Search
Search results
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated The Hobbit in Books
Nov 5, 2018
See the latest version of this review over on Ramble Media http://www.ramblemedia.com/?p=19585
Wow, am I glad that watching the film made me want to reread this timeless classic! I first read this as an eleven year old at school, trying to prove a point to a teacher that a child could read a book like this. I succeeded in reading it, thought the fantasy great, but remembered very little of the story or the fact there was another epic adventure waiting to be told by the much praised JRR Tolkien.
How I have missed out! The story follows a very plain, and at times fussy, Mr Baggins of Bagend, a Hobbit of Hobbiton, in the 'reasonable West', as he takes an adventure, in the company of 'dwarves' to save their long forsaken home. The company encounter many trials and tribulations along the way, from angry goblins, to giant spiders, to meddlesome elves and even Smaug the Terrible, but they triumph over them all.
Honestly, I cannot give praise enough for the book, and many have done so before in, what I am sure, will be better expressed reviews and accolades of praise, so I will aim to keep this short and sweet, picking up on key, outstanding features that bowled me over. The first thing I have to raise is the characterisation. The 'cast' of assembled characters, from the main company of the dwarves, to the helpers and and those that hinder them along their journey, are all thoroughly well explained by the creative use of authorial voice in the narration of events. Mr Baggins is, although a little fussy at times, an incredibly likable character, as I'm sure most hobbits are, who's funny outbursts and ideas make him the comedy relief at tense times. He is also, without a doubt, the brains and drive behind the adventure, once Gandalf has left, and proves that anyone, no matter how small can be a hero - a great quality to see in a major character who is less 'normal' than most as too often it's the popular, stereotypical heroes that dominate literature! Thorin and his company of bedraggled dwarves are a barrel of laughs at times (no pun intended!) and are all well developed in what is a relatively short story.
And that, I suppose, is the best feature of this book, for me at least! The development of plot, characters, scenery and everything else you could possibly wish to know about anyone involved in a story (eg background history etc) is all given to you in abundance, but they never overpower each other, they are instead woven intricately together in a brand of storytelling that belongs in oral tradition, not in words on a page. It is clear, especially after reading the foreword, that the Hobbit originated as a story to be told, not read, and incredibly, that makes it all the more readable as it hooks you in a way few books ever will. It aims to drag you, however reluctantly or willingly, into the adventure and take you away from your own little, safe, hobbit hole across the Shire and the Wild, and everywhere else they travel, with you feeling completely immersed as the final member of the company, but one who goes as unnoticed by the others as if you were wearing Bilbo's ring. However, the extremely clever thing that Tolkien does, and of this I am supremely envious of as I wish I could do this in my own writing, is that even though you feel so well informed, you still want to know more about them, and for the creative among us, we want to fill those gaps with our own imagination! Very rarely do I come across an author who manages to inform, excite, engage, and engender creativity in such a way in under 300 pages.
Finally, I guess I have to give credit to the wonderful drawings accompanying the text. Beautifully drawn, incredibly supportive of your own imaginative process, yet strangely, not limiting in letting you continue to let your imagination wander. The are a wonderful addition to the book, and I say that as someone who doesn't think a real book should have pictures, and add a greater accessibility to all of the new experiences you encounter as you travel through the story to the Lonely Mountain at the end.
And so, I draw my ramblings to a close, however there is plenty more to be said, that will be left unsaid, partly due to my desire to go and read Lord of the Rings for the first time as a result of reading The Hobbit. I can only conclude with the highest praise for this story, and the highest level of recommendation to anyone who has not yet read it, or those like me that think because they read it as a child it counts. This is a book that should, and deserves, to be read over and over again, and one of those occasions should be reading it aloud to a child, as that, is the only way to truly experience the wonderful story weaved by a master storyteller.
Wow, am I glad that watching the film made me want to reread this timeless classic! I first read this as an eleven year old at school, trying to prove a point to a teacher that a child could read a book like this. I succeeded in reading it, thought the fantasy great, but remembered very little of the story or the fact there was another epic adventure waiting to be told by the much praised JRR Tolkien.
How I have missed out! The story follows a very plain, and at times fussy, Mr Baggins of Bagend, a Hobbit of Hobbiton, in the 'reasonable West', as he takes an adventure, in the company of 'dwarves' to save their long forsaken home. The company encounter many trials and tribulations along the way, from angry goblins, to giant spiders, to meddlesome elves and even Smaug the Terrible, but they triumph over them all.
Honestly, I cannot give praise enough for the book, and many have done so before in, what I am sure, will be better expressed reviews and accolades of praise, so I will aim to keep this short and sweet, picking up on key, outstanding features that bowled me over. The first thing I have to raise is the characterisation. The 'cast' of assembled characters, from the main company of the dwarves, to the helpers and and those that hinder them along their journey, are all thoroughly well explained by the creative use of authorial voice in the narration of events. Mr Baggins is, although a little fussy at times, an incredibly likable character, as I'm sure most hobbits are, who's funny outbursts and ideas make him the comedy relief at tense times. He is also, without a doubt, the brains and drive behind the adventure, once Gandalf has left, and proves that anyone, no matter how small can be a hero - a great quality to see in a major character who is less 'normal' than most as too often it's the popular, stereotypical heroes that dominate literature! Thorin and his company of bedraggled dwarves are a barrel of laughs at times (no pun intended!) and are all well developed in what is a relatively short story.
And that, I suppose, is the best feature of this book, for me at least! The development of plot, characters, scenery and everything else you could possibly wish to know about anyone involved in a story (eg background history etc) is all given to you in abundance, but they never overpower each other, they are instead woven intricately together in a brand of storytelling that belongs in oral tradition, not in words on a page. It is clear, especially after reading the foreword, that the Hobbit originated as a story to be told, not read, and incredibly, that makes it all the more readable as it hooks you in a way few books ever will. It aims to drag you, however reluctantly or willingly, into the adventure and take you away from your own little, safe, hobbit hole across the Shire and the Wild, and everywhere else they travel, with you feeling completely immersed as the final member of the company, but one who goes as unnoticed by the others as if you were wearing Bilbo's ring. However, the extremely clever thing that Tolkien does, and of this I am supremely envious of as I wish I could do this in my own writing, is that even though you feel so well informed, you still want to know more about them, and for the creative among us, we want to fill those gaps with our own imagination! Very rarely do I come across an author who manages to inform, excite, engage, and engender creativity in such a way in under 300 pages.
Finally, I guess I have to give credit to the wonderful drawings accompanying the text. Beautifully drawn, incredibly supportive of your own imaginative process, yet strangely, not limiting in letting you continue to let your imagination wander. The are a wonderful addition to the book, and I say that as someone who doesn't think a real book should have pictures, and add a greater accessibility to all of the new experiences you encounter as you travel through the story to the Lonely Mountain at the end.
And so, I draw my ramblings to a close, however there is plenty more to be said, that will be left unsaid, partly due to my desire to go and read Lord of the Rings for the first time as a result of reading The Hobbit. I can only conclude with the highest praise for this story, and the highest level of recommendation to anyone who has not yet read it, or those like me that think because they read it as a child it counts. This is a book that should, and deserves, to be read over and over again, and one of those occasions should be reading it aloud to a child, as that, is the only way to truly experience the wonderful story weaved by a master storyteller.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
That fateful night in Haddonfield, Laurie Strode shot and killed Michael Myers or so she thought. As the ambulance that pulled what was thought to be the corpse of the world's most notorious serial killer, Michael Myers made sure everyone knew he was still alive the best way he could; by slaughtering whoever got in his way. Now, two years later, Laurie lives with Sheriff Brackett and his daughter Annie. Laurie struggles with hallucinations and panic attacks while believing the therapy she's receiving is only making her worse. As Laurie struggles with her newfound issues, Michael tries to reunite his family. Michael has visions of his mother with a white horse accompanied by his younger self. Michael is returning to Haddonfield to finish the job.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Hunt (2020) in Movies
Mar 25, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
I've been looking forward to this since before it was cool.
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html
A group of strangers wake up in the middle of nowhere, gagged and confused. The last thing they remember is being home in their respective states and then waking up in a clearing with each other.
It's no mystery to some why they're there, it's the Hunt. The bored elite pick up 12 strangers to hunt for sport and now it's their turn. A box full of weapons an open field and danger in every direction. Will the prey survive?
Mindless violence like this is right up my street, usually because it's so ridiculous it's funny and shocking in the most unexpected ways. It reminds me a lot of The Condemned, although there's no amazing role for Vinnie in this.
The trailers... ugh. One gives away a lot of key points and the other misleadingly splices together a lot of footage, the latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the first. Had they only used the international trailer it would have avoided a lot of those problems and I think it would have left a bit more surprise.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have noticed how many reveals there were if I hadn't gone back to find something out after seeing the film. I could not for the life of me understand why they insisted on only showing the back of Hilary Swank's head in the opening, in the plane, partially during her meeting... why? If they had kept the role a secret until a reveal at the very end of the film (I still wouldn't have understood it but) I would have kind of been okay with it... but they show her face in the trailer... so why the hidden face all the time?
We get quite a big cast here with a lot of faces to recognise, all be it very briefly at times. I'm a little impressed that they decided to knock out as many as they did so early on, and especially their choices.
We have Betty Gilpin in the lead as Crystal fighting back against her would be murderers. I've only come across Gilpin (knowingly) in Elementary where she also played a character with many quirks. There's a certain kick-assery quality to Crystal, and those bits are great, but when she gets intense and mentions she might have issues it seems odd and at times not at all clear what she might be alluding to. She seemed to handle the role well but the occasional loopy moment didn't really fit.
Hilary Swank's performance as Athena was okay but the character had a lot of different issues throughout that I personally think would have made any attempt at this role mediocre.
I'll cover some of the flaws in the movie briefly, very briefly because there are a lot of things that just don't make sense. The text message that starts the whole thing... horrendously specific and doesn't seem like a likely response in that conversation. To then cause her to rage out in her meeting and decide to have the invented rampage seems even more ridiculous. When the prey can roam anywhere, why are a big chunk of them staying in the bunker on the original drop point, and how would they have known in advance that having someone with refugees would pan out in the end? And why after being so furious about the whole thing does Athena stay in her manor? Those are some of the things to quibble about, but I'll move on.
The film appears to say a lot but honestly doesn't really say anything at all. No point is ever really followed through with and explained, so the fact I wasn't "in tune" with it I didn't take anything away from those scenes anyway. At one point they throw so many topics into a conversation that it became quite annoying. I found it interesting to read up about why the film was pulled in the first place, under the veils of some terrible incidents in America at the time when it seems that the media influence was trying to crush it even before that because of all these hot topics. I don't know why anyone would be in their case if they'd actually seen the film, but as I said, this isn't my area of expertise so I don't intend to debate on the point.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending, all I can say is that that sandwich would definitely have been burnt.
There are a lot of threads to pick at in The Hunt but none of them actually made the film fall apart, it has some humour, including some of those moments that aren't really funny but they're shocking and you laugh as a defense mechanism. It has one moment in particular that is so far off course that I wondered if it would go all out spoof. Even with the issue I still enjoyed it, there's something in these films (like Bloodshot had been) that relieves the stress of having to think.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-hunt-movie-review-spoilers.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 11, 2021
The two Emmas (2 more)
The rest of the ensemble cast
The technical team: cinematography, hair & make-up; costuming
An astonishing attack on the senses as Disney goes to the dark side.
Positives:
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Oct 2, 2020 (Updated Oct 6, 2020)
Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn (2 more)
Badass fight choreography
Some really cool action sequences
I wasn't a fan of the self narration the entire film. (2 more)
I also didn't like the Tarantino-ish way of chopping up the story and going back and forth the way they did.
I feel like every character in this movie was underutilized and could have been done better or had better character development.
Birds of a Feather Can't Stick Their Landing On This One
Contains spoilers, click to show
Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is a 2020 action super hero film. Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, it is a follow-up to Suicide Squad (2016). The movie was directed by Cathy Yan and written by Christina Hodson, and it stars Margot Robbie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Rosie Perez, Chris Messina and Ewan McGregor.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Fame and fortune and everything that goes with it”.
Sometimes a trailer generates a bit of a buzz of excitement with a cinema audience and the first showings of the trailer for “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a case in point. But would the film live up to the potential?
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
Mothergamer (1546 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Kingdom Hearts III in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
It took so long to get here, but once Kingdom Hearts III was here I was ready to play and explore all the worlds. It felt incredible to be traveling with Sora, Goofy, and Donald again. The opening song was incredible and the introduction to the game starts off well, hooking you in immediately. There are a couple of familiar worlds such as Olympus and Twilight Town which act as tutorials for the battle controls and exploration aspects of the game.
Sora hangs out with Hercules.
The battle system for Kingdom Hearts III is great. Combat is fluid, easy to follow, and fun. You can easily swap between keyblades, use your magic abilities, and use your items. Level grinding is not a chore because the battles are so much fun and the worlds that you explore make them even more so. My personal favorite was Toy Story because Sora fit so well in that world and there some pretty fun battles there.
Having fun with battles in Toy Story.
Another fun aspect to battles that was added in the game are the attraction flow attacks. These are not just stylish and fun, they are also pretty powerful special attacks. You can take out many enemies with these attacks so there is no downside to using them at all. My personal favorite was the pirate ship because it was a blast spinning around taking out tons of Heartless.
Use attraction flow attacks to take out your enemies.
The user menu is easy to navigate and is quite user friendly. You can easily equip keyblades, items, and accessories as well as organize everything easily. The moogle shop is back too and you can synthesize and craft items that you need as well as upgrade your keyblades.
The inventory menu is nice and neat.
Another new addition to the game is the gummiphone. This is a cute little nod to social media things like Instagram. You can take photos with the gummiphone and there are even some photo quests where you need to take pictures of specific things in order to get various rewards such as items and munny. In between loading screens you get to see Instagram style posts from the gummiphone that reference the characters, story, and events. It's a nice touch to the game.
Instagram style posts from the gummiphone.
There are also mini games that you can play on your gummiphone. You have to find the code for them which are hidden in various worlds. When you do, you can play a variety of mini games that look like old school Nintendo gameboy games. They all feature Mickey and Sora with games like catching eggs or flying a plane to grab mail. They're silly fun and add that extra bit of whimsy to Kingdom Hearts III.
You can play all these mini games on your gummiphone.
If you're not in the mood for gummiphone games, there is also a cooking mini game that you can play. In order to play, you need to have ingredients for all the recipes. These are easily found in all the worlds you visit during your adventure. Once you have some ingredients you can bring them to Remy (the rat from the movie Rattatouille) and try your skills at the cooking mini game. The cooking mini game is fun, but there is definitely a learning curve to it. If you go too fast or too slow, you fail and you can lose all the ingredients you found. It takes a bit of practice, but once you get the hang of it you can make a ton of great dishes and Sora and friends can use them to up their stats.
Practice makes perfect with the cooking mini game.
The world map is pretty easy to see and you can swap between the maps fairly easily. Once you discover a location you can fast travel there which makes things easier. I do wish there had been a few more worlds, but I was pretty happy with the worlds the game had. Everything looked amazing and it was clear that they really wanted things to be done right.
The world map in Kingdom Hearts III.
There is one thing that I absolutely detested in the game however and that thing is the gummi ship. I have never liked the gummi ship in any of the Kingdom Hearts games. The controls for them in my opinion have always been terrible and I always dreaded gummi ship battles. That has not changed for me with Kingdom Hearts III. While the controls have improved quite a bit, I still found myself struggling with them. Having to fight the controls to fly the gummi ship is not a good time. I also didn't like the fact that I would be forced into gummi ship battles before I could land on worlds. I truly feel that the gummi ship should have been optional. This is the only thing I did not like about the game.
I am not a fan of the gummi ship.
I blazed through Kingdom Hearts III because the game itself was an amazing adventure and I couldn't wait to save the world with friendship. The story was great, the worlds were so much fun to explore, and there were so many heartbreaking and heartwarming emotions throughout this adventure. Kingdom Hearts III did a fantastic job of making me care about all of these characters and I was a little sad to say goodbye at the end. Having one thing I didn't like about the game and loving the rest of it speaks volumes about how fantastic I think the game is. It was definitely worth the wait. See you at the next adventure!
Sora hangs out with Hercules.
The battle system for Kingdom Hearts III is great. Combat is fluid, easy to follow, and fun. You can easily swap between keyblades, use your magic abilities, and use your items. Level grinding is not a chore because the battles are so much fun and the worlds that you explore make them even more so. My personal favorite was Toy Story because Sora fit so well in that world and there some pretty fun battles there.
Having fun with battles in Toy Story.
Another fun aspect to battles that was added in the game are the attraction flow attacks. These are not just stylish and fun, they are also pretty powerful special attacks. You can take out many enemies with these attacks so there is no downside to using them at all. My personal favorite was the pirate ship because it was a blast spinning around taking out tons of Heartless.
Use attraction flow attacks to take out your enemies.
The user menu is easy to navigate and is quite user friendly. You can easily equip keyblades, items, and accessories as well as organize everything easily. The moogle shop is back too and you can synthesize and craft items that you need as well as upgrade your keyblades.
The inventory menu is nice and neat.
Another new addition to the game is the gummiphone. This is a cute little nod to social media things like Instagram. You can take photos with the gummiphone and there are even some photo quests where you need to take pictures of specific things in order to get various rewards such as items and munny. In between loading screens you get to see Instagram style posts from the gummiphone that reference the characters, story, and events. It's a nice touch to the game.
Instagram style posts from the gummiphone.
There are also mini games that you can play on your gummiphone. You have to find the code for them which are hidden in various worlds. When you do, you can play a variety of mini games that look like old school Nintendo gameboy games. They all feature Mickey and Sora with games like catching eggs or flying a plane to grab mail. They're silly fun and add that extra bit of whimsy to Kingdom Hearts III.
You can play all these mini games on your gummiphone.
If you're not in the mood for gummiphone games, there is also a cooking mini game that you can play. In order to play, you need to have ingredients for all the recipes. These are easily found in all the worlds you visit during your adventure. Once you have some ingredients you can bring them to Remy (the rat from the movie Rattatouille) and try your skills at the cooking mini game. The cooking mini game is fun, but there is definitely a learning curve to it. If you go too fast or too slow, you fail and you can lose all the ingredients you found. It takes a bit of practice, but once you get the hang of it you can make a ton of great dishes and Sora and friends can use them to up their stats.
Practice makes perfect with the cooking mini game.
The world map is pretty easy to see and you can swap between the maps fairly easily. Once you discover a location you can fast travel there which makes things easier. I do wish there had been a few more worlds, but I was pretty happy with the worlds the game had. Everything looked amazing and it was clear that they really wanted things to be done right.
The world map in Kingdom Hearts III.
There is one thing that I absolutely detested in the game however and that thing is the gummi ship. I have never liked the gummi ship in any of the Kingdom Hearts games. The controls for them in my opinion have always been terrible and I always dreaded gummi ship battles. That has not changed for me with Kingdom Hearts III. While the controls have improved quite a bit, I still found myself struggling with them. Having to fight the controls to fly the gummi ship is not a good time. I also didn't like the fact that I would be forced into gummi ship battles before I could land on worlds. I truly feel that the gummi ship should have been optional. This is the only thing I did not like about the game.
I am not a fan of the gummi ship.
I blazed through Kingdom Hearts III because the game itself was an amazing adventure and I couldn't wait to save the world with friendship. The story was great, the worlds were so much fun to explore, and there were so many heartbreaking and heartwarming emotions throughout this adventure. Kingdom Hearts III did a fantastic job of making me care about all of these characters and I was a little sad to say goodbye at the end. Having one thing I didn't like about the game and loving the rest of it speaks volumes about how fantastic I think the game is. It was definitely worth the wait. See you at the next adventure!
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated American Psycho in Books
Mar 15, 2018
http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/american-psycho-by-bret-easton-ellis
<b><i>...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I am simply not there.</b></i>
I have no idea how to verbalise the fact that this has become a new favourite book of mine, because I absolutely <i>love</i> it, but I dont want people to think Im a maniac I wasnt expecting to not love this, I mean the film is one of my favourites, so I was really looking forward to giving this a read, but I didnt expect to love it as much as I do! I feel all kinds of wrong being so amazed by this book but I cant help it. Its funny, its dark, its brutal, its shocking and its eye opening.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/KYNywoibU1PQ4/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="210" alt="leo dicaprio shrug"/>
So, Patrick Bateman, our one and only POV of this story. Batemen is a young, middle class, good looking, sophisticated and intelligent stockbroker. Hes charming and arrogant, but hes also an ax and knife and nail gun wielding mad man.
<img src="http://media0.giphy.com/media/YfdumeFM14CGc/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="213" alt="americanppsychogif"/>
But hes also a total <b>goofy dork!</b> <i><b>Im clam, I mean calm, I say, breathing in hard, trying to smile</b></i> Bateman cant get a grip on himself <i>at all.</i> Not only does he have moments where hes running around Manhattan screaming like a banshee, sweating profusely, and having, what can only be described as, a mental breakdown, but hes also just a mess at all times. Hes constantly getting himself in a tizz, experiencing panic attacks all over the place. I mean he started talking about the ozone layer and then instantly told a couple of knock knock jokes, thats not smooth Bateman. This constant goofiness of Bateman is what makes this book so funny for me. Ellis is excellent at adding this clumsy human characteristic to an otherwise robotic man.
Bateman is troubled, in more ways than one. Not only is he a serial killer but hes also an outsider and he knows it. <b><i>Because, I say, staring directly at her, I want to fit.... in.</b></i> This is why hes always trying so hard to impress people, and why hes obsessed with being the best.
Normally I hate when there are long paragraphs in books that simply list things about what a person is doing or wearing, for example in Maestra I couldnt care less, but this excessive listing of things, unimportant materialist things, is such an important element of this book. These tiresome, obsessive lists give us such a clear insight, right from the start of the novel, into the incredibly paranoid, jealous and demented mind of Bateman. When we near the end of the novel Ellis does something absolutely mind blowing; he changes to third person. This sudden change on narrative has such a strong impact on the reader and is the perfect, <i>perfect</i> way of representing Patricks detachment to life.
Please, please, please do not read this book if youre faint hearted or youve gone through some terrible things in your life. I dont think this book needs specific trigger warnings, but in case you havent already guessed it, this book includes some very, <i>very</i> graphic and grotesque descriptions of torture, murder and rape. I think its quite hard to shock me, but this book made me wince and gasp quite often. I even had to put the book down briefly after reading some of the descriptions, breathe, and then get back to reading. It can be really tough on your imagination, thats for sure. <b>The rat scene </b> <spoiler>I mean I thought the scene with Bethany was bad but I had a whole other thing coming! It seriously worries me how well Ellis can describe this brutal torture. I could actually feel the bile rising in my throat when I was reading about the things Bateman did to Tiffany.</spoiler>
<img src="http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Jim-From-Office-Shiver.gif"; width="300" height="169" alt="jim from office shudder"/>
Im not going to go in depth on the claim that this is a misogynistic book, all you need to know is that I dont agree with that statement in the slightest. If you want to read some more on why that notion is ridiculous please look at <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/109385399?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">karens review.</a>
This book is definitely a new favourite of mine and I can feel it becoming one of those books I read over and over again. Im so happy I finally sat down and read this, I dont regret a moment of it, plus I got it for only £2.99. Thank you Ellis for this wonderful piece of literature, I hope your other novels brings me the same joy as this did.
<i>P.S. Isnt it funny how Donald Trump is mentioned in this book over and over and over because Trump is the greatest example of everything this book represents.</i>
<b><i>...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I am simply not there.</b></i>
I have no idea how to verbalise the fact that this has become a new favourite book of mine, because I absolutely <i>love</i> it, but I dont want people to think Im a maniac I wasnt expecting to not love this, I mean the film is one of my favourites, so I was really looking forward to giving this a read, but I didnt expect to love it as much as I do! I feel all kinds of wrong being so amazed by this book but I cant help it. Its funny, its dark, its brutal, its shocking and its eye opening.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/KYNywoibU1PQ4/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="210" alt="leo dicaprio shrug"/>
So, Patrick Bateman, our one and only POV of this story. Batemen is a young, middle class, good looking, sophisticated and intelligent stockbroker. Hes charming and arrogant, but hes also an ax and knife and nail gun wielding mad man.
<img src="http://media0.giphy.com/media/YfdumeFM14CGc/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="213" alt="americanppsychogif"/>
But hes also a total <b>goofy dork!</b> <i><b>Im clam, I mean calm, I say, breathing in hard, trying to smile</b></i> Bateman cant get a grip on himself <i>at all.</i> Not only does he have moments where hes running around Manhattan screaming like a banshee, sweating profusely, and having, what can only be described as, a mental breakdown, but hes also just a mess at all times. Hes constantly getting himself in a tizz, experiencing panic attacks all over the place. I mean he started talking about the ozone layer and then instantly told a couple of knock knock jokes, thats not smooth Bateman. This constant goofiness of Bateman is what makes this book so funny for me. Ellis is excellent at adding this clumsy human characteristic to an otherwise robotic man.
Bateman is troubled, in more ways than one. Not only is he a serial killer but hes also an outsider and he knows it. <b><i>Because, I say, staring directly at her, I want to fit.... in.</b></i> This is why hes always trying so hard to impress people, and why hes obsessed with being the best.
Normally I hate when there are long paragraphs in books that simply list things about what a person is doing or wearing, for example in Maestra I couldnt care less, but this excessive listing of things, unimportant materialist things, is such an important element of this book. These tiresome, obsessive lists give us such a clear insight, right from the start of the novel, into the incredibly paranoid, jealous and demented mind of Bateman. When we near the end of the novel Ellis does something absolutely mind blowing; he changes to third person. This sudden change on narrative has such a strong impact on the reader and is the perfect, <i>perfect</i> way of representing Patricks detachment to life.
Please, please, please do not read this book if youre faint hearted or youve gone through some terrible things in your life. I dont think this book needs specific trigger warnings, but in case you havent already guessed it, this book includes some very, <i>very</i> graphic and grotesque descriptions of torture, murder and rape. I think its quite hard to shock me, but this book made me wince and gasp quite often. I even had to put the book down briefly after reading some of the descriptions, breathe, and then get back to reading. It can be really tough on your imagination, thats for sure. <b>The rat scene </b> <spoiler>I mean I thought the scene with Bethany was bad but I had a whole other thing coming! It seriously worries me how well Ellis can describe this brutal torture. I could actually feel the bile rising in my throat when I was reading about the things Bateman did to Tiffany.</spoiler>
<img src="http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Jim-From-Office-Shiver.gif"; width="300" height="169" alt="jim from office shudder"/>
Im not going to go in depth on the claim that this is a misogynistic book, all you need to know is that I dont agree with that statement in the slightest. If you want to read some more on why that notion is ridiculous please look at <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/109385399?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">karens review.</a>
This book is definitely a new favourite of mine and I can feel it becoming one of those books I read over and over again. Im so happy I finally sat down and read this, I dont regret a moment of it, plus I got it for only £2.99. Thank you Ellis for this wonderful piece of literature, I hope your other novels brings me the same joy as this did.
<i>P.S. Isnt it funny how Donald Trump is mentioned in this book over and over and over because Trump is the greatest example of everything this book represents.</i>
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
There are automatically problems with concluding films in a series, a definite set of things need to be achieved and that doesn't always mean the film can have the same impact as its predecessors. I don't know if this is quite where my struggles with the film came from but it probably didn't help.
I enjoy Star Wars but I wouldn't classify myself as a fan, I like the originals, I've really enjoyed the latest instalments, but I'd happily never watch the prequels again. Rewatching The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi was a joy, I don't remember them being that good, so it was sad to get yet another conclusion this year that didn't leave me with good feelings.
We obviously get the same set of actors doing the usual thing, I wasn't particularly wowed by any of the performances. Adam Driver certainly came across better to me, partly because I finally saw a film of his this year where I felt like he could act, and also because he genuinely had a sound performance through the film.
What appears to be the main theme for our cast is that a lot of them get screwed over. Rose in particular, someone online did the maths, 1 minute and 16 seconds of screen time in a 2 hour and 22-minute film. Her first appearance is so dismissive that it was very clear we weren't going to be seeing her. I'd have felt much better if they hologrammed her from somewhere else in the galaxy being hero own hero and left it at that, or then brought her in at the last minute to Captain Marvel that shit. It felt like a fear of offending the trolls, which is a little redundant considering they were going to go off regardless about something.
Finn and Poe, the ultimate bromance. Every time they appeared onscreen there was the rom-com moment where they'd run into each other's arms and kiss... we were robbed each and every time. With news going around about LGBT representation in RoS we could hope though... but what we got was a token kiss from two extras that didn't feel like it was anything more than ticking the box. R2D2 and C3P0 had a better gay storyline than that kiss did.
Finn didn't exactly get a great life in Rise Of Skywalker, as I sit here thinking about his role the only bit I can recall off the top of my head is that he spent a lot of time trying to tell Rey something yet never managed it. Every time it happened I had an uncomfortable feeling and really didn't want it to be what I thought it was. There are other things that Finn did that I can remember, but for the main thing to be this completely irrelevant piece of story to be number one is a complete joke.
Trying to decipher what happened with the Leia footage has my mind-boggling. They used unused footage from the previous movies and shoe-horned it into the story depending on what they had and could make out of it. With all the technology we have I'm honestly surprised how bad it looked. There's always something slightly off about footage that's doctored like this, Leia didn't look like she was in the same colour palette as the rest of the film in several scenes, and you get back of the headshots to fill the interactions with Rey. I dislike that in most films because actual actor or not it always looks like it's something they've had to re-shoot without the original actor. There's also one scene where we see a young Leia and Luke training, Luke looks quite convincing but Leia's recreation is terrible. Being that there's no dialogue in this bit I'm not sure why they couldn't dig into the archives for something more suitable.
When it comes to effects in the rest of the film it's obviously the usual quality you'd expect, I did suffer a couple of times where scenes were very busy with movement and it set off my motion sickness, those bits might have been dubious but I'd honestly not be able to tell you!
Rise Of Skywalker might have been more aptly named Rise Of The Machines (to steal from another franchise). BB-8 is always adorable, and D-0 was a fun little addition. C3P0 really had some great airtime though, some moments made me laugh, some made me cry, along with Kylo he probably faired the best overall.
As the beginning of the film started so slowly I was concerned about what was in store. Trundling along with nothing seemingly happening I was bored and desperate for something to perk up the pace. Those moments did happen, but with no real flow. It was very much start and stop for a lot of the time, no build-up to the action, no real anticipation so the satisfaction of the scenes were very short-lived.
This year has been the culmination to a lot of movie history and yet again I'm not a fan of it. I don't think that Rise Of Skywalker lived up to The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, even having watched them all in the same week I wasn't engaged by the final instalment because of the slow beginning.
I can forgive films a lot of things if I enjoy them but the list here was far too extensive to be able to do that. With pacing problems, the box-ticking, and so many characters being let down I've finally come down off the fence and sadly I'm on the disappointed side of it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-movie-review.html
I enjoy Star Wars but I wouldn't classify myself as a fan, I like the originals, I've really enjoyed the latest instalments, but I'd happily never watch the prequels again. Rewatching The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi was a joy, I don't remember them being that good, so it was sad to get yet another conclusion this year that didn't leave me with good feelings.
We obviously get the same set of actors doing the usual thing, I wasn't particularly wowed by any of the performances. Adam Driver certainly came across better to me, partly because I finally saw a film of his this year where I felt like he could act, and also because he genuinely had a sound performance through the film.
What appears to be the main theme for our cast is that a lot of them get screwed over. Rose in particular, someone online did the maths, 1 minute and 16 seconds of screen time in a 2 hour and 22-minute film. Her first appearance is so dismissive that it was very clear we weren't going to be seeing her. I'd have felt much better if they hologrammed her from somewhere else in the galaxy being hero own hero and left it at that, or then brought her in at the last minute to Captain Marvel that shit. It felt like a fear of offending the trolls, which is a little redundant considering they were going to go off regardless about something.
Finn and Poe, the ultimate bromance. Every time they appeared onscreen there was the rom-com moment where they'd run into each other's arms and kiss... we were robbed each and every time. With news going around about LGBT representation in RoS we could hope though... but what we got was a token kiss from two extras that didn't feel like it was anything more than ticking the box. R2D2 and C3P0 had a better gay storyline than that kiss did.
Finn didn't exactly get a great life in Rise Of Skywalker, as I sit here thinking about his role the only bit I can recall off the top of my head is that he spent a lot of time trying to tell Rey something yet never managed it. Every time it happened I had an uncomfortable feeling and really didn't want it to be what I thought it was. There are other things that Finn did that I can remember, but for the main thing to be this completely irrelevant piece of story to be number one is a complete joke.
Trying to decipher what happened with the Leia footage has my mind-boggling. They used unused footage from the previous movies and shoe-horned it into the story depending on what they had and could make out of it. With all the technology we have I'm honestly surprised how bad it looked. There's always something slightly off about footage that's doctored like this, Leia didn't look like she was in the same colour palette as the rest of the film in several scenes, and you get back of the headshots to fill the interactions with Rey. I dislike that in most films because actual actor or not it always looks like it's something they've had to re-shoot without the original actor. There's also one scene where we see a young Leia and Luke training, Luke looks quite convincing but Leia's recreation is terrible. Being that there's no dialogue in this bit I'm not sure why they couldn't dig into the archives for something more suitable.
When it comes to effects in the rest of the film it's obviously the usual quality you'd expect, I did suffer a couple of times where scenes were very busy with movement and it set off my motion sickness, those bits might have been dubious but I'd honestly not be able to tell you!
Rise Of Skywalker might have been more aptly named Rise Of The Machines (to steal from another franchise). BB-8 is always adorable, and D-0 was a fun little addition. C3P0 really had some great airtime though, some moments made me laugh, some made me cry, along with Kylo he probably faired the best overall.
As the beginning of the film started so slowly I was concerned about what was in store. Trundling along with nothing seemingly happening I was bored and desperate for something to perk up the pace. Those moments did happen, but with no real flow. It was very much start and stop for a lot of the time, no build-up to the action, no real anticipation so the satisfaction of the scenes were very short-lived.
This year has been the culmination to a lot of movie history and yet again I'm not a fan of it. I don't think that Rise Of Skywalker lived up to The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, even having watched them all in the same week I wasn't engaged by the final instalment because of the slow beginning.
I can forgive films a lot of things if I enjoy them but the list here was far too extensive to be able to do that. With pacing problems, the box-ticking, and so many characters being let down I've finally come down off the fence and sadly I'm on the disappointed side of it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-movie-review.html