Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated A Series of Unfortunate Events - Season 1 in TV
Jul 26, 2017
The latest adaptation of the thirteen books comprising ‘A Series of Unfortunate Events’ makes its way onto Netflix, the last being the 2004 film starring Jim Carrey. I haven’t read any of the books, or seen the movie. However my daughter has, and she loves them (the books, not so much the movie). So, we sat down together to watch season 1, which covers the first four books in the series, with two episodes devoted to each book.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Turning the beloved Ghost in the Shell manga franchise into a Hollywood film that’ll please picky Western audiences was always going to be a tough job for director Rupert Sanders (Snow White & the Huntsman).
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/
WHEN golden banded honeybees, so often likened to summer and honey sweetness, become the metaphor of a dystopian version of British Government and the Monarchy, what is one left to think?
Established British playwright Laline Paull’s debut novel, The Bees, represents just that. I may just be reading too much into the buzz, but the Oxford alumni who has had two plays performed at the Royal National Theatre must have some of the country in her subconscious as she writes.
The novel follows the life of worker honeybee Flora 717, born of the lowest class of bee society. In a world where mutation and difference is destroyed on sight, the larger-than-average Flora is saved from destruction by opportunities born from austerity in the hive, where ‘the season is deformed by rain, and the flowers shun’ the bees, so they need every available worker.
The life of the honeybee turns out to be symmetrical of Plato’s Republic and his utopia, where children are told what role they will have in life based on their ‘blood’. Plato divided the bronze craftsman, silver guardians and golden philosophers, and Paull divides bees in their ‘kin’ groups, named after flowers, and are priestesses to police, foragers who can fly outside the hive to the sanitation Flora, the lowest, and are given ‘no flower’. ‘A Flora may not make Wax for she is unclean, nor Propolis for she is clumsy, nor ever may she forage for she has no taste, but only may she serve her hive by cleaning,’ but the talented Flora 717 wants more.
Throughout the novel, Paull shows the same attachment to characters as George R R Martin, author of the Game of Thrones novels; the frequent loss deepens the heartbreak Flora must overcome as she fights to defy her set fate and claim the most illegal of desires. No reader will escape the anguish that concludes each new adventure.
The hive is akin to a cult, with leaders keeping their inferiors in check, with fear, intoxication and just a little hypnosis. The cult is complete with its own religion, mantra and even a parody of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Hallowed be thy womb’, arguably my favourite part. This made the story really exciting, being on the ‘outside looking in’ as the reader, I wanted to encourage Flora to defy, but felt the fear of going against her sisters (this isn’t a cult bond word, they are all blood sisters, for only ‘the queen may breed’).
Paull’s scriptwriting has nurtured the ability to make the reader visualise her words exactly how she writes them, and that is clear within The Bees. I can see the wax panels that Flora 717 scuttles across as she travels around her hive, I can imagine the wax cribs in the nursery and know the deadly yellow and fine lines of the enemy wasp. In the ‘glass cage’ when Flora discovers the Venus Fly Trap, Paull never mentions the plant by name, but speaks only of their ‘red mouths’ with ‘white filaments’ on each ‘inner lip’, they ‘bore no pollen, the only nectar a viscous slick at the join of the petals’. But for all her beautiful imagery seeping off the pages, The Bees was not a book I have felt submerged in.
Full review on <a href="http://www.natari-himi.com">natari-himi.com</a>;
Established British playwright Laline Paull’s debut novel, The Bees, represents just that. I may just be reading too much into the buzz, but the Oxford alumni who has had two plays performed at the Royal National Theatre must have some of the country in her subconscious as she writes.
The novel follows the life of worker honeybee Flora 717, born of the lowest class of bee society. In a world where mutation and difference is destroyed on sight, the larger-than-average Flora is saved from destruction by opportunities born from austerity in the hive, where ‘the season is deformed by rain, and the flowers shun’ the bees, so they need every available worker.
The life of the honeybee turns out to be symmetrical of Plato’s Republic and his utopia, where children are told what role they will have in life based on their ‘blood’. Plato divided the bronze craftsman, silver guardians and golden philosophers, and Paull divides bees in their ‘kin’ groups, named after flowers, and are priestesses to police, foragers who can fly outside the hive to the sanitation Flora, the lowest, and are given ‘no flower’. ‘A Flora may not make Wax for she is unclean, nor Propolis for she is clumsy, nor ever may she forage for she has no taste, but only may she serve her hive by cleaning,’ but the talented Flora 717 wants more.
Throughout the novel, Paull shows the same attachment to characters as George R R Martin, author of the Game of Thrones novels; the frequent loss deepens the heartbreak Flora must overcome as she fights to defy her set fate and claim the most illegal of desires. No reader will escape the anguish that concludes each new adventure.
The hive is akin to a cult, with leaders keeping their inferiors in check, with fear, intoxication and just a little hypnosis. The cult is complete with its own religion, mantra and even a parody of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Hallowed be thy womb’, arguably my favourite part. This made the story really exciting, being on the ‘outside looking in’ as the reader, I wanted to encourage Flora to defy, but felt the fear of going against her sisters (this isn’t a cult bond word, they are all blood sisters, for only ‘the queen may breed’).
Paull’s scriptwriting has nurtured the ability to make the reader visualise her words exactly how she writes them, and that is clear within The Bees. I can see the wax panels that Flora 717 scuttles across as she travels around her hive, I can imagine the wax cribs in the nursery and know the deadly yellow and fine lines of the enemy wasp. In the ‘glass cage’ when Flora discovers the Venus Fly Trap, Paull never mentions the plant by name, but speaks only of their ‘red mouths’ with ‘white filaments’ on each ‘inner lip’, they ‘bore no pollen, the only nectar a viscous slick at the join of the petals’. But for all her beautiful imagery seeping off the pages, The Bees was not a book I have felt submerged in.
Full review on <a href="http://www.natari-himi.com">natari-himi.com</a>;
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
More classic literature retold for the modern audience, this time with a very distinctive and chaotic style.
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Snitch (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I’m a huge fan of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. His wrestling persona is
extremely entertaining and he’s a pretty decent actor. He did good with this movie but it wasn’t enough.
The premise of the movie is based on ‘true events’ (whatever that
means), it’s more about a law that’s real in our country right now, I’ll get in to that later.
There are a lot of characters so stick with me. The Rock plays John
Matthews, he owns his own construction business. He has an ex-wife, Sylvie Collins played by Melina Kanakaredes, and a current wife, Analisa played by Nadine Velazquez.
Johnand Analisa
have a daughter Isabella and he has a son with Sylvie, Jason Collins played by Rafi Gavron. The other major players are Barry Pepper who plays undercover DEA agent Cooper; Susan Sarandon who plays Joanne Keeghan a US Attorney; Jon Bernthal
who plays Daniel James an ex-con trying to get his life back together; Michael Kenneth Williams who plays Malik, a drug dealer; and Benjamin Bratt who plays Cartel leader Juan Carlos. Out of all of these, I liked Daniel, Agent Cooper, John Matthews, Malik and
Joanne Keeghan, in that order.
The law the movie is based on is about mandatory minimums. If you are
holding and it’s enough to distribute then you go to jail. The length of your jail time is based on how
much you are holding when you’re caught. In this case, Jason, who is 18 and still in high
school, is set up by his ‘best friend’. This friend sends him a huge bag of ecstasy against Jason’s wishes.
When the package arrives Jason gets caught because it’s a
sting. His jail time based on the amount of ecstasy is ten years in a prison that holds murderers, rapist and violent criminals.
The movie starts excruciatingly slow, the real action doesn’t start until
almost halfway through, or at least it felt like it. It’s good once you get there but I wasn’t really into
the people in it/living it. I kept thinking of the actors as themselves not the characters
they were playing, even the ones I liked. There were too many close ups and‘in action’ scenes that involved someone with a camera running or walking next to the actor.
I getthat it was to try and build apprehension and anxiety but it was more annoying and kept pulling me out of the story so I couldn’t connect emotionally with the characters.
I didn’t believe the union between John and Analisa or that there had been one with Sylvie, there was no familiarity and I didn’t believe the love or tension between them.
John was a business man who’s never seen action so he’s kind of a wuss, but it’s the Rock, a huge tall muscle-y intense looking guy. Whenever he flinched I kept waiting for him to kick ass but he never does.
Then in another scene he’s magically badass, shooting
a shotgun one handed out of the window of a semi-truck he’s driving.
The movie was more about showing people this heinous law then entertainingus. I don’t like that, it’s not why I go to movies. The only saving grace would have been if it had been really entertaining but it was only mildly entertaining at best.
I’d say rent it if you like the Rock or if you’re curious, it wouldn’t be too much of a waste of your time but
definitely don’t waste your money in a theatre.
extremely entertaining and he’s a pretty decent actor. He did good with this movie but it wasn’t enough.
The premise of the movie is based on ‘true events’ (whatever that
means), it’s more about a law that’s real in our country right now, I’ll get in to that later.
There are a lot of characters so stick with me. The Rock plays John
Matthews, he owns his own construction business. He has an ex-wife, Sylvie Collins played by Melina Kanakaredes, and a current wife, Analisa played by Nadine Velazquez.
Johnand Analisa
have a daughter Isabella and he has a son with Sylvie, Jason Collins played by Rafi Gavron. The other major players are Barry Pepper who plays undercover DEA agent Cooper; Susan Sarandon who plays Joanne Keeghan a US Attorney; Jon Bernthal
who plays Daniel James an ex-con trying to get his life back together; Michael Kenneth Williams who plays Malik, a drug dealer; and Benjamin Bratt who plays Cartel leader Juan Carlos. Out of all of these, I liked Daniel, Agent Cooper, John Matthews, Malik and
Joanne Keeghan, in that order.
The law the movie is based on is about mandatory minimums. If you are
holding and it’s enough to distribute then you go to jail. The length of your jail time is based on how
much you are holding when you’re caught. In this case, Jason, who is 18 and still in high
school, is set up by his ‘best friend’. This friend sends him a huge bag of ecstasy against Jason’s wishes.
When the package arrives Jason gets caught because it’s a
sting. His jail time based on the amount of ecstasy is ten years in a prison that holds murderers, rapist and violent criminals.
The movie starts excruciatingly slow, the real action doesn’t start until
almost halfway through, or at least it felt like it. It’s good once you get there but I wasn’t really into
the people in it/living it. I kept thinking of the actors as themselves not the characters
they were playing, even the ones I liked. There were too many close ups and‘in action’ scenes that involved someone with a camera running or walking next to the actor.
I getthat it was to try and build apprehension and anxiety but it was more annoying and kept pulling me out of the story so I couldn’t connect emotionally with the characters.
I didn’t believe the union between John and Analisa or that there had been one with Sylvie, there was no familiarity and I didn’t believe the love or tension between them.
John was a business man who’s never seen action so he’s kind of a wuss, but it’s the Rock, a huge tall muscle-y intense looking guy. Whenever he flinched I kept waiting for him to kick ass but he never does.
Then in another scene he’s magically badass, shooting
a shotgun one handed out of the window of a semi-truck he’s driving.
The movie was more about showing people this heinous law then entertainingus. I don’t like that, it’s not why I go to movies. The only saving grace would have been if it had been really entertaining but it was only mildly entertaining at best.
I’d say rent it if you like the Rock or if you’re curious, it wouldn’t be too much of a waste of your time but
definitely don’t waste your money in a theatre.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Chronicle (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Walking into the theatre to see Chronicle I was pretty excited. I had not heard much about this movie, in fact I’ll be honest here… I heard a small amount of info about two months ago and then it dropped off my radar before a trailer appeared last Sunday.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
Haiti Glass
Book
Winner of the 2015 PEN Oakland Josephine Miles Literary Award In her debut collection of verse and...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Gatecrash (2021) in Movies
Feb 19, 2021
Enjoyably strange
Gatecrash is a 2021 psychological thriller from Lawrence Gough, based on a play by Terry Hughes. It opens with a rather beautiful and picturesque shot of the English countryside at dusk, when a speeding car disturbs the peace and alongside a prominent score, promises us a rather tense and thrilling start to the film.
And in this aspect it doesn’t disappoint. Gatecrash disposes with any preamble and pitches us straight into the action. A couple return to a rather maze-like and futuristically styled home in the middle of an argument, but what at first seems like a domestic argument is in fact much more serious: the husband, Steve (Ben Cura), has just committed a hit and run. He’s drunk, abusive and wants his wife, Nicole (Olivia Bonamy), to take the blame. And it wasn’t just an innocent accident as Steve not only knocked someone over, he drove over them again in his rush to flee.
The first 15 minutes follows this argument and then as it ends as Nicole and Steve separate inside the house; him to clean up any evidence from the accident and her to discretely take a pregnancy test. This soon begins to drag, and fortunately we’re saved by a sinister phone call from the landline, that appears to be coming from Steve’s mobile, that he hasn’t seen since the hit and run. This soon escalates into something verging on horror territory as we follow Nicole around their now claustrophobic house.
It’s this middle act that I enjoyed the most as Gatecrash turns into a tense and almost terrifying thriller, as Nicole and Steve have to face off against a mysterious and menacing police officer (Samuel West) who arrives on their doorstep. West is possibly my favourite part of this film, his character is completely over the top and ridiculous yet still portrays this strange, ominous air. It’s strange to find a character who is immensely fun to watch yet still manages to terrify you. He’s further helped by his character’s unexplained and questionable motives that give this thriller an intriguing air of mystery.
Following on from the aftermath of the hit and run, the film jumps to a later time after Nicole has had her baby and again the couple are visited by another mysterious stranger, this one called Sid (Anton Lesser). At first Sid seems like a kind, lovely old man but his unusual air and conversation soon unveil yet more hidden and sinister motives that culminate in a tense finale.
It’s this final act that I was least keen on. At first the dialogue between Sid, Nicole and Steve is gripping but it seems to drag on and keep going round in circles before it finally gets to some dramatic piece of action. This dragging dialogue is definitely Gatecrash’s biggest flaw, and this is in no doubt down to it’s theatre origins. On the stage I can see dialogue like this working well, but as a film it needs a lot more oomph to keep our attention. The cast do well to keep us entertained though, Olivia Bonamy puts in a very understated performance as Nicole and Ben Cura was delightful to watch as Steve purely because the character is a rather despicable excuse for a man. And fortunately Gough’s cinematography works well with the few action scenes to try and make up for the slumps in the dialogue heavy earlier scenes.
Overall Gatecrash is a fairly enjoyable thriller and is worth watching purely for its general air of mystery and the tense and exciting second act.
And in this aspect it doesn’t disappoint. Gatecrash disposes with any preamble and pitches us straight into the action. A couple return to a rather maze-like and futuristically styled home in the middle of an argument, but what at first seems like a domestic argument is in fact much more serious: the husband, Steve (Ben Cura), has just committed a hit and run. He’s drunk, abusive and wants his wife, Nicole (Olivia Bonamy), to take the blame. And it wasn’t just an innocent accident as Steve not only knocked someone over, he drove over them again in his rush to flee.
The first 15 minutes follows this argument and then as it ends as Nicole and Steve separate inside the house; him to clean up any evidence from the accident and her to discretely take a pregnancy test. This soon begins to drag, and fortunately we’re saved by a sinister phone call from the landline, that appears to be coming from Steve’s mobile, that he hasn’t seen since the hit and run. This soon escalates into something verging on horror territory as we follow Nicole around their now claustrophobic house.
It’s this middle act that I enjoyed the most as Gatecrash turns into a tense and almost terrifying thriller, as Nicole and Steve have to face off against a mysterious and menacing police officer (Samuel West) who arrives on their doorstep. West is possibly my favourite part of this film, his character is completely over the top and ridiculous yet still portrays this strange, ominous air. It’s strange to find a character who is immensely fun to watch yet still manages to terrify you. He’s further helped by his character’s unexplained and questionable motives that give this thriller an intriguing air of mystery.
Following on from the aftermath of the hit and run, the film jumps to a later time after Nicole has had her baby and again the couple are visited by another mysterious stranger, this one called Sid (Anton Lesser). At first Sid seems like a kind, lovely old man but his unusual air and conversation soon unveil yet more hidden and sinister motives that culminate in a tense finale.
It’s this final act that I was least keen on. At first the dialogue between Sid, Nicole and Steve is gripping but it seems to drag on and keep going round in circles before it finally gets to some dramatic piece of action. This dragging dialogue is definitely Gatecrash’s biggest flaw, and this is in no doubt down to it’s theatre origins. On the stage I can see dialogue like this working well, but as a film it needs a lot more oomph to keep our attention. The cast do well to keep us entertained though, Olivia Bonamy puts in a very understated performance as Nicole and Ben Cura was delightful to watch as Steve purely because the character is a rather despicable excuse for a man. And fortunately Gough’s cinematography works well with the few action scenes to try and make up for the slumps in the dialogue heavy earlier scenes.
Overall Gatecrash is a fairly enjoyable thriller and is worth watching purely for its general air of mystery and the tense and exciting second act.