Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
When I first heard that Tom Hanks was playing Fred Rogers in a biopic, I was all on board. Who wouldn’t be? When I finally saw the film about a year and a half later, it was not the movie I was expecting. In such a fantastically good way.
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood tells the story of the real life friendship between Fred Rogers (Tom Hanks) and journalist Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys, character based on real life journalist Tom Junod). Vogel is an investigative reporter for Esquire magazine in the late nineties and he is assigned a “puff” piece. The magazine was doing an issue on heroes, and Vogel was assigned Mr. Rogers, and would be a story unlike any other that he has written. After meeting and talking to Mr. Rogers for the first time, he couldn’t believe that this person was… well, perfect. Let’s be clear, Mr. Rogers is not perfect, but probably as close to perfect as many can imagine. So Vogel did what he does best. He started investigating. And during the course of his discoveries, he started to make discoveries about himself, and the relationships in his life, specifically with that of his father, Jerry Vogel (Chris Cooper).
This movie was so much more than I expected going in. I expected to tear up, I didn’t expect it to hit home the way show used to as I was growing up and watch the show well into my twenties. The cinematography was excellent. Many times it felt like I was watching the show as the movie essentially played out like an episode. The transitions were amazing, and the music was fantastic as well. They didn’t try to do anything artsy or new age with anything. All of the original themes and music was there. It was one of the most nostalgic movie going experiences I have ever had.
This is definitely a great movie to see, but do not mistake it for a children’s film, please. There are some very mature themes, language, and concepts. This is definitely meant to shine some light on the nature of human character versus the lessons taught by the legendary Mr. Rogers. That being said, go see it. It absolutely will not ruin your childhood.
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood tells the story of the real life friendship between Fred Rogers (Tom Hanks) and journalist Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys, character based on real life journalist Tom Junod). Vogel is an investigative reporter for Esquire magazine in the late nineties and he is assigned a “puff” piece. The magazine was doing an issue on heroes, and Vogel was assigned Mr. Rogers, and would be a story unlike any other that he has written. After meeting and talking to Mr. Rogers for the first time, he couldn’t believe that this person was… well, perfect. Let’s be clear, Mr. Rogers is not perfect, but probably as close to perfect as many can imagine. So Vogel did what he does best. He started investigating. And during the course of his discoveries, he started to make discoveries about himself, and the relationships in his life, specifically with that of his father, Jerry Vogel (Chris Cooper).
This movie was so much more than I expected going in. I expected to tear up, I didn’t expect it to hit home the way show used to as I was growing up and watch the show well into my twenties. The cinematography was excellent. Many times it felt like I was watching the show as the movie essentially played out like an episode. The transitions were amazing, and the music was fantastic as well. They didn’t try to do anything artsy or new age with anything. All of the original themes and music was there. It was one of the most nostalgic movie going experiences I have ever had.
This is definitely a great movie to see, but do not mistake it for a children’s film, please. There are some very mature themes, language, and concepts. This is definitely meant to shine some light on the nature of human character versus the lessons taught by the legendary Mr. Rogers. That being said, go see it. It absolutely will not ruin your childhood.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated American Horror Story - Season 6 in TV
Jan 16, 2020
Season 6 of AHS, subtitled Roanoke, may very well be my favourite season to date, if not it comes a very close second to Asylum.
The thing that really stands out for me is the pacing. It's pretty much perfect. The first half of Roanoke takes place in the form of a documentary, called My Roanoke Nightmare, where a young couple who moved into a run down house, recount their horrific experience of the spirits that haunted the ground, and endangered their lives. The documentary has a dramatisation of the events alongside the interviews, which effectively has the same AHS characters being played by two different people.
The build up is slow burning and hugely entertaining, as we know that these characters survive the ordeal, as they are involved in the documentary, so we can enjoy the ride without worrying about their fates.
In true AHS style though, the second half of the season takes place a few years after the documentary, and Roanoke truly kicks off in an epic fashion.
It's hard to properly describe the narrative, and it's really best experienced yourself. It's clever television.
The style of Roanoke is quite subtle, and gives the season a sort of old fashioned sense. It also experiments here and there with 'found footage', lending AHS a Blair Witch-esque edge.
All of the cast are once again great. Kathy Bates is a highlight, both her roles during the documentary, and after. Series regulars like Evan Peters, Angela Bassett and Lily Rabe are present and enjoyable, and it's awesome to see Cuba Gooding Jr. involved as well.
However this time around, AHS belongs to Sarah Paulson, who I thought really excelled during Roanoke, and Adina Porter, who gave the season it's more emotional moments. I think she's a fantastic actress, and was also a standout in her limited screentime during True Blood.
The gore and violence in Roanoke is probably at it's most visceral as far as AHS goes. There are some effectively gruesome moments littered throughout, and it's all looked like practical effects to me, which is how it should be! There are some really creepy shots as well, especially at the tail end of the season.
Roanoke is damn good. I'll be pleasantly surprised if AHS ever surpasses it.
The thing that really stands out for me is the pacing. It's pretty much perfect. The first half of Roanoke takes place in the form of a documentary, called My Roanoke Nightmare, where a young couple who moved into a run down house, recount their horrific experience of the spirits that haunted the ground, and endangered their lives. The documentary has a dramatisation of the events alongside the interviews, which effectively has the same AHS characters being played by two different people.
The build up is slow burning and hugely entertaining, as we know that these characters survive the ordeal, as they are involved in the documentary, so we can enjoy the ride without worrying about their fates.
In true AHS style though, the second half of the season takes place a few years after the documentary, and Roanoke truly kicks off in an epic fashion.
It's hard to properly describe the narrative, and it's really best experienced yourself. It's clever television.
The style of Roanoke is quite subtle, and gives the season a sort of old fashioned sense. It also experiments here and there with 'found footage', lending AHS a Blair Witch-esque edge.
All of the cast are once again great. Kathy Bates is a highlight, both her roles during the documentary, and after. Series regulars like Evan Peters, Angela Bassett and Lily Rabe are present and enjoyable, and it's awesome to see Cuba Gooding Jr. involved as well.
However this time around, AHS belongs to Sarah Paulson, who I thought really excelled during Roanoke, and Adina Porter, who gave the season it's more emotional moments. I think she's a fantastic actress, and was also a standout in her limited screentime during True Blood.
The gore and violence in Roanoke is probably at it's most visceral as far as AHS goes. There are some effectively gruesome moments littered throughout, and it's all looked like practical effects to me, which is how it should be! There are some really creepy shots as well, especially at the tail end of the season.
Roanoke is damn good. I'll be pleasantly surprised if AHS ever surpasses it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Angry Birds Movie (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new kids’ movie Angry Birds is a joint venture between Columbia Pictures and Rovio Animation.
I did not hold high hopes for this movie when I went to screen it, and really only went because I knew my 7 year old son would want to see it.
It has a wide range of actors and actresses voicing the characters: Jason Sudeikis as Red, Josh Gad as Chuck, Danny McBride as Bomb, Maya Rudolph as Matilda, Bill Hader as Leonard, Peter Dinklage as Mighty Eagle, Sean Penn as Terence, and Blake Shelton as Earl Pig.
If you have ever played the game by the same name, you will recognize the characters, as well as the soundtrack music.
It was a decent (kids) story, and the movie is certainly colorful and fast paced. In my opinion, the 3-D aspect helped.
We follow the main character, Red, as he tried to fit into a happy, steady society, that frowns upon and even penalizes outburst of bad temper, whether they are warranted or not.
He blows up at a customer, and has to go to court, where he is sentenced to anger management classes. The instructor, Matilda, has a hard time getting through to him and gets frustrated with his inability to control his anger responses.
In the middle of Red’s classes, the Pigs show up, bearing “gifts” and acting as if they are the Birds best friends. Red is suspicious and tries to both investigate to find out more, as well as warn the other birds that the pigs are after more than being “best friends”, but is shut down time after time as his warnings fall on deaf ears.
In the end, Red is right, and must organize a rescue. Ironically, he must encourage the other Birds to harness their anger in order to use it to help rescue their eggs.
I thought the movie was cute, and fun for a family afternoon out. I probably would not take very very young kids to it, more in the age group of 6 or 7 and up, but for my son it was just fine, and it was fun for him because he recognized the characters both from the game as well as the cartoon shorts that are on the internet.
For a family movie, I would give Angry Birds 2.75 out of 5 stars.
I did not hold high hopes for this movie when I went to screen it, and really only went because I knew my 7 year old son would want to see it.
It has a wide range of actors and actresses voicing the characters: Jason Sudeikis as Red, Josh Gad as Chuck, Danny McBride as Bomb, Maya Rudolph as Matilda, Bill Hader as Leonard, Peter Dinklage as Mighty Eagle, Sean Penn as Terence, and Blake Shelton as Earl Pig.
If you have ever played the game by the same name, you will recognize the characters, as well as the soundtrack music.
It was a decent (kids) story, and the movie is certainly colorful and fast paced. In my opinion, the 3-D aspect helped.
We follow the main character, Red, as he tried to fit into a happy, steady society, that frowns upon and even penalizes outburst of bad temper, whether they are warranted or not.
He blows up at a customer, and has to go to court, where he is sentenced to anger management classes. The instructor, Matilda, has a hard time getting through to him and gets frustrated with his inability to control his anger responses.
In the middle of Red’s classes, the Pigs show up, bearing “gifts” and acting as if they are the Birds best friends. Red is suspicious and tries to both investigate to find out more, as well as warn the other birds that the pigs are after more than being “best friends”, but is shut down time after time as his warnings fall on deaf ears.
In the end, Red is right, and must organize a rescue. Ironically, he must encourage the other Birds to harness their anger in order to use it to help rescue their eggs.
I thought the movie was cute, and fun for a family afternoon out. I probably would not take very very young kids to it, more in the age group of 6 or 7 and up, but for my son it was just fine, and it was fun for him because he recognized the characters both from the game as well as the cartoon shorts that are on the internet.
For a family movie, I would give Angry Birds 2.75 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bullet to the Head (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Action icon Sylvester Stallone follows up his smash hit “The Expendables 2” with a turn as a New Orleans hitman on a mission of revenge in “Bullet to the Head”. Produced by Walter Hill, who brought us such classics as the “Alien” series and directed films such as “Red Heat” and “48 Hours”, his signature style is evident throughout.
Stallone plays James Bonomo, a.k.a. Jimmy Bobo, a thug with a long rap sheet and few friends. After celebrating a successful contract hit, his partner is brutally killed and an attempt is made on Jimmy’s life as well. Suspecting that they’d been setup, James reluctantly meets with a D.C. detective named Taylor Kwon (Sung Kang), who is in town to investigate the murder of his former partner. Fate forces the duo to work with one another despite Kwon’s by-the-book nature and utter disdain for James and his choice of profession. The two soon uncover a large conspiracy that threatens not only their lives but the cities very powerful and elite, making the duo the prime targets for those who will stop at nothing.
Despite having a fairly formulaic plot, the film works very well, thanks in large part to the cast. The two leads work very well with one another, and the fine supporting work by Jason Momoa and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje really set the tone. The action in the film is intense and at times brutal but does not seem gratuitous, making it clear that the characters live in a violent world where accepting death is second nature to the urge to kill.
Stallone gives a very physical performance as the world weary James and you can tell that he went all out for the films action sequences despite the toll his body had to take. The film is based on the graphic novel “Du Plomb dans la Tête” and captures the elements of a classic film noir, with the action of a buddy cop film without pandering to many of the genre stereotypes.
While I enjoyed Schwarzenegger’s “The Last Stand” a bit more, I was very surprised at how enjoyable the film was after being underwhelmed by the trailer. In the end, if you’re a fan of Stallone, and love a good action film, then this is one you will not want to miss.
Stallone plays James Bonomo, a.k.a. Jimmy Bobo, a thug with a long rap sheet and few friends. After celebrating a successful contract hit, his partner is brutally killed and an attempt is made on Jimmy’s life as well. Suspecting that they’d been setup, James reluctantly meets with a D.C. detective named Taylor Kwon (Sung Kang), who is in town to investigate the murder of his former partner. Fate forces the duo to work with one another despite Kwon’s by-the-book nature and utter disdain for James and his choice of profession. The two soon uncover a large conspiracy that threatens not only their lives but the cities very powerful and elite, making the duo the prime targets for those who will stop at nothing.
Despite having a fairly formulaic plot, the film works very well, thanks in large part to the cast. The two leads work very well with one another, and the fine supporting work by Jason Momoa and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje really set the tone. The action in the film is intense and at times brutal but does not seem gratuitous, making it clear that the characters live in a violent world where accepting death is second nature to the urge to kill.
Stallone gives a very physical performance as the world weary James and you can tell that he went all out for the films action sequences despite the toll his body had to take. The film is based on the graphic novel “Du Plomb dans la Tête” and captures the elements of a classic film noir, with the action of a buddy cop film without pandering to many of the genre stereotypes.
While I enjoyed Schwarzenegger’s “The Last Stand” a bit more, I was very surprised at how enjoyable the film was after being underwhelmed by the trailer. In the end, if you’re a fan of Stallone, and love a good action film, then this is one you will not want to miss.
Bread Beauty Revolution: Khwaja Ahmad Abbas 1914-1987
Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, Iffat Fatima and Syeda Hameed
Book
Khwaja Ahmad Abbas distinguished himself by his ceaseless passion for revolutionary politics, which...
Venture Capital Tax Reliefs
Book
Venture Capital Tax Reliefs, Third Edition provides an overview of the major investment schemes...
Teaching Creative Thinking: Developing Learners Who Think Critically and Can Solve Problems
Book
Teaching Creative Thinking is action-oriented and research-led and is packed with examples and case...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Deep Red (Profondo rosso) (1975) in Movies
Jul 19, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Deep Red (aka Profondo rosso) is a thriller/slasher from Italian writer/director Dario Argento.
When Marcus Daly (David Hemmings) witnesses the murder of the women living in the flat below him he finds himself in a race to find the murderer before he becomes their next victim. The films killer follows a lot of what would become familiar tropes in slasher films, the killer is rarely seen and when they are seen they are covered u, they use a number of different ways to kill their victims and they have a habit of sneaking around. There isn't necessarily a a lot of blood from the kills, that is to say blood is sprayed around but when there is blood it is filmed in such a way that you can't miss it, in fact they eye is drawn to it.
Speaking of eyes there are a lot of them, Dario Argento has his own style of filming, he uses filters and strange camera angles and, in Deep Red a lot of closeups on eyes, sometimes just for scene transitions.
As well as being a Slasher, Deep Red is a mystery, as the film progresses Marcus the protagonist find clues as to the identity of the killer giving the viewer the chance to work out who it is as well. But there are red herrings and a lot of things that don't necessarily make sense. There is a clockwork boy, used only one by the killer, there is a creepy girl with a possibly mad farther, two facts that really don't affect the story.
As I said, Deep Red contains a lot of the Slasher tropes but it predates most of them, even beating Halloween by three years and so you can see that it has a big influence on the modern (well 80's so not so modern now) slashers.
The down side is that Deep Red is slow, there is a lot of talking, although contained in this are some clues as to the killers identity and the level of violence isn't quite as much as some of the more modern films, it does however beat some of it's slasher predecessors such as Psycho.
Over all Deep Red is a good film, slightly more mystery than slasher but with enough kills to keep a slasher fan happy. The story does plod along at is own pace but over all an enjoyable film.
When Marcus Daly (David Hemmings) witnesses the murder of the women living in the flat below him he finds himself in a race to find the murderer before he becomes their next victim. The films killer follows a lot of what would become familiar tropes in slasher films, the killer is rarely seen and when they are seen they are covered u, they use a number of different ways to kill their victims and they have a habit of sneaking around. There isn't necessarily a a lot of blood from the kills, that is to say blood is sprayed around but when there is blood it is filmed in such a way that you can't miss it, in fact they eye is drawn to it.
Speaking of eyes there are a lot of them, Dario Argento has his own style of filming, he uses filters and strange camera angles and, in Deep Red a lot of closeups on eyes, sometimes just for scene transitions.
As well as being a Slasher, Deep Red is a mystery, as the film progresses Marcus the protagonist find clues as to the identity of the killer giving the viewer the chance to work out who it is as well. But there are red herrings and a lot of things that don't necessarily make sense. There is a clockwork boy, used only one by the killer, there is a creepy girl with a possibly mad farther, two facts that really don't affect the story.
As I said, Deep Red contains a lot of the Slasher tropes but it predates most of them, even beating Halloween by three years and so you can see that it has a big influence on the modern (well 80's so not so modern now) slashers.
The down side is that Deep Red is slow, there is a lot of talking, although contained in this are some clues as to the killers identity and the level of violence isn't quite as much as some of the more modern films, it does however beat some of it's slasher predecessors such as Psycho.
Over all Deep Red is a good film, slightly more mystery than slasher but with enough kills to keep a slasher fan happy. The story does plod along at is own pace but over all an enjoyable film.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Informer (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Joel Kinnaman plays the good bad guy well, the inner battle his character has shows on his face throughout. Once Pete gets to prison and his story becomes one of survival I thought he was even better. Without such a good performance behind Pete I don't think this film would have held together at all.
When Common started appearing in things I was a little dubious but as time has gone on he's really developed and found himself the right little niche. As Grens he shows he's confident with what he's given and I can't wait to see his next role. (As it happens I didn't have to wait long as he was in The Kitchen and I had no idea.)
Rosamund Pike and Clive Owen are both generally solid actors to see on a movie poster but in this instance I found their characters to be frustrating and a little wooden. Pike is potentially part tree as I notice this in a few of her roles but it's usually perfectly suited, in this though, Wilcox's two different personas felt too different to be believable. Owen as her boss was fine but in a film with so many aggressive and combative characters it was just too much.
It was paced quite well and the only reason I felt distracted at times was because of fellow cinemagoers. We were given a nice balance of action broken up by character pieces and there weren't any times that felt unnecessary or over the top. But then we get to the end of the film. I'd put money on the ending of that film being changed to cut the length and keep it under 2 hours. There was a perfect place to end the film, it would have left you with a "well what happened next" moment but I think that would have been preferable to what we got. We still get that "what's next" but it's much more anticlimactic and meant my last feeling wasn't one of anticipation but confusion. It took me a while to write up some note for this because I was pondering that ending, I'm certain that has changed the score this gets.
Read the review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-informer-movie-review.html
When Common started appearing in things I was a little dubious but as time has gone on he's really developed and found himself the right little niche. As Grens he shows he's confident with what he's given and I can't wait to see his next role. (As it happens I didn't have to wait long as he was in The Kitchen and I had no idea.)
Rosamund Pike and Clive Owen are both generally solid actors to see on a movie poster but in this instance I found their characters to be frustrating and a little wooden. Pike is potentially part tree as I notice this in a few of her roles but it's usually perfectly suited, in this though, Wilcox's two different personas felt too different to be believable. Owen as her boss was fine but in a film with so many aggressive and combative characters it was just too much.
It was paced quite well and the only reason I felt distracted at times was because of fellow cinemagoers. We were given a nice balance of action broken up by character pieces and there weren't any times that felt unnecessary or over the top. But then we get to the end of the film. I'd put money on the ending of that film being changed to cut the length and keep it under 2 hours. There was a perfect place to end the film, it would have left you with a "well what happened next" moment but I think that would have been preferable to what we got. We still get that "what's next" but it's much more anticlimactic and meant my last feeling wasn't one of anticipation but confusion. It took me a while to write up some note for this because I was pondering that ending, I'm certain that has changed the score this gets.
Read the review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-informer-movie-review.html
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 25, 2019 (Updated Aug 25, 2019)
Liar liar pants on fire
Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark feels like if it had been released in the 90s then it probably would of been quite an entertaining/passable movie but as it stands now it brings nothing we haven't seen a million times already to the table & sadly not even nostalgia can save it from becoming tiresome after just 40minutes in. One thing I certainly can not fault here is its high production standards, its not only shot extremely well but sets & creatures are all interesting/creative & are show clear inspiration from classic horror movies & their tropes. A huge problem is tension, tone & pacing however. Tone is somwhere in between Goosebumps & a Conjuring movie on one side its far to goofy/tame to cater to adults then on the other its far too scary/disturbing for kids but it never seems to find the right balance between the two. Its creature also while they look good loose their menace & terror due to being shown far to much for extended periods of time leading to times where they would become laughable & taken less seriously by the audience. Plot & situations are also highly predictable & this the seems to make the already long run time sem like an eternity leading to scenes that are especially far to dialog heavy which killing the pacing because we already know what's coming next. Story is unnecessarily long winded in a need to try & make the film different but once it reaches its conclusion its hard to care because its really not an interesting tale at all. Themes of how the simple power of story telling, lies & made up tales can effect peoples lives in the most drastic of ways are very interesting but not particularly executed well instead becoming jumbled & contradicted when mixed into the long drawn out plot. Acting is so so but no one really stands out or expresses emotion that belivable making character connections hard. So sadly I cant recomend seeing this movie, while its fine & quite well made its just bland/uninteresting & everything thats good about it is spoiled/shown in the trailer (if you've seen trailer the film will be extremely predictable for you & offer no surprises). Save your money or go see crawl instead.