Balian of Ibelin travels to Jerusalem during the Crusades of the 12th century, and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people.
This is an epic movie, sometimes to its detriment. It tells of a blacksmith – forgotten son of a crusader – who is thrust in to protecting Jerusalem. It features an all-star cast and isn't afraid of dispatching them. The story is focused on morals and is full of religion. There is beautiful scenery, massive armies and incredible battle scenes. The siege is absolutely spectacular, with interesting tactics used to defend the city. However, the dialogue is brittle, with many one liners which feel cringey and there are a lot of character who aren't really fleshed out or put to much use.
King Charles VI declares that Knight Jean de Carrouges settle his dispute with his squire by challenging him to a duel.
This is an impressive movie. It is told in three parts, with the perspectives of the protagonists each telling their side of the story. It's grim and very ugly, with scenes which are difficult to watch and gory violence sporting copious amounts of blood. The final duel is exciting and brutal. I genuinely didn't know which way it would go, as I flinched at each blow. The screenplay is great, with each subsequent retelling adding more intruige to the story and characters. If you can stomach the violence, you should really check this movie out. Ridley Scott has created another epic medieval movie.
During her Christmas holidays with the royal family at the Sandringham estate in Norfolk, England, Diana Spencer, struggling with mental health problems, decides to end her decade-long marriage to Prince Charles.
Kristen Stewart is good as Diana, but the rest of the movie is bland. The cinematography is flat and the jazz score distracting. The movie does convey a sense of overbearing and feeling trapped, but the screenplay is stuffy.
A love letter to journalists set in an outpost of an American newspaper in a fictional twentieth century French city that brings to life a collection of stories published in "The French Dispatch Magazine".
An all-star cast feature in the quintessential Wes Anderson movie, but which is devoid of emotion, lost in the cold symmetrical and framed set design and cinematography. The first of the three unrelated stories is by far the best, then it’s downhill from there.
Return to a world of two realities: one, everyday life; the other, what lies behind it. To find out if his reality is a construct, to truly know himself, Mr. Anderson will have to choose to follow the white rabbit once more.
Going to the cinema asking for a ticket "to see the Matrix" in 2022 was an odd feeling. That odd feeling became déjà vu with the first scene. Even though I haven't watched the original movie in over a decade I still recognised it immediately.
The strange feelings didn't stop there. "Neo", back as Thomas Anderson, is a software developer who built a successful game called "The Matrix" featuring the story of the original trilogy. Now the parent company are creating a sequel "with or without him", which cuts far too close to the bone regarding the movie itself. There are a lot of references around this topic, mostly superficial, but have a deeper impact if you actually think about them.
The first act plays out in a similar way to the original movie; trying to get Neo to follow the rabbit hole – it is even interspersed with actual scenes from the first movie (the video game in this world) and recreations to jog Neo's memory.
Once Neo is back in the "real world", the movie feels a lot more familiar and as you might have expected the movie to play out. There are still the battery farms, there is a new human underground city. This time there are some robots working with the humans and even a augmented bridge to the code in The Matrix.
There are some good rifts off certain aspects of the original trilogy, such as bullet-time and Neo's God-like ability to fly. Everything in "The Matrix" world felt self-referencing and that was the point. We get some changes, such as with Agent Smith and interesting upgrades – there are no fixed phone lines like back in 1999.
The fourth installment wasn't needed, but I appreciate what they tried to do. The story was different, the action was good and the entire movie subverts your expectations. The movie is filled with interesting ideas and quotes, they're either making jokes or a profound statement. It was a fun movie to watch with plenty of themes which require analysis to uncover and understand, much like the original trilogy.