than effects and action.
The humanity and compassion that drives the film is an unexpected bonus. Despite the amazing action sequences, this is a story with deep emotional and psychological themes that are rarely seen in films of this nature.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that Spacey was not allowed to really let Lex be truly evil. Sure he talks a good fight, and in a few sequences is not above getting his hands dirty. But, for a film as grand as this, the diabolic plot Luthor is trying to hatch just does not seem diabolic enough.
One could also say that at a running time of nearly two hours and forty minutes that perhaps 20 minutes or so could have been trimmed towards the end to help the pacing of the final segments of the film.
That being said, the impressive mix of action, humor, romance, and cast gives Superman Returns a highly winning formula.
Becca Major (96 KP) rated Love O2O in TV
Jan 21, 2019
Characters (Main and Side) (2 more)
The Story
I like the basic premise.
A Simple Meet-Cute
Contains spoilers, click to show
One of the best things about Netflix is that there are a plethora of media that would otherwise be practically unavailable for viewing otherwise. For me, that primarily means Asian dramas, though I know many people discovered anime or other foreign television the same way. One of the most recent shows I watched via Netflix was a 2016 Chinese drama called Love 020. While it is not my favorite drama ever (that distinction belongs to Bromance) it is pretty good.
The story follows university students Bei Weiwei and Xiao Nai, who are computer technology majors at Qing University and both have a passion for game design. One day Weiwei has to log into her preferred MMORPG from a public computer and is spotted by Nai. He later finds her in-game and they begin a relationship between their characters. It isn’t long before Weiwei and Nai begin to develop real feelings, and Nai goes out of his way to pass by Weiwei in real life. Their eventual official IRL meeting is sufficiently exciting.
The best part is that Xiao Nai, while ruffling a few of my feathers for his more stalker-y actions, is not an asshole! He is nice to Weiwei from the start and is a devoted and engaged boyfriend. Weiwei herself is smart and sassy, though aloof online. One of my favorite scenes involves her putting her ex-in-game-husband in his place once they meet IRL. It also doesn’t help that these two are practically the perfect couple.
All of the characters, in fact, are fairly interesting. Both sets of roommates have different but very dynamic relationships with each other; it feels very organic. My personal favorites were K.O, Hao Mei, and Weiwei’s roommate Erxi. Though my attachments may be because they are the central characters to my favorite side-plots. If there was a character I had to choose to dislike, it would probably be Nana, the character who does the most bad in the plot but doesn’t suffer any real consequences for her actions.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you, but most of my criticisms concern how the story wraps up, so if you want to watch the series, then go for it! It is a very simple, easy story that hits all the right buttons if you just finished a heart-wringer.
|SPOILERS|
My main points of contention with Love O2O stem almost entirely from the way the series ends. As a brief summary, Xiao Nai’s game development company goes head to head with a rival, more established company, over the right to develop a particular game that both companies really really want, and (extra spoilers) they win. The side-plot of Erxi and Cao Guang comes to a head as the two realize the misunderstanding that’s been happening for the last few months. And Hao Mei still doesn’t realize that K.O has a huge crush on him!
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t mind this ending because it flows with the narrative, every story thread is tied, and it ends on a happy note with the main couple en-route to a wedding. It’s just… Where are the stakes?! The tension, where it exists, doesn’t stem from Xiao Nai or Weiwei or their relationship with each other, like what happens in most other dramas that I watch. Almost all of that drama and tension seemed to be relegated to other characters.
Everything is wrapped up so easily, the antagonists (for what little they did to advance the plot) simply admitted to the leads that they were wrong and they’re sorry. Additionally, the final “threat” that Xiao Nai and Weiwei face is meeting Weiwei’s parents, in which Weiwei’s father doesn’t like Nai because of course he doesn’t; and that is solved easily by Nai reminiscing with his future father-in-law about Weiwei as a child and how adorable their future children will be.
I wish I could have enjoyed this series a lot more than I did, but the ending means a lot for me because it’s the last thing I tend to remember, and the emotions that go with those endings tend to stick. So, yes I enjoyed this series, but the ending left a disappointing aftertaste.
The story follows university students Bei Weiwei and Xiao Nai, who are computer technology majors at Qing University and both have a passion for game design. One day Weiwei has to log into her preferred MMORPG from a public computer and is spotted by Nai. He later finds her in-game and they begin a relationship between their characters. It isn’t long before Weiwei and Nai begin to develop real feelings, and Nai goes out of his way to pass by Weiwei in real life. Their eventual official IRL meeting is sufficiently exciting.
The best part is that Xiao Nai, while ruffling a few of my feathers for his more stalker-y actions, is not an asshole! He is nice to Weiwei from the start and is a devoted and engaged boyfriend. Weiwei herself is smart and sassy, though aloof online. One of my favorite scenes involves her putting her ex-in-game-husband in his place once they meet IRL. It also doesn’t help that these two are practically the perfect couple.
All of the characters, in fact, are fairly interesting. Both sets of roommates have different but very dynamic relationships with each other; it feels very organic. My personal favorites were K.O, Hao Mei, and Weiwei’s roommate Erxi. Though my attachments may be because they are the central characters to my favorite side-plots. If there was a character I had to choose to dislike, it would probably be Nana, the character who does the most bad in the plot but doesn’t suffer any real consequences for her actions.
I don’t want to spoil the ending for you, but most of my criticisms concern how the story wraps up, so if you want to watch the series, then go for it! It is a very simple, easy story that hits all the right buttons if you just finished a heart-wringer.
|SPOILERS|
My main points of contention with Love O2O stem almost entirely from the way the series ends. As a brief summary, Xiao Nai’s game development company goes head to head with a rival, more established company, over the right to develop a particular game that both companies really really want, and (extra spoilers) they win. The side-plot of Erxi and Cao Guang comes to a head as the two realize the misunderstanding that’s been happening for the last few months. And Hao Mei still doesn’t realize that K.O has a huge crush on him!
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t mind this ending because it flows with the narrative, every story thread is tied, and it ends on a happy note with the main couple en-route to a wedding. It’s just… Where are the stakes?! The tension, where it exists, doesn’t stem from Xiao Nai or Weiwei or their relationship with each other, like what happens in most other dramas that I watch. Almost all of that drama and tension seemed to be relegated to other characters.
Everything is wrapped up so easily, the antagonists (for what little they did to advance the plot) simply admitted to the leads that they were wrong and they’re sorry. Additionally, the final “threat” that Xiao Nai and Weiwei face is meeting Weiwei’s parents, in which Weiwei’s father doesn’t like Nai because of course he doesn’t; and that is solved easily by Nai reminiscing with his future father-in-law about Weiwei as a child and how adorable their future children will be.
I wish I could have enjoyed this series a lot more than I did, but the ending means a lot for me because it’s the last thing I tend to remember, and the emotions that go with those endings tend to stick. So, yes I enjoyed this series, but the ending left a disappointing aftertaste.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Sep 27, 2017
C is for Candy
Contains spoilers, click to show
And yes, I certainly mean eye candy. Johnny Depp is gorgeous despite the makeup artists’ attempts to make him seem pale and awkward. My brain isn’t working properly due to lack of sleep so I’ll just go ahead and warn you that this is more a regurgitation than a review. Read at your own risk, because I even give the entire ending of the movie away…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Night Of - Season 1 in TV
Jul 19, 2017
Fantastic performances by the entire cast (4 more)
Phenomenal Script
Beautiful cinematography
Clever use of lighting
Brillaint direction
A Masterpice of Storytelling.
The Night Of stars Riz Ahmed as Naz, a young guy from Manhattan from an Asian family, who makes a series of bad decisions on what was supposed to be a simple night out; leading to his subsequent arrest and trial for the murder of a young girl. While there is no denying that Naz made some bad decisions and it is hard to deny he looks guilty, we are on this guy’s side at the start of the series. Then Jon Turturro comes into the show as Naz’s lawer John Stone. This is Turturro’s best role in years, possibly in his entire career and it serves as a stark reminder how wasted this guy is in the Transformers series and Adam Sandler Movies. Both leads give convincing performances as their respective characters, thrust into a situation that ends up being way out of their depth, they are both fish out of water, on either side of the justice system and we see the adapt or die method used by each of them.
Preacher, Westworld and Stranger Things are widely considered to be the best new TV shows of 2016, but I reckon that The Night Of is probably the most important new show broadcast this year. In the wake of a plethora of horrific, recent terror attacks across the world and following the vote to elect Donald Trump as the president of the most powerful country in the world, (a man who once expressed the desire to ban all Muslims from entering the USA,) this show seems unfortunately more relevant than ever. The show doesn’t shove any explicit propaganda down your throat, but there is no denying the racist undertones present and the social issues that the show presents to us. The writing is also fantastic throughout and this is by far the most painfully realistic show I have seen in the last few years. The show isn’t without its quirks though, but the consistently realistic nature of the writing and the performances are what make this show so immersive. The series also takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, constantly dropping unexpected character twists and new hints towards what really happened on the night referred to in the show’s title. This show throws so many interesting conversation starters into the viewership’s collective mind and constantly keeps you guessing as a spectator to these gruesome events.
This is a show that everyone should try, in a post brexit world where racial tensions are at an extreme high, this show is painfully relevant to people on either side of the argument. The crime itself becomes a background element as we see the biased treatment of a young Muslim man by the system and the assumptions made for and against him. There are so many backdoor deals being made between lawyers and other law officials and really the worst light is thrown on the criminal justice system itself and how broken the whole thing is. By halfway through the series’ 8 episodes, the issue of whether or not Naz actually committed the crime is irrelevant, the most important thing at this point being trying to keep everybody involved with this high profile case happy.
Although the moral points that this show chooses to pursue are unflinching and extremely well handled, the more technical aspects of the show are also expertly executed. I have already spoke about Riz Ahmed and John Turturro’s stand out performances, but the show’s supporting cast doesn’t contain any weak spots either and features a well rounded variety of races, ages and social classes. Naz’s family are all brilliant as are the other lawyers that make up the case. I have also already spoke about the high quality script present in the show, but I feel that the show’s writing team can’t be praised enough for the consistently high quality script they have produced. The cinematography of the show is also impressive throughout, with each shot perfectly complimenting the tone that the show sets and framing the actor’s performances masterfully. The use of light is also well implemented and adds to each shot composition and the overall aesthetic of the show. As highlighted above the actor’s performances are fantastic, but they are guided very well by the show’s directors. The score is also a nice addition to the tone of the show, as are all of the sound effects and audio used throughout.
Overall, this is the definition of great television and is the example that all other TV shows should aim for. Even if you don’t agree with the moral compasses of the show’s characters, it is objectively impossible to deny the show’s high caliber of technical filmaking. This is without a doubt one of the best shows aired in 2016 and could even be considered as one of the best seasons of a TV show of the last decade.
Preacher, Westworld and Stranger Things are widely considered to be the best new TV shows of 2016, but I reckon that The Night Of is probably the most important new show broadcast this year. In the wake of a plethora of horrific, recent terror attacks across the world and following the vote to elect Donald Trump as the president of the most powerful country in the world, (a man who once expressed the desire to ban all Muslims from entering the USA,) this show seems unfortunately more relevant than ever. The show doesn’t shove any explicit propaganda down your throat, but there is no denying the racist undertones present and the social issues that the show presents to us. The writing is also fantastic throughout and this is by far the most painfully realistic show I have seen in the last few years. The show isn’t without its quirks though, but the consistently realistic nature of the writing and the performances are what make this show so immersive. The series also takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, constantly dropping unexpected character twists and new hints towards what really happened on the night referred to in the show’s title. This show throws so many interesting conversation starters into the viewership’s collective mind and constantly keeps you guessing as a spectator to these gruesome events.
This is a show that everyone should try, in a post brexit world where racial tensions are at an extreme high, this show is painfully relevant to people on either side of the argument. The crime itself becomes a background element as we see the biased treatment of a young Muslim man by the system and the assumptions made for and against him. There are so many backdoor deals being made between lawyers and other law officials and really the worst light is thrown on the criminal justice system itself and how broken the whole thing is. By halfway through the series’ 8 episodes, the issue of whether or not Naz actually committed the crime is irrelevant, the most important thing at this point being trying to keep everybody involved with this high profile case happy.
Although the moral points that this show chooses to pursue are unflinching and extremely well handled, the more technical aspects of the show are also expertly executed. I have already spoke about Riz Ahmed and John Turturro’s stand out performances, but the show’s supporting cast doesn’t contain any weak spots either and features a well rounded variety of races, ages and social classes. Naz’s family are all brilliant as are the other lawyers that make up the case. I have also already spoke about the high quality script present in the show, but I feel that the show’s writing team can’t be praised enough for the consistently high quality script they have produced. The cinematography of the show is also impressive throughout, with each shot perfectly complimenting the tone that the show sets and framing the actor’s performances masterfully. The use of light is also well implemented and adds to each shot composition and the overall aesthetic of the show. As highlighted above the actor’s performances are fantastic, but they are guided very well by the show’s directors. The score is also a nice addition to the tone of the show, as are all of the sound effects and audio used throughout.
Overall, this is the definition of great television and is the example that all other TV shows should aim for. Even if you don’t agree with the moral compasses of the show’s characters, it is objectively impossible to deny the show’s high caliber of technical filmaking. This is without a doubt one of the best shows aired in 2016 and could even be considered as one of the best seasons of a TV show of the last decade.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
The film Tarantino was born to make
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD is the film that Quentin Tarantino was born to make and it is his Masterpiece.
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Jimmy's Hall (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It’s not to often that we folks in America have the opportunity to catch any movies from Ireland.
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated John Carter (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Edgar Rice Burroughs is famous for literary creations that have inspired countless generations and given birth to numerous film and television projects. You would be hard-pressed to find anybody not familiar with Tarzan, one of Burrough’s great series. John Carter of Mars is another one, and at long last has finally made it to the big screen.
The film is based on the first book of eleven, a series that began in 1911 and ran through 1964 when the last book was published posthumously. John Carter stars Tylor Kitsch as the title character, a bitter Civil War veteran who, despite an accomplished service record, no longer wants anything to do with the military. Instead he is fixated upon finding a cave of gold.
Despite the fact that he served for the Confederacy, John Carter draws the attention of the U.S. Cavalry whose leader is anxious to recruit an officer of Carter’s skills and experience to aid them in their skirmishes with the Apache tribes. No longer willing to fight or get involved, Carter declines the offer but soon finds himself caught in the middle of an unplanned battle between both sides. As he attempts to find shelter for himself and a wounded officer, Carter accidentally stumbles upon the cave of gold he was seeking.
Carter’s surprise soon turns to shock when he’s attacked by a mysterious individual who presses a glowing amulet in his hand and utters a phrase that transports John Carter instantly to the planet Mars. Of course, Carter at first has no idea where he is but soon realizes that he has incredible leaping abilities due to the lower gravity of the planet.
Shortly after his arrival he gains the attention of Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe), the chief of a race of tall, skinny, four armed alien warriors. At first intrigued by Carter, Tarkas and his people become divided over what to do with the new arrival. This becomes further complicated when airships arrive and begin a massive gunbattle. Carter immediately leaps into action with his newfound ability which quickly gains the attention of Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), princess of the city of Helium.
It is learned that Princess Dejah is being forced to marry an evil warlord who possesses an awesome destructive ability and is using it to subjugate all those he encounters. Desperate to save their city, the princess is offered up to appease the warlord. Naturally this does not sit well with the free-spirited and feisty princess and before long she and John Carter find themselves united in their quest to save Helium. Despite his reluctance to get involved and fight, Carter realizes the princess may be his only way to get home.
A stranger in a strange land, with danger all around him, John Carter takes his audience on an epic adventure. Despite having little star power, the movie works exceptionally well with amazing special effects. The CGI used to create the various alien characters infuses them with personality and vitality rarely seen in artificially created characters. The film is visually spectacular from the legions of aliens locked in combat, to the stark splendor of the planet and its inhabitants.
Even though the film was presented in converted 3-D which, as many of you will know has long been a very touchy subject with me, the final product was actually better than most conversions. While it was nowhere near the quality of films shot in 3-D, it nonetheless offered an immersive quality to epic battle scenes and did not rely on the gimmicky trick of trying to make things pop out of the screen in order to sell the film.
Kitsch does a great job handling the action of the film and manages to interact with his CGI costars in a believable enough manner to establish as much chemistry with them as he did with the flesh and blood Collins. Although some moments of the film drag, it does have enough action to sustain the nearly two-hour runtime with a touch of humor and romance thrown in for good measure.
I first became aware of the film a year ago at the D23 Expo when Disney showed a few clips and had Kitsch, Collins and Dafoeon hand to promote the pending release. While intriguing, I did not see anything that really made the film stand out as a must-see. I am very happy to say that upon seeing the completed film, the scenes that were shown to us not only had even greater effects in the finished product but were also much more entertaining and dynamic once shown within the full context of the story line.
Director Andrew Stanton, who has made a name for himself with his animated films at Pixar, skillfully blends live-action and CGI to create a very energetic and enjoyable action-adventure film that was a very pleasant surprise.
While the acting, character development, and plot are nothing spectacular in and of themselves, they combined well and set the stage effectively for what should be a series of John Carter films in the future.
The film is based on the first book of eleven, a series that began in 1911 and ran through 1964 when the last book was published posthumously. John Carter stars Tylor Kitsch as the title character, a bitter Civil War veteran who, despite an accomplished service record, no longer wants anything to do with the military. Instead he is fixated upon finding a cave of gold.
Despite the fact that he served for the Confederacy, John Carter draws the attention of the U.S. Cavalry whose leader is anxious to recruit an officer of Carter’s skills and experience to aid them in their skirmishes with the Apache tribes. No longer willing to fight or get involved, Carter declines the offer but soon finds himself caught in the middle of an unplanned battle between both sides. As he attempts to find shelter for himself and a wounded officer, Carter accidentally stumbles upon the cave of gold he was seeking.
Carter’s surprise soon turns to shock when he’s attacked by a mysterious individual who presses a glowing amulet in his hand and utters a phrase that transports John Carter instantly to the planet Mars. Of course, Carter at first has no idea where he is but soon realizes that he has incredible leaping abilities due to the lower gravity of the planet.
Shortly after his arrival he gains the attention of Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe), the chief of a race of tall, skinny, four armed alien warriors. At first intrigued by Carter, Tarkas and his people become divided over what to do with the new arrival. This becomes further complicated when airships arrive and begin a massive gunbattle. Carter immediately leaps into action with his newfound ability which quickly gains the attention of Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), princess of the city of Helium.
It is learned that Princess Dejah is being forced to marry an evil warlord who possesses an awesome destructive ability and is using it to subjugate all those he encounters. Desperate to save their city, the princess is offered up to appease the warlord. Naturally this does not sit well with the free-spirited and feisty princess and before long she and John Carter find themselves united in their quest to save Helium. Despite his reluctance to get involved and fight, Carter realizes the princess may be his only way to get home.
A stranger in a strange land, with danger all around him, John Carter takes his audience on an epic adventure. Despite having little star power, the movie works exceptionally well with amazing special effects. The CGI used to create the various alien characters infuses them with personality and vitality rarely seen in artificially created characters. The film is visually spectacular from the legions of aliens locked in combat, to the stark splendor of the planet and its inhabitants.
Even though the film was presented in converted 3-D which, as many of you will know has long been a very touchy subject with me, the final product was actually better than most conversions. While it was nowhere near the quality of films shot in 3-D, it nonetheless offered an immersive quality to epic battle scenes and did not rely on the gimmicky trick of trying to make things pop out of the screen in order to sell the film.
Kitsch does a great job handling the action of the film and manages to interact with his CGI costars in a believable enough manner to establish as much chemistry with them as he did with the flesh and blood Collins. Although some moments of the film drag, it does have enough action to sustain the nearly two-hour runtime with a touch of humor and romance thrown in for good measure.
I first became aware of the film a year ago at the D23 Expo when Disney showed a few clips and had Kitsch, Collins and Dafoeon hand to promote the pending release. While intriguing, I did not see anything that really made the film stand out as a must-see. I am very happy to say that upon seeing the completed film, the scenes that were shown to us not only had even greater effects in the finished product but were also much more entertaining and dynamic once shown within the full context of the story line.
Director Andrew Stanton, who has made a name for himself with his animated films at Pixar, skillfully blends live-action and CGI to create a very energetic and enjoyable action-adventure film that was a very pleasant surprise.
While the acting, character development, and plot are nothing spectacular in and of themselves, they combined well and set the stage effectively for what should be a series of John Carter films in the future.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Most of the female cast. (2 more)
Poirot's backstory.
Kenneth Branagh's mustache.
Slow-moving with little payoff. (2 more)
Nothing substantial happens for the first hour.
Not entertaining. Perfect example of first world problems.
A Drowzy Whodunit Loaded with Mediocrity
Death on the Nile is the sequel to 2017’s Murder on the Orient Express with director and lead actor Kenneth Branagh returning. The mystery thriller is based on the 1937 novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. Death on the Nile has been adapted before as a 1978 film and as a 2004 episode of the Poirot television series starring David Suchet.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.