Watch The Sisters Brothers 2018 Full Movie Streaming

Watch The Sisters Brothers 2018 Full Movie Online

most popular movies

Castname:John C. Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal, Riz Ahmed, Rebecca Root, Allison Tolman, Rutger Hauer, Carol Kane, Richard Brake, Hugo Dillon

Crewname :Jacques Audiard, Patrick DeWitt, John C. Reilly, Jacques Audiard, Rosa Attab, Pascal Caucheteux, Michael De Luca, Alison Dickey, Mathilde Snodgrass, Luigi Rocchetti

Release :2018-09-19

Overview: Oregon, 1851. Hermann Kermit Warm, a chemist and aspiring gold prospector, keeps a profitable secret that the Commodore wants to know, so he sends the Sisters brothers, two notorious assassins, to capture him on his way to California.

Reviews :Certainly the better of the two Westerns I’ve seen today, but I’m also not really feeling the love with _Sisters Brothers_ like everybody else seems to be.

_Final rating:★★½ – Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._
_**A plodding and overlong tale of violence and redemption that doesn’t seem to know quite what it’s trying to say**_

> _You are afraid of hell. But that’s all religion is, really. Fear of a place we’d rather not be, and where there’s no such a thing as suicide to steal us away._

– Patrick deWitt; _The Sisters Brothers_ (2011)

_The Sisters Brothers_ is a film set in the American Old West, based on a book by a Canadian, made by a mostly French crew, shot primarily in Spain and Romania, featuring a Brit as an American, an American as a Brit, and a British trans comedian as a ruthless American businesswoman. And I don’t bring this up out of mere frivolousness; rather, a certain element of schizophrenia is built into the film’s very DNA. On the surface it’s a Revisionist Western with a gritty Spaghetti aesthetic focusing very much on a group of anti-heroes, but it’s also a story of two brothers getting on one another’s nerves, a tale of avarice and the destructive potential of progressive thinking, a chase movie, a dark comedy, a tragic fable, an examination of the days when the Old West was giving way to an ever-encroaching modernity, a look at how the sins of the father are oft repeated by the children, a study of competing types of masculinity, and even a political thesis, postulating that there was a time in American history when certain people genuinely believed they could build a harmonious society based on direct democracy and the kind of socialist attitude to capitalism that would make even Bernie Sanders blush.

The English language debut of French director Jacques Audiard, who adapted the script with his regular writing partner Thomas Bidegain from Patrick deWitt’s 2011 novel of the same name, the film posits that even those who seem irredeemable may one day find a path to redemption. Very much of a piece with Audiard’s more celebrated humanist work such as _De battre mon cœur s’est arrêté_ (2005), _Un prophète_ (2009), and _Dheepan_ (2015), _The Sisters Brothers_ works primarily as a character study about people trying to do what they feel is right in a world arrayed against them. Unfortunately, it did next-to-nothing for me. I wouldn’t say it’s a bad movie, as it clearly has a lot going for it; not the least of which is an unapologetic foregrounding of character over plot. However, its episodic rhythm, bifurcated narrative structure, and poorly-defined morality left me unengaged, frustrated, and rather bored.

1851; the height of the California Gold Rush. In Oregon, Charlie Sisters (Joaquin Phoenix) and his older brother Eli (John C. Reilly) are hired guns working for “The Commodore” (a criminally underused Rutger Hauer). Far more sensitive and thoughtful than his younger brother, Eli is growing weary of the lifestyle, wanting to retire, settle down, and open a grocery store. The more unpredictable and volatile Charlie, however, wants to keep on killing indefinitely. After a mission descends into disarray, Eli is unimpressed when The Commodore appoints Charlie as “lead man” for their next quarry; a mild-manner chemist named Hermann Kermit Warm (Riz Ahmed). Telling Eli that Warm has stolen something from The Commodore which they are to retrieve, Charlie is under orders to keep their real purpose to himself for the time being. Unsure of Warm’s exact location, The Commodore has already sent highly-intelligent tracker John Morris (Jake Gyllenhaal), a man too gentile for killing, to pick up his trail and detain him until the brothers catch up. Keeping them abreast of his progress via a series of letters, it doesn’t take long for Morris to find Warm, telling the brothers he will await them in Jacksonville. However, when Warm learns that The Commodore has sent men after him, he explains to Morris that he has created an elixir that when poured into a river, will illuminate any gold deposits on the river bed, with the only catch being that the potion is extremely caustic, and any sustained exposure results in severe burns. Recognising that Morris is only an advance, he guesses that whoever is still to come is under orders to torture the formula out of him and then kill him. Learning that Warm doesn’t want to use the gold for himself, but to help establish “_an ideal living space, ruled by the laws of true democracy and sharing_”, Morris decides to join him, and they head to San Francisco in an attempt to evade the approaching brothers.

A passion project for star and producer John C. Reilly, who purchased the rights to deWitt’s novel shortly after it was published, it was he who first brought the material to Audiard’s attention. One of the best-reviewed films at the 2018 Venice Film Festival, where it won Audiard his first Silver Lion for Best Director, when the film went on general release in North America later the same month, it flopped badly, earning only $3 million against a $38 million budget. That’s a shame, as Audiard is immensely talented, and although I personally didn’t enjoy this particular film, he deserves as much success as he can get. In terms of the novel, I don’t know a huge amount about it, but I would imagine Warm’s desire to build a Phalanstère in Dallas is inspired by La Réunion, a Fourierist-based utopian community founded in 1855 by Victor Prosper Considerant on the banks of the Trinity River. Wishing to make La Réunion a “communal experiment administered by a system of direct democracy”, Considerant planned to allow participants to share in profits from capital investments. However, the settlement lasted only 18 months before financial insolvency, shortage of skilled participants, inadequate farming methods, and untenable maintenance costs led to its dissolution.

As one would expect from Audiard, working with his regular editor Juliette Welfling (_Le scaphandre et le papillon_; _The Hunger Games_; _Ocean’s 8_) and production designer Michel Barthélémy (_Dobermann_; _Les salauds_; _Frantz_) and for the first time with cinematographer Benoît Debie (_Irréversible_; _Lost River_; _One More Time with Feeling_) and costume designer Milena Canonero (_Barry Lyndon_; _Chariots of Fire_; _The Grand Budapest Hotel_), the film looks amazing. Very much adopting the visual style of a Spaghetti Western, everything on screen looks dirty and/or dusty, whether it’s the worn and lived-in costumes, the spartan and uncared for buildings, or even the perpetually unshaven characters and their rotting teeth (an historically accurate detail absent in most modern westerns). Of particular note are the shootouts, of which there are three significant examples. The first takes place at night, and is shot from a distance and without much in the way of coverage; the second is shot primarily from the point of view of two characters doing their best to hide; and the third isn’t seen at all – we remain inside as the shooting can be heard on the street.

This should convey, as well as anything, just how revisionist _The Sisters Brothers_ is; the genre’s tropes are all there, but they’re examined from unexpected angles. A bear attack on a camp is not only not seen, it’s not even heard, with our first indication of the incident being when one character wakes up to find another has shot and killed a bear during the night; men are seen riding horses, but when a horse is mortally wounded, the man to whom he belongs cries and apologises; whisky is drunk aplenty, but one character would rather sit alone thinking about home than go whoring or drinking; a film about hired guns ends on a shot of a man sitting in a bath; the anticipated climatic shootout plays out in a manner you’ll never see coming. If it does nothing else, the film really drives home that to be able to truly subvert generic tropes, one must first understand and respect how those tropes work.

The film opens with an extraordinarily beautiful and striking scene. It’s night on the prairie, which is so dark, we can make out only the barest outline of a house, with a smaller building nearby. After some shouted dialogue, a shootout begins between the house and the smaller building, with each booming gun blast sending out sparks and illuminating for a micro-second the surrounding area. Having vanquished their opponents, the brothers are about to leave the area, when they see a horse, its back covered in flames, galloping away, trying to outrun the fire from which it doesn’t understand it can never escape. Realising the barn is on fire, Eli dashes in to try to save the trapped horses, whilst Charlie urges him to remain outside. Is the metaphor of the burning horse a little on the nose? Absolutely; try as they might, the brothers can never escape that which brings them pain, no matter how far or fast they run. But just because it’s not exactly subtle doesn’t mean it’s ineffective, and as opening visual metaphors go, it’s as striking an example as you’re likely to find. The scene also immediately establishes the differences between Eli (who would risk his own life to save a group of horses) and Charlie (who sees no point in such sacrifices).

In relation to the _milieu_, yes, this is the Old West of John Ford, Anthony Mann, and Sergio Leone, but Audiard defamiliarises it as much as possible. A recurring theme, for example, is that this is a world on the brink of modernity, but whose inhabitants are still very much rooted in the past. This is depicted via a running gag about Eli’s fascination with a curious modern invention (the toothbrush; so complicated a device, it comes with an instruction manual), and his childlike glee at staying in a hotel with indoor plumbing. Elsewhere, Morris remarks on how quickly the country is changing, writing, “_I have travelled through places that didn’t exist three months ago. First tents, then houses, then shops, with women fiercely discussing the price of flour._” Additionally, Warm’s progressive egalitarian vision for the future and his desire to use his formula to create a better society for all, allows the film to examine the belief (however short-lived) that out of the lawlessness, land thievery, and Native American genocide, a certain section of the populace hoped a more mutually beneficial society might arise.

However, Audiard, of course, is not naïve enough to suggest that the Old West was especially peaceful or safe; although on the cusp of modernity, this is still a merciless place where violence is a form of currency. But even here, he subverts the genre, using a recurring motif of either Charlie or Eli shooting an already downed opponent pleading for his life, which is certainly not what we’ve come to expect from the (figurative) white hat protagonists so familiar in Hollywood westerns. Coupled with this, there’s the ever-present background of the Gold Rush, and the mercenary mentality it fostered. Indeed, the whole plot is set in motion by The Commodore’s greed, and as the film goes on, it comes to focus more and more on the clash between a Darwinian survival of the fittest, might is right mentality (represented by Charlie) and a more esoteric and politically progressive way of thinking (represented by Warm), with Eli and Morris functioning as something of a halfway house between the two extremes.

In terms of acting, Phoenix, Gyllenhaal, and Ahmed all have moments to shine (a monologue in which Morris describes his hatred for his father is especially worth looking out for), but this is Reilly’s film through-and-through, turning Eli from a possibly oafish sidekick into an achingly human emotional fulcrum. His nuanced performance allows us to see just how badly Eli’s conscience is affecting him, and how much he is drifting away from the increasingly amoral Charlie. Eli has no desire to split with Charlie, but he is slowly coming to the conclusion that he may have no option but to do just that. It’s an extraordinarily subtle performance by Reilly, that reminded me a lot of his work in Paul Thomas Anderson’s _Magnolia_ (1999), where he played a cop in love with a drug addict who shows unexpected emotional vulnerability, and Rob Marshall’s _Chicago_ (2002), in which he played the dim but loyal-to-a-fault husband who emerges as the film’s only really moral character. His unexpected affection for his horse is especially poignant, and his tendency to sniff a shawl given to him by his girlfriend is beautifully played by Reilly.

However, for all this, I really disliked the movie, for a myriad of reasons. For one, I found it far too episodic, lurching from one incident to next with little in the way of connective tissue between them. I also didn’t particularly like the shifts in focus from the brothers on the one hand to Morris and Warm on the other, with each strand serving only to detract from the other, making it impossible for either to fully settle. A knock-on from this is that the film lacks a strong lead character; although everything suggests that Eli is the protagonist, Phoenix is billed above Reilly, and a lot of the time, Eli seems more like Charlie’s sidekick than his equal, making it difficult to figure out where one’s empathy is supposed to lie. This difficulty becomes especially problematic in relation to the morally questionable _dénouement_, in which there is an incident which seems designed for the audience to roundly condemn one of the main characters, only for the film to then give us a 15-minute epilogue seemingly designed to redeem him.

This throws into relief what for me was the most egregious problem – none of what we see seems to mean anything, there are virtually no consequences for anything the brothers do (although plenty of consequences for others). This left me scratching my head as to what the film is trying to say. Is it suggesting that even the most morally repugnant of men deserve a shot at redemption? If that is the case, however, its rhetorical position is not especially cogent, as the character mentioned above in no way deserves redemption, allowing his greed and stubbornness to cause untold suffering to others whilst he gets off relatively scot-free. Furthermore, the aforementioned epilogue is hugely anticlimactic, which, I understand, is kind of the point, but it’s still a very strange way to wrap things up, feeling forced and emotionally manipulative, completely out of tonal and thematic pace with the rest of the film, and also undermining what could have been a deeply affecting bittersweet final scene. The film is also far too long, and could easily have lost a half hour or more, with the meandering plot becoming interminably boring on more than one occasion.

As a kind of an aside, it’s also worth mentioning an aesthetic decision that has me baffled. On occasion, the film is shot within a circular frame (think of how films often simulate POV through a telescope), often combined with racked focus and unsteady photography. I’m assuming the idea is to try to replicate the style of a Kinetograph, but given that device wouldn’t be invented for another four decades, I’m not entirely sure what the point is, as the scenes which employ the style don’t seem to contain anything to justify the usage. An especially strange example is a scene which sees Charlie speaking direct-to-camera, the only example of such in the whole film. Is this a break in the fourth wall, and if so, why? If it isn’t a break, from whose POV is the scene shot? This kind of unjustified visual trickery pulls you right out of the film and offers next-to-nothing in the way of thematic compensation.

The four performances at the heart of _The Sisters Brothers_ earn it a great deal of leeway. But even taking that into account, I just couldn’t get into it. Far too plodding and thematically unfocused, although I initially liked the characters a great deal, by the last act, I just wanted it to end already. It’s certainly original in how it approaches a number of generic tropes, and that’s to be commended, but the imprecise and poorly constructed episodic narrative saps away the goodwill built up by the aesthetic design and the acting. Is it a western? A comedy? A tragedy? An esoteric political piece? A realist depiction of greed trumping idealism? In the end, it doesn’t seem to know itself, trying to be many things, and ending up being none of them.

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Watch Movie The Sisters Brothers

The Sisters Brothers,Watch Movie

The Sisters Brothers Online Movie

The Sisters Brothers complete Film izle

See full Movie

See The Sisters Brothers complete Movie “

The Sisters Brothers

The Sisters Brothers records

The Sisters Brothers the trailer Movie

The Sisters Brothers Movie

The Sisters Brothers cast

The Sisters Brothers

The Sisters Brothers Imdb

The Sisters Brothers blog Movie

The Sisters Brothers wikipedia

The Sisters Brothers wiki

The Sisters Brothers age rating

The Sisters Brothers Movie poster

The Sisters Brothers best

The Sisters Brothers Movie trailer

The Sisters Brothers mask

The Sisters Brothers for the first time

Watch A Simple Favor 2018 Full Movie Online

Download A Simple Favor 2018 Full Movie Online

most popular movies by year

Castname:Anna Kendrick, Blake Lively, Henry Golding, Andrew Rannells, Rupert Friend, Ian Ho, Joshua Satine, Paul Jurewicz, Roger Dunn, Dustin Milligan

Crewname :Paul Feig, Paul Feig, Brent White, Allison Jones, John Schwartzman, Darcey Bell, Jessica Sharzer, Erica Weis, Theodore Shapiro, Renee Ehrlich Kalfus

Release :2018-08-29

Overview: Stephanie, a dedicated mother and popular vlogger, befriends Emily, a mysterious upper-class woman whose son Nicky attends the same school as Miles, Stephanie’s son. When Emily asks her to pick Nicky up from school and then disappears, Stephanie undertakes an investigation that will dive deep into Emily’s cloudy past.

Reviews :First and foremost, this film feels like someone went to their local grocery store, grabbed a random three-dollar mystery novel off the checkout shelf, and decided to make it a movie with some extremely popular and attractive people. In other words, it’s a silly mystery movie with crazy, zany twists and turns.

Some of those twists and turns were easy enough to see coming, but some of them were straight out of left field. In addition to the entertaining twists, the film does a decent job of not taking itself seriously. The humor in the movie is peppered in during great moments. Some of it is cheesy, but if you’re going to this film for a deep, thought-provoking film, don’t.

The characters themselves are all extremely exaggerated. Lively’s Emily is over-the-top sophisticated, crass, and private to the point where she won’t allow pictures or even paintings of her face. Kendrick’s Stephanie is bubbly, eager, awkward, and overly friendly. The rest of the cast fills in the needs around them, and while the cast is filled with one-note characters, they fulfill the needs well. Golding’s Sean was my least favorite, but mainly because he doesn’t have a defined archetype in a film filled with single-aspect characters.

The biggest issue with the film is the plot itself. Emily contradicts herself with the motive for her faking her own death. She tells Sean that she did it for him and for Nicky. Then she says she did it for her. On top of it all, she doesn’t appear to have a plan to get the insurance money after it comes through. The film could have easily alleviated all of these issues with a quick scene or a line about fake passports for Emily and Nicky.

All in all, A Simple Favor is a fun romp filled with crazy twists and turns, humor, and great acting. Don’t think too much about the film itself, and just go have some fun. It’s definitely worth a getaway matinee.
I **really** don’t know what vibe _A Simple Favor_ was going for, but I know I kinda liked it.

_Final rating:★★★ – I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Watch Movie A Simple Favor

A Simple Favor,Watch Movie

A Simple Favor Online Movie

A Simple Favor complete Film izle

See full Movie

See A Simple Favor complete Movie “

A Simple Favor

A Simple Favor records

A Simple Favor the trailer Movie

A Simple Favor Movie

A Simple Favor cast

A Simple Favor

A Simple Favor Imdb

A Simple Favor blog Movie

A Simple Favor wikipedia

A Simple Favor wiki

A Simple Favor age rating

A Simple Favor Movie poster

A Simple Favor best

A Simple Favor Movie trailer

A Simple Favor mask

A Simple Favor for the first time

Watch Bohemian Rhapsody 2018 Full Movie Online

most popular movies ever

Castname:Rami Malek, Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, Joseph Mazzello, Lucy Boynton, Aidan Gillen, Allen Leech, Tom Hollander, Mike Myers, Aaron McCusker

Crewname :Anthony McCarten, Newton Thomas Sigel, Jim Beach, Robert De Niro, Graham King, Bryan Singer, Brian May, Denis O’Sullivan, Jane Rosenthal, Arnon Milchan

Release :2018-10-24

Overview: Singer Freddie Mercury, guitarist Brian May, drummer Roger Taylor and bass guitarist John Deacon take the music world by storm when they form the rock ‘n’ roll band Queen in 1970. Hit songs become instant classics. When Mercury’s increasingly wild lifestyle starts to spiral out of control, Queen soon faces its greatest challenge yet – finding a way to keep the band together amid the success and excess.

Reviews :If _Bohemian Rhapsody_ is so great, why was the best part of it Tom Hollander saying a single word? Don’t get me wrong, Rami Malek deserves props for the role, that much is true (less perhaps than he’s been getting, but still, props). But beyond that, _Bohemian Rhapsody_ is bland, choppy, arguably even offensive. There **might** be some value in one of those sing-along type deals if you can get enough Queen fans together for one, but I’ll never know, because I have no interest in re-watching this.

_Final rating:★★ – Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._
If _Bohemian Rhapsody_ is so great, why was the best part of it Tom Hollander saying a single word? Don’t get me wrong, Rami Malek deserves props for the role, that much is true (less perhaps than he’s been getting, but still, props). But beyond that, _Bohemian Rhapsody_ is bland, choppy, arguably even offensive. There **might** be some value in one of those sing-along type deals if you can get enough Queen fans together for one, but I’ll never know, because I have no interest in re-watching this.

Final rating:★★ – Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product.
Bohemian Rhapsody is not a biography of Freddie Mercury, nor a biopic of Queen. It’s a story based on a selection of key events occurring between the formation of the band and their appearance at Live Aid.
As a Queen fan I found this film utterly engrossing and enjoyable. The acting brilliantly invokes the characters in the band and the music provides a thumping rhythm to carry the story along.
Queen aficionados may be affronted by the out of sequence music performances and the highly selective approach to the story telling but if you can see past that, you’ll enjoy a storming film with a spine-tingling conclusion as the Live Aid performance is brilliantly recreated.

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Watch Movie Bohemian Rhapsody

Bohemian Rhapsody,Watch Movie

Bohemian Rhapsody Online Movie

Bohemian Rhapsody complete Film izle

See full Movie

See Bohemian Rhapsody complete Movie “

Bohemian Rhapsody

Bohemian Rhapsody records

Bohemian Rhapsody the trailer Movie

Bohemian Rhapsody Movie

Bohemian Rhapsody cast

Bohemian Rhapsody

Bohemian Rhapsody Imdb

Bohemian Rhapsody blog Movie

Bohemian Rhapsody wikipedia

Bohemian Rhapsody wiki

Bohemian Rhapsody age rating

Bohemian Rhapsody Movie poster

Bohemian Rhapsody best

Bohemian Rhapsody Movie trailer

Bohemian Rhapsody mask

Bohemian Rhapsody for the first time

Watch Hotel Mumbai 2019 Full Movie Streaming

Watch Hotel Mumbai 2019 Full Movie Online

recent popular movies

Castname:Armie Hammer, Dev Patel, Nazanin Boniadi, Tilda Cobham-Hervey, Anupam Kher, Jason Isaacs, Amandeep Singh, Suhail Nayyar, Manoj Mehra, Dinesh Kumar

Crewname :Anthony Maras, Basil Iwanyk, Gary Hamilton, Mike Gabrawy, Julie Ryan, Andrew Ogilvie, Jomon Thomas, Ryan Hamilton, Ying Ye, Kent Kubena

Release :2019-03-14

Overview: Mumbai, India, November 26, 2008. While several terrorists spread hatred and death through the city, others attack the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. Both hotel staff and guests risk their lives, making unthinkable sacrifices to protect themselves and keep everyone safe while help arrives.

Reviews :_Hotel Mumbai_.
Hard as I try. Can’t figure out why …You got made?

_Final rating:★½: – Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Watch Movie Hotel Mumbai

Hotel Mumbai,Watch Movie

Hotel Mumbai Online Movie

Hotel Mumbai complete Film izle

See full Movie

See Hotel Mumbai complete Movie “

Hotel Mumbai

Hotel Mumbai records

Hotel Mumbai the trailer Movie

Hotel Mumbai Movie

Hotel Mumbai cast

Hotel Mumbai

Hotel Mumbai Imdb

Hotel Mumbai blog Movie

Hotel Mumbai wikipedia

Hotel Mumbai wiki

Hotel Mumbai age rating

Hotel Mumbai Movie poster

Hotel Mumbai best

Hotel Mumbai Movie trailer

Hotel Mumbai mask

Hotel Mumbai for the first time

Watch The Favourite 2018 Full Movie Online

Download The Favourite 2018 Full Movie Streaming

most popular movies

Castname:Olivia Colman, Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz, Nicholas Hoult, Joe Alwyn, Mark Gatiss, James Smith, Jenny Rainsford, Emma Delves, Faye Daveney

Crewname :Yorgos Lanthimos, Deborah Davis, Ceci Dempsey, Ed Guiney, Andrew Lowe, Lee Magiday, Robbie Ryan, Dixie Chassay, Fiona Crombie, Johnnie Burn

Release :2018-11-23

Overview: England, early 18th century. The close relationship between Queen Anne and Sarah Churchill is threatened by the arrival of Sarah’s cousin, Abigail Hill, resulting in a bitter rivalry between the two cousins to be the Queen’s favourite.

Reviews :Overrated? Most assuredly, but utterly engaging from beginning to end. Not Yorgos’ most humorous piece, but technically sound and brilliantly acted.

_Final rating:★★★ – I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog 🙂

The Favourite is one of the most acclaimed movies of last year, receiving multiple nominations at dozens of awards shows and winning a whole bunch of them (2nd most awarded film of 2018, behind Roma). Being a fan of Yorgos Lanthimos’ style, I couldn’t be happier for him, and I was now even more excited to watch what he produced and directed. This movie is a classic example of an Oscars’ tradition of sorts. A lot of audience members make their mission to watch every Best Picture nominee before the big night, and there’s always one film that people fail to grasp on why did it get so much praise? Why are critics all around the world absolutely loving what audiences perceive as an “okay” time at the theater, but which contains a long, weird and maybe even dull (for some) story?

Well, first of all, this is technically a masterpiece. I mean, every single technical aspect is worthy of recognition. The production and set design are gorgeously eyegasmic. The score is unusual for a period piece like this, but it weirdly works, as it continuously elevates the tension between the three main characters and helps the story flow with an always conspicuous, treacherous feeling. Even the cinematography and the plays with candlelight offer some pretty neat scenes. However, and prepare to be surprised, the costume design steals the show from all the other achievements. This is coming from a guy who has utterly no interest in this particular matter and who rarely talks about it, so I’m as surprised as you are.

It’s not due to the costumes being pretty or appropriate to the time period. Almost every movie that tackles these times nail the costume design, but only a few can tell a character arc through it. Even less are capable of embodying the whole screenplay like this Oscar-bait does. Our protagonists have distinct journeys, but their ends all have similarities. One way of understanding the story is through what they wear, which seamlessly represent the arc that each character takes to get where they eventually end up. These layers of storytelling keep the film intriguing, but Lanthimos’ uncommon methods plus McNamara and Davis’ script will displease some audience members.

The Favourite is that movie that audiences are going to be perplexed about why do critics adore it. There’s no secret, really. Audience members don’t care about the technical part of films. They couldn’t care less about costume design, cinematography, score or how the screenplay is written. They want to be entertained and have a good time at the theater, so I find reasonable if people leave a bit disappointed with one of the most critically acclaimed movies of 2018. Lanthimos doesn’t deliver formulaic stories, and he certainly doesn’t film them in a regular fashion, so I firmly believe the general public isn’t really going to enjoy this one. His unique style brings a very different tone, pace and filming techniques that people aren’t used to experiencing. Fortunately, there’s more than just technical attributes to this film. Three magnificent and powerful performances from Olivia Colman, Emma Stone, and Rachel Weisz, carry the whole thing to safe harbor.

These three actresses deserve every single nomination they got so far. Colman delivers both a hilarious and emotionally heavy display, as Anne. An incredibly fragile Queen with a shockingly traumatic past, whose love and affection is being fought for between Abigail and Sarah. Most of the laughs this movie gives are through Anne and her petty behavior towards her servants. Colman delivers her body and soul to her role, adding yet another fantastic performance to her splendid career. Weisz is just flawless. Sarah‘s arc is Abigail‘s opposite in almost every way, and Rachel is remarkably sharp. She doesn’t really have a definite shining moment like Stone or Colman have, but it’s a consistent and robust display from an actress who needed a return to the spotlight.

Nevertheless, it’s Emma Stone who shines through with an unbelievable range of emotions and expressions. Her performance in La La Land is great, but as Abigail she is outstanding! She handles her character’s personality change with an impeccable transition regarding her acting and the only reason why she’s probably not getting the Oscar win, is due to the campaign supporting Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk). Abigail is the character that moves the plot forward by trying to steal Sarah‘s place near the Queen. Her intelligent and manipulative moves are extremely captivating, as well as her will to gain Anne‘s love.

Yorgos Lanthimos knows his craft and his weird yet unparalleled style is something that will surely deliver even more divisive and confusing films in the future. From the camera angles to his methods of storytelling, he’s one hell of a director-writer-producer! Technically, The Favourite is undoubtedly one of the best movies of the last year. The impressive production and set design plus the addictive score definitely raise the film, but the costume design tells a whole story through what the characters dress during the whole runtime. The screenplay is remarkably-written, filled with complex dialogues and several twists and turns, which lead our characters through eventful arcs.

Olivia Colman and Rachel Weisz deliver compelling performances, but Emma Stone is in another level. Her range is mind-boggling, and she carries a big responsibility by portraying the character who changes the whole story. Nevertheless, the movie feels a bit too long, and the story drops its interest levels during the transition from the second to the third act. Basically, I’ll put it like this: if you’re just a regular audience member who only goes to the theater to eat popcorn while being entertained, The Favourite isn’t going to make you eat your whole bucket; if you watch films through a more in-depth look, then you’ll be as marveled as I was by the end of it.

Rating: A-
Hugely entertaining film from start to finish, with amazing performances from the three lead women. Emma Stone proves that once again she’s not just a pretty face as the conniving and troubled Abigail, Rachel Weisz is always on form as the controlling and vindictive Sarah and Olivia Coleman deserved the Oscar as the childish and sickly Queen Anne. Nicholas Hoult’s foppish rogue Harley steals every scene he is in.

Yorgos Lanthimos once again has made a beautifully shot film using mostly natural light. I can’t overstate that this film looks gorgeous. Many times over I thought of Barry Lyndon, but with tonnes of humour, foul language, and no Ryan O’Neal to destroy the soul of the film.

I originally gave this 9/10 because I didn’t like the use of fish-eye lens, but I couldn’t stop thinking of how much I enjoyed it so I bumped it up to 10.

Best film I have seen in a very long time.
**_Fans of Yorgos Lanthimos will love it_**

> _A setback for women? How can it set women back to prove that women fart and vomit and hate and love and do all the things men do? All human beings are the same. We’re all multifaceted, many-layered, disgusting and gorgeous and powerful and weak and filthy and brilliant. That’s what’s nice. It doesn’t make women an old-fashioned thing of delicacy._

– Olivia Colman; “_The Favourite_ Blows Up Gender Politics With the Year’s Most Outrageous Love Triangle” (Tatiana Siegel); _The Hollywood Reporter_ (November 14, 2018)

_The Favourite_, the seventh feature from Greek auteur Yorgos Lanthimos, is a film that eschews both convention and expectation. On the other hand, it’s also Lanthimos’s most accessible by a country mile. Imagine, if you will, a narrative combining Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s _All About Eve_ (1950), Ingmar Bergman’s _Viskningar och rop_ (1975), and Mark Waters’s _Mean Girls_ (2004) filtered through the aesthetic sensibilities of Stanley Kubrick’s _Barry Lyndon_ (1975), Peter Greenaway’s _The Draughtsman’s Contract_ (1992), and Stephen Frears’s _Dangerous Liaisons_ (1988), topped off with a dash of Luis Buñuel at his most socially satirical, and you’ll be some way towards imagining this bizarre and uncategorisable film from a director with as unique and distinctive a voice as you’re likely to find in world cinema. A savage morality play, a camp comedy of manners, a Baroque tragedy, an allegorical study of the corruptive nature of power – it’s all of these and yet none of them. I haven’t seen Lanthimos’s first two films, _O kalyteros mou filos_ (2001) and _Kinetta_ (2005), but I adored _Kynodontas_ (2009), as difficult as it was to watch. I was a little indifferent to _Alpeis_ (2011), but I loved _The Lobster_ (2015), his blackest comedy thus far. His last film, however, _The Killing of a Sacred Deer_ (2017) did very little for me, as I felt it offered nothing we hadn’t seen in his previous work. So I came to _The Favourite_ wanting to like it, but ready to dislike it. And I find myself somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, it’s too long, the plot too threadbare, and the metaphors and allegories too ill-defined. On the other, the acting is flawless, it looks amazing, the first half is very, very funny, and the end is very, very dark, with the last shot one of the most haunting/disturbing images I’ve seen in a long time.

England, 1708. Queen Anne (an absolutely mesmerising Olivia Colman) has been on the throne for six years, with Great Britain finding itself enmeshed in the War of the Spanish Succession. In poor health, Anne has little interest in politics, with the real power lying with her friend, adviser, and secret lover Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough (an icy Rachel Weisz). Sarah and Prime Minister Sidney Godolphin (James Smith) plan to finance the war effort by doubling property taxes, but are opposed by the leader of the opposition – Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford (Nicholas Hoult). Meanwhile, Sarah’s impoverished younger cousin, Abigail Hill (Emma Stone, charting a course from doe-eyed _ingénue_ to vicious Machiavellian _intrigant_), arrives at Court looking for work. Sarah secures her a position as a scullery maid, but when Abigail learns that Anne is suffering from gout, she uses a herbal remedy on the sleeping Queen without asking permission. Sarah has her whipped for her presumption, but Anne sees a noticeable improvement in her condition, and by way of apology, Sarah gives Abigail a position closer to the Queen. With Harley hoping to use Abigail as a spy to find out what Sarah is planning, and Samuel Masham (Joe Alwyn), a foppish courtier, attempting to woo her, Abigail must quickly adapt to courtly life. Learning of the lesbian relationship between Anne and Sarah, Abigail begins to ingratiate herself with the Queen, leading to a bitter contest between herself and Sarah, as each attempt to establish themselves as Anne’s favourite.

_The Favourite_ is the first film Lanthimos has directed which neither he nor Efthymis Filippou wrote. Although it deals with real historical personages and events, historians probably won’t be too thrilled to learn that Lanthimos and his screenwriters Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara are relatively uninterested in either historical actuality or socio-political contextualisation (to say nothing of the slam dancing and frequently anachronistic dialogue). For example, there’s no reference to the Glorious Revolution (1688), which saw James II, the last Catholic monarch of England, overthrown; or to the Treaty of Union (1707), which formally brought the state of Great Britain into existence. Similarly, it is never mentioned that Anne was the last Stuart monarch or that Abigail was appointed Keeper of the Privy Purse in 1711. The nature of the political antagonism between the Tories and the Whigs, although often referred to and occasionally witnessed, is kept vague, with little in the way of an historical frame of reference. For example, the film never addresses the fact that Godolphin and Harley were both Tories, with Godolphin heading an administration dominated by leading Whigs (the Whig Junto), and Harley leading a coalition of Country Whigs and Tories in opposition.

On the other hand, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Anne and Sarah were lovers. On the contrary, Sarah is known to have found lesbianism abhorrent, commissioning the politician Arthur Maynwaring to write scurrilous poems about Abigail which intimated that she might be gay. Additionally, Anne was devoted to her husband, Prince George of Denmark, who doesn’t even warrant a mention, let alone an appearance, despite being alive and well at the time of Abigail’s arrival at Court. However, it’s also important to note that the film makes no claim to be a history lecture. This is a story about a love triangle, with everything else just the background noise against which that triangle plays out.

But although it may not be historically accurate, it is most definitely a Yorgos Lanthimos film, with his peculiar _Weltanschauung_ omnipresent. The emotionless and monotone delivery of dialogue has been scaled back considerably from _The Lobster_ and _Sacred Deer_, but everything else you’d expect is here – the pseudo-omniscient judgemental glare; the dark absurdist sense of humour; the formal rigidity; the emotional isolation of the characters; the surrealism; the games of psychological one-upmanship; the alienation of the audience; the thematic centrality of shifting power relations; the lack of distinction between poignancy and joviality; the use of self-contained and closed off pocket universes where characters must play by rules differing from those of the outside world; intimate familial conflict (except in bigger rooms than in his previous films); and a disorienting score, which mixes pieces by Purcell, Vivaldi, Handel, and Bach with more contemporary work from the likes of Olivier Messiaen, Luc Ferrari, and Anna Meredith, whilst the closing credits feature Elton John’s “Skyline Pigeon” (really). Similarly, whilst _The Lobster_ was a savage dystopian-set allegory for discipline and conformity, _The Favourite_ is a merciless satire of decadence and pettiness, taking in such additional themes as class, gender, love, lust, duty, loyalty, partisan politics, patriarchal hegemony, and women behaving just as appallingly as men.

As one would expect from Lanthimos, the film is aesthetically flawless, with many of the compositions having the appearance of a _fête galante_ painting, so meticulously integrated are the costume design by Sandy Powell (_Interview with the Vampire_; _Shakespeare in Love_; _Carol_), the production design by Fiona Crombie (_Snowtown_; _Truth_; _Mary Magdalene_), and the cinematography by Robbie Ryan (_Fish Tank_; _Philomena_; _American Honey_). Powell’s costumes are historically inaccurate, but thematically revealing, with the situation of the characters at any given moment directly influencing the design. For example, speaking to _Entertainment Weekly_, Powell says of Abigail and her rise to a position of influence,

> _I wanted to give her that vulgarity of the_ nouveau riche_, and her dresses get a little bolder and showier. There’s more pattern involved and there are black-and-white stripes. I wanted her to stand out from everybody else as trying too hard._

In a more general sense, the black-and-white colour scheme of much of the wardrobe contrasts magnificently with Crombie’s predominantly brown production design, with the actors effortlessly standing out from the backgrounds. The occasional use of black-and-white stripes is also worth mentioning, as it subliminally intimates that the characters are imprisoned, not so much by their physical _milieu_, but rather within the hypocrisy, pettiness, and forced politeness of the Royal Court.

Of Ryan’s photography, perhaps the most impressive feat is that, despite the many scenes tracking characters through rooms, up stairs, and out doorways, there’s not a single Steadicam shot anywhere in the film. He also makes copious use of 6mm fish-eye lenses, which distort the spaces the characters occupy whilst also showing much more of the environment than a normal lens, creating the sense of characters lost within an overload of background visual detail. Combined with the whip pans seen throughout the film, the cumulative effect is a world rendered strange, a place of distortion and unnatural compositions. As Ryan explains to _Deadline_,

> _by the nature of being able to see everything in front of you, you then get a sense that the characters are almost imprisoned in the location. Even though they have all this luxury and power, they are a little bit isolated in this world. By showing you the whole room and also isolating the character in a small space you get a feeling of no escape._

As with most of Lanthimos’ work, the film also uses natural light, which makes for some stunning candle-lit night-time compositions, partially recalling the paintings of someone like Jean-Antoine Watteau or, even moreso, Georges de La Tour.

In terms of acting, there really are no words to describe just how good Colman is. Utterly inhabiting the character, she is able to elicit empathy mere moments after behaving thoroughly shamefully, communicating a sense of both tragic inevitability and a childlike refusal to accept reality. The character could easily have been a grotesque villain or a pitiful broken shell, but Colman finds a nobler middle ground, straddling both interpretations without fully committing to either, moving from one to the other seamlessly throughout the film. Yes, she can be a horrible person with appalling manners and questionable hygiene, but she is also deeply lonely, a survivor who has lost 17 children in childbirth, a woman whose health has made her old before her time, a deeply tragic figure too naïve to see how badly she is being manipulated by Sarah and Abigail, something encapsulated brilliantly in the haunting last shot. Rather than trying to downplay the contradictory facets of the character, Colman leans into them, illuminating Anne’s humanity amongst her least appealing characteristics, and finding both wit and pathos in a character whose mercurial nature and excessive neediness could easily have rendered her the film’s antagonist. It truly is one of the finest on-screen performances in a long time.

Weisz and Stone are also both excellent. Weisz plays Sarah as a clinical manipulator, highly intelligent and relatively emotionless, whereas Stone’s Abigail grows from a guileless chambermaid to a vindictive Janus-faced usurper. However, even at her most outrageous, there remains always something of the innocent girl we met earlier in the film.

The film’s most salient theme, one could argue its very _raison d’être_, is the dynamic of gender politics. For starters, it’s headlined by three actresses (something which is still rare enough as to be notable), whilst the only two male characters of any significance (Godolphin and Harley) are both portrayed as petty, vainglorious idiots. Indeed, men in general are background players, existing only to be mocked, exploited, and duped – with their ridiculous wigs and heavy makeup, they exist only to support the women. Speaking to _Entertainment Weekly_, Powell explains that Lanthimos wanted the women to have natural hair and light makeup, and the men to wear gaudy makeup and ridiculous wigs;

> _normally films are filled with men, and the women are the decoration in the background, and I’ve done many of those, so it was quite nice for it to be reversed this time where the women are the centre of the film and the men are the decoration in the background._

Similarly, speaking to the _Hollywood Reporter_, Weisz explains,

> _what’s interesting to me is that the men in_ The Favourite _are wearing lots of makeup and blusher and lipstick and high heels. That they’re peripheral characters who are slightly ridiculous. They’re an afterthought. That may not be unusual in life, but it’s unusual to see in films._

However, what’s especially interesting about the film’s depiction of gender is that the world of women is anything but a utopia. Yes, it’s relatively free of toxic masculinity and the male gaze, but in most other aspects, there’s no real difference between the matriarchy and the patriarchy. Sure, the women are much smarter than the men who surround them, but they are no less greedy or cruel. At the film’s post-première press conference at the Venice Film Festival, Lanthimos explained,

> _what we tried to do is portray women as human beings. Because of the prevalent male gaze in cinema, women are portrayed as housewives, girlfriends…Our small contribution is we’re just trying to show them as complex and wonderful and horrific as they are, like other human beings._

The preening and pettiness of the men, of course, is purposely overdone (Harley proclaims at one point that “_a man must look pretty_”), creating a _milieu_ where it is men, not women, who tend to be judged by their appearance, objectified, and used. Just look at the hilarious scene where Abigail coldly gives Masham a hand-job as she ruminates about more important matters – once she has gotten what she wants from him (his hand in marriage), she is no longer interested in him whatsoever, a direct reversal of traditional filmic gender roles, where it is usually men who use women. Men, in _The Favourite_, are utterly disposable.

As regards criticisms, although I personally wouldn’t class them as flaws, some people will probably dislike the same things that many have disliked in Lanthimos’s previous work – cold formal rigidity, perverse sense of humour, and irredeemable characters being irredeemably horrible to one another. There will be those who find the obviously intentional anachronisms too much, whilst others will take umbrage with the disregard for historical authenticity. For me, whilst I admire Lanthimos for trying to bring something new to his _oeuvre_, especially when compared to _Sacred Deer_, I felt the film was oftentimes trying to work its way through an identity crisis, unsure of exactly what kind of tone to settle on. I had similar feelings about the allegories that run throughout, but are never what you would call fully fleshed out. Obviously, it’s a treatise on power and the ridiculous opulence of royalty, but that’s not exactly an untapped issue in cinema. Additionally, one of my biggest problems with _Sacred Deer_ was how utterly pointless it felt, and although I got a lot more out of _The Favourite_, I had something of the same reaction to it. It could also be argued that the characters are a little two dimensional, and filmgoers who need a protagonist to latch onto, someone to root for, will be left rudderless.

_The Favourite_ will probably attract a sizable unprepared audience because of awards buzz, positive reviews, and excellent trailer. Undoubtedly, for a lot of people, this will be their first exposure to Lanthimos, and I can only imagine what people expecting a Merchant-Ivory costume drama will make of it all. Neither morally enlightening nor historically respectful, _The Favourite_ offers a bleak assessment of humanity’s core drives; not Lanthimos’s bleakest, but a hell of a lot more nihilistic than an average multiplex goer will be used to. The characters within the film live in a _milieu_ of egotism, narcissism, sexual cruelty, psychological bullying, greed, and hunger for power. There’s barely a hint of sentimentality, and very little that could be called morally righteous. I would have liked it to have more meat on its bones, but at the same time, one cannot deny that it presents something of a faithful looking-glass, as Lanthimos continues to corner the market in pointing out not just humanity’s worst foibles, but its most egregious eccentricities and lamentable character defects.

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Watch Movie The Favourite

The Favourite,Watch Movie

The Favourite Online Movie

The Favourite complete Film izle

See full Movie

See The Favourite complete Movie “

The Favourite

The Favourite records

The Favourite the trailer Movie

The Favourite Movie

The Favourite cast

The Favourite

The Favourite Imdb

The Favourite blog Movie

The Favourite wikipedia

The Favourite wiki

The Favourite age rating

The Favourite Movie poster

The Favourite best

The Favourite Movie trailer

The Favourite mask

The Favourite for the first time

Watch Under the Silver Lake 2018 Full Movie Online

Download Under the Silver Lake 2018 Full Movie Online

good popular movies

Castname:Andrew Garfield, Riley Keough, Topher Grace, Jimmi Simpson, Riki Lindhome, Zosia Mamet, Callie Hernandez, Patrick Fischler, Don McManus, Summer Bishil

Crewname :David Robert Mitchell, David Robert Mitchell, Michael Bassick, Chris Bender, Luke Daniels, Michael De Luca, Jason Dreyer, Jeff Geoffray, Jenny Hinkey, Ryan R. Johnson

Release :2018-06-21

Overview: Young and disenchanted Sam meets a mysterious and beautiful woman who’s swimming in his building’s pool one night. When she suddenly vanishes the next morning, Sam embarks on a surreal quest across Los Angeles to decode the secret behind her disappearance, leading him into the murkiest depths of mystery, scandal and conspiracy.

Reviews :Relatable? Hell no. But a little bit of weirdness helps the medicine go down and _Under the Silver Lake_ is a fine sort of movie to just let happen. The performances are decent, and sure, there’s a lot of wank happening here, but some originality too, and that goes a long way.

_Final rating:★★★ – I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
I loved It Follows and I’m loving this.

The collaboration between Mitchell and Disasterpeace is fantastic once again. (This is what an impressionistic soundtrack sounds like Mr Nolan). Visually it is very stimulating without smacking you about the face with technique.

Might not be for everybody. I imagine it might hit too close to home for a lot of young men aged between 22 and 35.

If it appears that the movie concerns itself with a flimsy predicament enhanced by arguably shallow pop culture aspects then that’s because it’s precisely what a significant proportion of the male population, like the main character,(played by Andrew Garfield who is superb too) preoccupy themselves with. “It’s as common as tits and hamburgers.”

“Your art. Your writing. Your culture, is the shell of other men’s ambitions. Ambitions beyond what you will ever understand.”

Time will tell on this. I’m sure of it.
**_Just like Mulholland Drive. Except really, really, really awful_**

>_I got sent the script for_ Under The Silver Lake _and it was as mind-bending in word, as it was, in deed, as it were. It was 160-odd pages, which is about 30 or 40 pages more than the usual script, and it was like as if Sean Astin’s character, Mikey, from_ The Goonies _is far too old to still be going on adventures, but he still wants to. But now he’s in a David Lynch film that’s set in a Los Angeles that’s like the antithesis of the_ La La Land _Los Angeles. The deep, dark underbelly of L.A. And I read it and I just th__ought, this is totally marvellous and totally unique, and it’s very, very rare that you get a unique piece of cinema in this day and age. I thought, well, I love_ The Goonies_, and I love David Lynch, and I love Los Angeles._

>_Also I loved it because it was quite skewering of Hollywood and a kind of patriarchal abusive system. I think Sam sees himself as a Travis Bickle. He sees himself as this liberator, he’s fully deluded in this self-assessment. He sees himself as this vigilante liberator of the divine, sacred feminine in Hollywood. But actually he has a tendency to perpetuate the same abuse in an unconscious way perhaps. I just found it really, really interesting, and it’s a mystery, within a mystery, within a mystery, and there’s no getting to the centre of it. I think that’s maybe the point – we’re on a constant quest towards the centre of things. And perhaps that’s enough, just being on the quest is enough._

– Andrew Garfield; “Andrew Garfield Interview: _Under the Silver Lake_, Pop Culture Obsessions, and Spider-Verse” (Ben Travis); _Empire_ (March 19, 2019)

In 2001, an unknown 26-year-old filmmaker named Richard Kelly released a film called _Donnie Darko_. Filmed on a tight budget over a few weeks, it made little impact at the box-office, but was critically championed as heralding a genuinely unique and exciting voice in genre filmmaking. The following year, the film was released on VHS and DVD, earning twice as much as it did at the cinema, and giving Kelly virtual _carte blanche_ for his next project. In 2006, that hotly-anticipated project was premièred in a rough-cut form at Cannes. The 160-minute _Southland Tales_ was savaged by critics, and went through multiple re-edits before a 144-minute version was released theatrically in North America in 2007. Grossing less than $1 million against a $7 million budget, the film was released straight-to-DVD in most international territories. Kelly’s career has yet to recover, and he has made only one film since. In 2014, David Robert Mitchell released his second feature, _It Follows_, which he shot on a tight budget over a few weeks. A box office and critical success, the film was championed as heralding a genuinely unique and exciting voice in genre filmmaking, giving Mitchell virtual _carte blanche_ for his next project. In 2018, that hotly-anticipated project was premièred at Cannes, where it was savaged by critics.

Okay, the analogy isn’t perfect – _Southland Tales_ was Kelly’s second film, whereas _Under the Silver Lake_ is Mitchell’s third; _It Follows_ was nowhere near as good or as celebrated as _Donnie Darko_; and _Under the Silver Lake_ isn’t quite as bad as _Southland Tales_, nor have the negative reviews from Cannes been quite as damning or universal. However, the sequence of events is undeniably similar – a young filmmaker riding high on an unexpected success dusts off an ambitious older project he had been unable to make at the time, and is given far too much autonomy and leeway, resulting in a pretentious, self-indulgent, convoluted, overlong mess. It’s like no one has learnt from the hubris of Michael Cimino!

Positioning itself as equal parts neo-noir and genre subversion, _Under the Silver Lake_ is essentially a cross between David Lynch’s _Mulholland Drive_ (2001) and Thomas Pynchon’s _Inherent Vice_ (2009). With the major difference being that it’s absolutely, unrelentingly terrible. As with Mitchell’s previous films, _Silver Lake_ works as both an example and a subversion of genre – _The Myth of the American Sleepover_ (2010) was a homage to films such as Peter Bogdanovich’s _The Last Picture Show_ (1971), George Lucas’s _American Graffiti_ (1973) and the work of John Hughes, whilst also deconstructing the coming-of-age subgenre; and _It Follows_ recalls films such as William Friedkin’s _The Exorcist_ (1973), Wes Craven’s _A Nightmare on Elm Street_ (1984) and the work of John Carpenter, whilst also satirising the tropes of such films. _Silver Lake_ is no different – a mystery noir à la Robert Aldrich’s _Kiss Me Deadly_ (1955), Robert Altman’s _The Long Goodbye_ (1973), and Roman Polański’s _Chinatown_ (1974), the film is also at pains to undermine and critique many of the generic markers found in such films. A 140-minute labyrinthine, paranoia-laden shaggy-dog story full of MacGuffins, false leads, narrative dead ends, and unexplained details, the film relocates the detective stories of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett to the chaotic postmodern era of cognitive semiotics where the relationship between signifier and signified is now so arbitrary that meaning-making itself has become a protean commodity. However, it is easily the most self-important piece of garbage I’ve seen in a long time; a philosophically juvenile rumination thoroughly convinced of its own portentousness. Fundamentally misogynistic (it’s not misogyny, apparently, because Mitchell is being super-ironic when he presents no less than six female characters as literal sex toys for the protagonist), it’s at least 45 minutes too long, with an unfocused narrative, poorly thought-out metaphors, an insipid protagonist, about 377 themes, and a laughable screenplay. The cinematography is pretty though.

Set in contemporary LA, _Under the Silver Lake_ follows Sam (Andrew Garfield), a 33-year-old man-child with no job, no ambition, and no direction, whose day consists of sitting on his balcony watching his neighbour (Wendy Vanden Heuvel) parade around topless, having unfulfilling NSA sex with a friend-with-benefits (Riki Lindhome), and visiting his drinking buddy (Topher Grace) to use a drone to spy on women (it should tell you a bunch about the film that none of these three characters are even assigned a name). Out of the blue, he meets and instantly falls in love with Sarah (an admittedly radiant Riley Keough), but when he visits her apartment the day after meeting her, he finds her gone and the apartment empty, apart from a shoebox with a photograph and a few trinkets, and a strange symbol painted on the wall. Although he later identifies Sarah as one of three women killed in a car crash alongside billionaire media mogul (and professional stuntman) Jefferson Sevence (Chris Gann), having recognised a hat found at the scene to be hers, he refuses to believe she’s dead. And so begins an odyssey to track her down that ultimately involves, amongst other things, a parrot who keeps repeating the same meaningless phrase, a hipster pirate, secret codes hidden in everyday objects such as statues, song lyrics, _Nintendo Power_ magazines, and cereal boxes, a glam rock band named Jesus and the Brides of Dracula, the July 1970 issue of _Playboy_, a dog murderer, a conspiracy theorist comic book writer (Patrick Fischler), the Hobo Code, a vast network of underground tunnels, an actual literal homeless king (David Yow), a helpful coyote, an unhelpful skunk, an escort agency staffed by former child-stars, a balloon dancer (Grace Van Patten), a walled-off Xanadu-like mansion, a mysterious songwriter (Jeremy Bobb) with a strange claim, a female serial killer who enters men’s apartments wearing nothing but an owl mask, and a New Age cult lead by super-wealthy men.

And if this makes it sound convoluted, unwieldly, and overly plotted, believe me, you don’t know the half of it.

Perhaps the most immediately obvious aspects of _Silver Lake_ is the sheer range of homages that Mitchell includes at both plot and formal levels. Some of these homages are impressively handled, some not so much. The music by Rich Vreeland, for example, and the cinematography by Mike Gioulakis are both extremely retro, serving to situate the film firmly in the formal styles of yesterday. Vreeland’s score (although I didn’t like it in and of itself) is a solid imitation of the work of composers such as Franz Waxman (_Sunset Boulevard_; _A Place in the Sun_; _Rear Window_) and Bernard Herrmann (_Citizen Kane_; _Vertigo_; _Psycho_), whilst Gioulakis’s photography, with its overly dramatic camera movements and crash zooms that seem to come out of nowhere, recalls the work of Robert Burks (_Rear Window_; _To Catch a Thief_; _Vertigo_) and Sam Leavitt (_The Defiant Ones_; _Anatomy of a Murder_; _Cape Fear_).

Most of the other homages come at plot level, and although some are well integrated into the narrative, many feel shoehorned in, as if Mitchell is showing off his range of reference, so much so that the film essentially becomes pastiche. Examples include Sam’s mother’s obsession with Janet Gaynor, particularly Frank Borzage’s _7th Heaven_ (1927); Sam sitting on his balcony using binoculars to spy on people, á la L.B. Jefferies (James Stewart) in Alfred Hitchcock’s _Rear Window_ (1954); Sam’s fascination with Don Ornitz’s picture of Janet Wolf from the cover of the July 1970 issue of _Playboy_; a Nirvana poster above Sam’s bed; Sam and Sarah watching Jean Negulesco’s _How to Marry a Millionaire_ (1953); a brief glimpse of an _Amazing Spider-Man_ comic (intertextual and self-reflexive, given Garfield’s appearance as the titular character in two films); a visual quotation of Marilyn Monroe in a swimming pool from George Cukor’s unfinished _Something’s Got to Give_ (1962); the Brides of Dracula doing a cover of Lulu’s “To Sir with Love” (1967) from James Clavell’s film of the same name; R.E.M.’s “Strange Currencies” (1994) playing at a party; a visit to Griffith Observatory from Nicholas Ray’s _Rebel Without a Cause_ (1955); references to the original _Legend of Zelda_ (1986); a very on-the-nose shot of a gravestone with the word “Hitchcock” on it; and a scene that references songs as varied as The Arrows’ “I Love Rock ‘n’ Roll” (1975), Gary Portnoy’s “Where Everybody Knows Your Name” (1982) from the TV show _Cheers_, Foreigner’s “I Want to Know What Love Is” (1984), Harold Faltermeyer’s “Axel F” (1985) from the film _Beverly Hills Cop_, Pixies’ “Where is my Mind?” (1988), Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” (1991), and Backstreet Boys’ “I Want it That Way” (1999). The most consistent referential touchstone, however, is David Lynch, particularly _Mulholland Drive_, an infinitely superior mystery thriller also set in the darker environs of LA involving a sprawling cast of strange characters.

Thematically, the film is all over the place, never settling on any one issue (or even a few issues), instead jumping around like a hyperactive puppy trying to be in eight different places at once. Characters say things such as “_who isn’t being followed these days?_” and “_the ideology you thought you adopted through free will was actually subliminal messaging_”, but it’s all meaningless in a narrative chaos where nothing is ever examined for more than a couple of minutes before the film leaps onto something new. Positing that pop culture has profound hidden meaning (in direct contrast to most cultural-anthropological thinking), the film is so imprecise and scattered that it’s impossible to tell if Mitchell actually buys into the notion that schizophrenic conspiracies are all around us or if he’s being facetious.

And yes, I understand what he’s doing here – presenting the film from the point of view of a pop culture-saturated Millennial who’s easily distracted and hence keeps losing the run of his own story. However, just because it’s apparent what the director is trying to do doesn’t mean he has succeeded. Oliver Stone did a far better job of depicting a similarly media-soaked shortened-attention span over 20 years ago with _Natural Born Killers_ (1994). Easily the most interesting issue touched on is the concept that much of what has defined generations and been the artistic impetus behind and symbol of cultural revolutions throughout the 20th century all comes from the same corrupted and cynical place; the music that has most embodied rebellion and freedom is actually even more manufactured than the worst boy band could ever be. This is a fascinating and fundamentally postmodernist way of thinking, but mere moments after introducing it, Mitchell abandons the theme entirely in favour of a piece of absolutely gratuitous violence which says nothing of interest about anything.

The most troubling thing about the film from a thematic point of view, however, is how it depicts women. Yes, it’s partly about the male gaze and how Hollywood has a track record of objectifying women, especially in films of this nature, so a degree of objectification is necessary. But Mitchell does it to the point where critique simply becomes content – he doesn’t need six women (only two of whom are even given names, and none of whom receive much in the way of characterisation) to throw themselves at Sam to adequately deconstruct the trope. Granted, his intentions may be noble; he is obviously side-lining the female characters with the goal of satirising male entitlement, but he is unable to distinguish between replication and repudiation. All the best intentions in the world don’t alter the fact that the women in the film are wallpaper, and his attempt to critique Hollywood’s tendency to depict women as such ends up as simply another example of the very trope he is setting out to critique. So all the unnecessarily topless shots aren’t exploitative you see, because irony!! Additionally, it’s worth mentioning that Sam doesn’t initiate a single sexual encounter; every one of them is initiated by the woman. How does that fit into Mitchell’s deconstruction of Hollywood’s depiction of men using women, if the women are essentially allowing themselves to be used? If his critique was in any way consistent, Sam would be seducing them, not the other way around, thus allowing Mitchell to directly engage with the notion that men look at women as playthings. It’s a facile attempt to critique a theme that cries out this is a filmmaker attempting something that he simply doesn’t have the requisite ability to pull off.

And if only these thematic issues were the film’s only problems, it mightn’t be so bad. Unfortunately, there is so, so much else wrong here. This is a (supposed) satire, yet there is practically no humour. There are a couple of funny scenes (such as when Sam beats up two children for egging his car), but they are few and far between. Additionally, Mitchell completely fails to make us care about Sam or his quest to find Sarah; there is no emotional connection whatsoever. As for the quest itself, it soon becomes obvious that we’re following Sam down a rabbit-hole which Mitchell has filled to the brim with pointless digressions, meaningless distractions, and derivative clichés. Whereas in _Mulholland Drive_, Lynch creates a beautiful and complex tapestry where everything has precise meaning, with no wasted motion, no weirdness simply for weirdness sake, in _Silver Lake_, Mitchell just lobs anything and everything at the viewer whether it’s ultimately significant or not. A pirate? Sure. A female serial killer? Why not. A dog murderer? Of course. A story that makes sense and deals with its themes coherently? Don’t be ridiculous. It’s like the worst type of student film where the filmmaker has been allowed to shoot whatever he wants, and ends up making something so convoluted that any meaning it may have becomes subsumed amongst self-important pretension. And the more needlessly complex and bloated the plot becomes, the less interesting it is. The whole thing smacks of Mitchell shouting “_look at me. Look how wacky I am._”

_Under the Silver Lake_ is a tiresome, self-important, overlong, intellectually juvenile mess. If Mitchell actually has anything to say about subliminal messaging, the commodification of women, wealth buying privileges even in the afterlife, the pervasiveness of pop culture, or conspiracy theories, it’s lost within a painfully dull and self-indulgent plot. With _It Follows_, Mitchell was constricted by a tight budget. With _Silver Lake_, he has been allowed to play relatively unsupervised in the sandbox, and the results are disastrous; a swollen, self-admiring film that can’t follow through on anything, thematically or narratively, a film that is totally and completely in love with itself.

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Watch Movie Under the Silver Lake

Under the Silver Lake,Watch Movie

Under the Silver Lake Online Movie

Under the Silver Lake complete Film izle

See full Movie

See Under the Silver Lake complete Movie “

Under the Silver Lake

Under the Silver Lake records

Under the Silver Lake the trailer Movie

Under the Silver Lake Movie

Under the Silver Lake cast

Under the Silver Lake

Under the Silver Lake Imdb

Under the Silver Lake blog Movie

Under the Silver Lake wikipedia

Under the Silver Lake wiki

Under the Silver Lake age rating

Under the Silver Lake Movie poster

Under the Silver Lake best

Under the Silver Lake Movie trailer

Under the Silver Lake mask

Under the Silver Lake for the first time

Download Can You Ever Forgive Me? 2018 Full Movie Online

Watch Can You Ever Forgive Me? 2018 Full Movie Online

most popular movies by year

Castname:Melissa McCarthy, Richard E. Grant, Dolly Wells, Jane Curtin, Ben Falcone, Stephen Spinella, Gregory Korostishevsky, Anna Deavere Smith, Christian Navarro, Erik LaRay Harvey

Crewname :Marielle Heller, Nicole Holofcener, Lee Israel, Brandon Trost, Nate Heller, Anne McCabe, Stephen H. Carter, Jawal Nga, Pamela Hirsch, Bob Balaban

Release :2018-10-19

Overview: When a bestselling celebrity biographer is no longer able to get published because she has fallen out of step with current tastes, she turns her art form to deception.

Reviews :Lee Israel was selfish, cold, sad, and disreputable. She was also really fun to know. Sookie nails this one.
Mad props to Melissa McCarthy for turning it around with this after _Happytime Murders_ and _Life of the Party_. Actually after basically every single thing I’ve seen her in up until this point. I honestly can’t think of a single role I’ve liked her in. Until Lee Israel of course, because as her, in this, McCarthy is great.

Respect for Richard E. Grant in the supporting role as well.

It took me a little while after I’d finished watching _Can You Ever Forgive Me?_ to realise I liked it as much as I did, but I did.

_Final rating:★★★ – I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
**_Unexpectedly emotional, with a towering central performance_**

> _I had never known anything but up in my career, had never received even one of those formatted no-thank-you slips that successful writers look back upon with triumphant jocularity. And I regarded with pity and disdain the short-sleeved wage slaves who worked in offices. I had no reason to believe life would get anything but better. I had had no experience failing_.

– Lee Israel; _Can You Ever Forgive Me?: Memoirs of a Literary Forger_ (2008)

Directed by Marielle Heller, with a screenplay by Nicole Holofcener (who was originally attached to direct) and Jeff Whitty, _Can You Ever Forgive Me?_ is based on Lee Israel’s 2008 memoir, _Can You Ever Forgive Me?: Memoirs of a Literary Forger_. Taking the form of a buddy crime caper in which two mismatched rogues are thrown together by circumstances and set out to stick it to a system, if you strip away the easily-digestible/easily-marketable surface, you’ll find that _Can You Ever Forgive Me?_ is a surprisingly moving study of loneliness.

Funny in places, the film is very much anchored by its two leads – Melissa McCarthy as Israel herself, a broke unemployed 51-year-old lesbian alcoholic who is pouring her time and energy into a book no one wants to read, and is unable to even pay her beloved cat’s vet fees; and Richard E. Grant as her (fictional) friend Jack Hock, a promiscuous homeless homosexual junkie. On paper, these are not the kind of people you’d want to spend time with, nor the kind of people you’d expect to care about. But Holofcener and Whitty’s script is so good, Heller’s direction so subtle, and the performances so nuanced and layered that you do come to care for them. Rather deeply in fact. Indeed, there’s a scene about three-quarters of the way through the film that’s one of the most devastatingly succinct depictions of utter heartbreak and physically manifested grief that I can recall seeing on screen. The film is presented in such a way as to show us that behind the acerbic façade these two people have constructed for themselves, they are vulnerable, lonely, and scared, and although neither would admit it, they are both crying out for meaningful human companionship. There’s a lot of pathos in that, and Heller makes sure to mine every single bit of it in what is an unexpectedly exceptional film.

Set in New York in 1991 against the backdrop of the AIDS epidemic, the film tells the story of Lee Israel (McCarthy). Once a celebrated biographer, her books _Miss Tallulah Bankhead_ (1972) and _Kilgallen: An Intimate Biography of Dorothy Kilgallen_ (1980) were both well received, with Kilgallen placing on _The New York Times_ Best Seller list. However, her 1985 book, _Estée Lauder: Beyond the Magic_, was a critical and commercial failure, and she is subsequently unable to generate interest in a proposed biography of Fanny Brice. By 1991, finding herself out of touch with the current literary vogue of prolific and trashy celebratory authors such as Tom Clancy, she has become so irrelevant that her agent, Marjorie (Jane Curtin), is reluctant to return her calls, ultimately telling her she should find another line of work. Financially crippled, Israel is unable even to afford the vet bill for her beloved cat, Jersey, and so she begins to sell her belongings, including a letter from Katharine Hepburn. Whilst continuing to research her Brice biography, she happens upon an original letter from Brice folded in a book. Taking it to a local book-seller, Anna (Dolly Wells), Israel is told that the more interesting the contents of a letter, the more it will sell for. With this in mind, she begins to forge and sell letters by deceased celebrities such as Edna Ferber, Dorothy Parker, Ernest Hemingway, Noël Coward, Marlene Dietrich, Lillian Hellman, and Louise Brooks, ensuring they contain intimate details so as to command a higher price. Meanwhile, Israel develops a friendship with Jack Hock (Grant), who is eventually pulled into her scheme. However, when the forgeries are discovered and the FBI become involved, both Israel and Jack find themselves in over their heads.

The film was originally announced in April 2015, with Julianne Moore as Israel, and Nicole Holofcener (_Friends With Money_; _Please Give_; _Enough Said_), set to direct from her own script. In May, Chris O’Dowd was cast as Jack. However, in July, Moore dropped out due to “creative differences”, and was soon followed by Holofcener and O’Dowd. In May 2016, Melissa McCarthy was cast as Israel, with Marielle Heller (_The Diary of a Teenage Girl_), directing from playwright Jeff Whitty’s (_Avenue Q_; _Head Over Heels_) rewrite of Holofcener’s original script. The phrase “_can you ever forgive me_”, which is also the title of Israel’s memoirs, is taken from a line Israel used in a forged letter from Dorothy Parker. The real Israel began writing in the 1960s for _The New York Times_ and _Soap Opera Digest_. In 1967, she wrote a piece on Katharine Hepburn shortly after the death of Spencer Tracy that was published in _Esquire_. In 1972, she published _Miss Tallulah Bankhead_, and in 1980, _Kilgallen: An Intimate Biography of Dorothy Kilgallen_, which made it onto _The New York Times_ Best Seller list.

In 1983, Macmillan paid her an advance to begin a warts-and-all Estée Lauder biography. Lauder herself tried to block the biography, with Israel claiming that Lauder repeatedly offered to pay her off to stop writing. When Israel refused, Lauder began writing her own memoirs. Both were published in 1985, but Israel’s was critically thrashed and a commercial failure. Israel later wrote,

> _instead of taking a great deal of money from a woman rich as Oprah, I published a bad, unimportant book, rushed out in months to beat hers to market._

With the failure of the book, Israel’s career went into rapid decline, and she was soon on food stamps (which isn’t shown in the film). Upon beginning her letter scam, Israel went to extraordinary lengths to make her forgeries difficult to detect – she obtained old typewriters appropriate to the era in which the letters were supposedly written, with each typewriter assigned to a different person; in order to match the paper to that used in real letters, she would tear out blank pages from the back of contemporaneous periodical journals, or, when that wasn’t an option, she would bake paper to age it; she read real letters from her subjects to better ensure that the cadence of her forgeries was appropriate; she would trace over signatures by placing pages on an upturned TV. According to Israel, she either altered, forged, or stole over 400 letters in total.

Fundamentally, _Can You Ever Forgive Me?_ is not about Israel’s scam; it’s about two exceptionally flawed people. Just as she did in her debut feature, Heller presents fully dimensional portraits of such people within the larger framework of a vibrantly realised milieu; in _Diary of a Teenage Girl_, it was the sexual liberation of San Francisco in the 1970s, whereas here it’s the AIDS epidemic of New York in the 1980s/1990s. However, just as _Diary_ was not about an epoch, but about a specific person within it, such is the case in _Forgive_, where AIDS is always present, but rarely foregrounded; it’s the backdrop of the story, not the subject. Credit must also be given to Holofcener and Whitty’s script, which vividly represents some extremely unpleasant aspects of Israel and Jack’s loneliness (Israel’s apartment, for example, is infested with flies, which isn’t the most subtle metaphor of all time, but it is effective). In this sense, the film fits very much into Holofcener’s _oeuvre_, and it would have been very interesting to see what she’d have done with the material had she remained on as director.

Cut off from virtually all human contact, grouchy and bitter, Israel only ever seems at ease when buried in research or lying in bed with Jersey. However, in contradistinction to most narratives about this type of acerbic personality (think films as varied as Peter Berg’s _Hancock_ or Alexander Payne’s _Nebraska_), there’s no real attempt to humanise or redeem Israel, and even when the story reaches its emotional apex, there’s no real sense of the moment being instructive or a watershed. Even when she goes on a date, she is afforded very little humanity, as she purposely sabotages the encounter moments after realising she is beginning to open up, as if she’s ashamed of herself for showing vulnerability. Indeed, in practical terms, Israel has very little arc; she’s a little softer at the end, but not much (in her final scene she laughs about being in a bar when she’s supposed to be at an AA meeting, and jokes about tripping up an AIDS patient with a crutch). Furthermore, the film never excuses her crimes. It does rationalise why she started forging letters, but it never celebrates or condones her activities.

Absolutely committing to her performance, Melissa McCarthy completely immerses herself in Israel, in what is easily her best role to date. Helped in no small part by the frumpy costume design by Arjun Bhasin (_Life of Pi_; _Love is Strange_) and the less-than-flattering hairstyling by Linda D. Flowers (_Captain America: The First Avenger_; _The Hunger Games_; _Furious 7_), Israel seems organically fused to the production design of Stephen H. Carter (_The Bourne Legacy_; _Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)_; _Spotlight_), with her world one of dirty browns, dark beiges, and neutralising greys. Both the film and McCarthy lean into the fact that Israel is such a contentious, contrary, and unlikable individual. In an early scene at a party, for example, Israel steals toilet rolls, some shrimp, and someone’s jacket. At one point, an exacerbated Marjorie tells her, “_you have destroyed every bridge I have built for you_”, explaining, “_either become a nicer person or make a name for yourself. As an unknown, you can’t be such a bitch._”

However, what makes the performance so good is that no matter how cruel Israel is, no matter how irreverent and combative, her loneliness is always there to see, making it difficult to dislike her as much as we should. McCarthy touches on everything from friendship to creative insecurity to heartbreak, so as easy as it is to view her antagonistically, it’s almost impossible to really condemn her. Yes, her exterior is prickly and calloused, but it serves to cover up not insignificant pain. Yes, she can be unjustifiably misanthropic, but she’s also extremely vulnerable. McCarthy plays Israel as her own worst enemy, a deeply sad woman, whose acerbity is both a cause and a result of her situation. Where the performance really excels is in the subtle ways McCarthy shows us Israel’s buried humanity, demonstrating how much she craves companionship – we see it in how she is when alone with Jersey, we see it in how she gravitates towards Jack, we see it in the early parts of her date with Anne, we see it in a brief scene when she meets up with her ex, Elaine (Anna Deavere Smith).

McCarthy is perfectly matched by Richard E. Grant, who plays Jack as a rouge’s rouge, difficult to pin down (when Lee asks him what he does, he replies, “_oh, this and that. Mainly that_”), a mischievous shark-ish smile permanently on his face, never one to let minor things like homelessness or drug addiction get him down. Their chemistry is perfectly modulated, and their scenes together (which take up about half of the film) are so well written and performed, so hilariously denigrating and quick-witted, you’d be happy to sit there watching them all day. Like McCarthy, Grant is well aware of Jack’s flaws, and like McCarthy, he emphasises them rather hides them. Jack actually has a more conventional arc than Israel, and two scenes in particular really push the audience’s ability to view him sympathetically. Whilst Israel remains on a relatively even keel throughout, with her worst characteristics on display from the get-go, Jack’s core is revealed more slowly, and towards the end of the film, his choices show his character in a different, and not especially flattering, light. With this in mind, it’s a testament to Grant’s performance that Jack remains so demonstrably human throughout.

One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the pride that Israel takes in what she is doing. Yes, it’s criminal, but she takes the work very seriously and is proud of the results. In her book, Israel argued that the forged letters were the best work of her career, far surpassing her three biographies, proudly claiming, “_I’m a better Dorothy Parker than Dorothy Parker_”. When Jack mentions what she’s doing is not dissimilar to the _Hitler Diaries_, she momentarily beams with pride. At a later point, when Jack expresses disdain for the importance of the forgeries, Israel chastises him, telling him the letters are “_a portal into a better time and a better place when people still respected the written word_”, following this up with the curt, “_respect what you’re selling_”. She may be a criminal, but she has reverence for what she does.

In reality, Israel had struggled for decades to find her place in New York’s literary scene, unsuccessfully (of course, it didn’t help that she despised everyone in the industry). She had spent the 1970s and 1980s writing biographies, but by the early 90s, the scene had changed, and she had failed to change with it. Who can blame Marjorie for not being especially interested in a biography of Fanny Brice when she has someone like Tom Clancy as a client? Sure, he’s a hack who churns out variations on the same story over and over again (think a slightly more talented Dan Brown), but his books sell millions, whereas Israel’s most recent work was marked down by 75% only weeks after going on sale. Indeed, the film takes a particularly funny swipe at Clancy (although he’s never mentioned in the memoirs). He is shown at a party (played by Kevin Carolan), wearing the most pretentious polo-neck I’ve ever seen, and conceitedly telling a group of hangers-on,

> _writer’s block is a term invented by the writing community to justify their laziness. My success is nothing more than that I have the dedication and stamina to sit and get the work done._

Of course, the fact that Israel’s forgeries proved so successful highlighted two extremes of her ability; yes, she could be genuinely creative, but only when imitating someone else’s voice. This is why she was such a good biographer – apart from being a diligent researcher, the most important skill for a biographer is the ability to place the reader in the head of the subject, i.e. to imitate them. The letters proved that Israel could do this with unparalleled success (much to her amusement, two of the letters she forged from Coward were actually published in the first imprint of Barry Day’s 2007 book, _The Letters of Noël Coward_, although they were removed for the second printing). They also demonstrated that she had a keen and caustic literary wit, although it was a talent of which she unsure what to do for most of her life. Interestingly, in the book, Israel says she was uncomfortable with the fact that due to increased scrutiny on the part of buyers, she had to start stealing real letters from archives, replacing them with forgeries, and then selling the originals. Not only does outright theft violate the sanctity of the written word which she holds so dear, but, perhaps more importantly, the creative element of her work was now lost – all she was doing was copying from one page to another. Indeed, when the film depicts this phase of her forgeries, it does so dispassionately, void of the sense of fun which had been very apparent up to this point.

Aesthetically, the film is gorgeous in how drab it looks. I’ve seen numerous critics talk about how evocative it is of a New York that’s long since gone, and, having never been to New York, I’ll have to take their word for it, but I’ll certainly agree it exudes an evocative sense of place, reminding me of something like the New York of Spike Lee’s _25th Hour_ (2002) or the Tokyo of Sofia Coppola’s _Lost in Translation_ (2003). I’ve already mentioned the production design, wardrobe, and hair, but equally as impressive is the cinematography by Brandon Trost (_Crank: High Voltage_; _Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping_; _The Disaster Artist_). It’s rare that you see a film where it doesn’t just look cold, it literally feels cold, as if the weather has somehow gotten into the texture of the celluloid. This damp and dreary New York is a million miles from the more romantic depictions of the city we’re so used to seeing. It’s a place where people still smoke in bars and workplaces and do cocaine in public toilets, where there are warm, cosy bookshops on every street corner. Again, I can’t attest to this myself, but I’m told the venerable old-school New York bookshop is, sadly, a dying breed, an analogue institution in an increasingly digital world. The point is, the world of the film feels lived in; from Israel’s horrific apartment with its cat faeces and fly infestation, to the bookshops, to the gay bars she and Jack frequent – everything feels like it was just filmed as is, without an art department finessing it, even extending to the props, which prove so important once Israel has acquired multiple typewriters.

It’s rare I write a review in which I legitimately struggle for something to criticise, but this is such a review. Aside from Israel lacking an arc (which I personally don’t see as a problem, but some definitely will), the only other thing I would bring up concerns the tone of the story, which remains detached, and which some will probably find too impersonal. I guess some people might find the story a bit dull as well.

This is a film about fundamentally broken people trying to put themselves back together, about people on the edge trying to chart a course to the centre, about scavengers trying to find something life-changing in the wreckage. It asks the question (although never explicitly) how such a talented writer as Israel could have gone unnoticed and ended up as she did. With the industry what it is today, this is an even more pertinent question than it was in 1991 (or 2001. Or 2011 for that matter). What is on the surface (and what is being marketed as) a caper dramedy is, in fact, a much deeper and more observant study of human frailties and failings, a paean to the importance of friendship, and (cliché alert) the importance of love (even if it’s only of the feline variety). Melissa McCarthy gives a monumental performance in a role that, in any other year, would have made her a favourite for Best Actress. This year, she’s competing against Olivia Colman for her performance in Yorgos Lanthimos’s _The Favourite_, which means she hasn’t a hope in hell of winning. However, hopefully, this will lead to more dramatic roles down the line. She certainly deserves them.

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Watch Movie Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Can You Ever Forgive Me?,Watch Movie

Can You Ever Forgive Me? Online Movie

Can You Ever Forgive Me? complete Film izle

See full Movie

See Can You Ever Forgive Me? complete Movie “

Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Can You Ever Forgive Me? records

Can You Ever Forgive Me? the trailer Movie

Can You Ever Forgive Me? Movie

Can You Ever Forgive Me? cast

Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Can You Ever Forgive Me? Imdb

Can You Ever Forgive Me? blog Movie

Can You Ever Forgive Me? wikipedia

Can You Ever Forgive Me? wiki

Can You Ever Forgive Me? age rating

Can You Ever Forgive Me? Movie poster

Can You Ever Forgive Me? best

Can You Ever Forgive Me? Movie trailer

Can You Ever Forgive Me? mask

Can You Ever Forgive Me? for the first time

Download Border 2018 Full Movie Online

Watch Border 2018 Full Movie Streaming

popular movies of all time

Castname:Eva Melander, Eero Milonoff, Sten Ljunggren, Ann Petrén, Rakel Wärmländer, Viktor Åkerblom-Nilsson, Jörgen Thorsson, Andreas Kundler, Matti Boustedt, Joakim Olsson

Crewname :Ali Abbasi, Nina Bisgaard, Peter Gustafsson, Petra Jönsson, Meta Louise Foldager, Louis Tisné, Mikael Windelin, Eva Åkergren, Nadim Carlsen, Olivia Neergaard-Holm

Release :2018-09-27

Overview: When a border guard with a sixth sense for identifying smugglers encounters the first person she cannot prove is guilty, she is forced to confront terrifying revelations about herself and humankind.

Reviews :_Eraserhead_ who?

_Final rating:★★★ – I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
_**Supremely weird and morally ambiguous; certainly not for everyone**_

> _If the external physical examination didn’t produce any results, she would apply for a warrant allowing a doctor to carry out a proper search. Check every orifice._

>_Robert came out, made a comment to the occupant of the room, and closed the door behind him. Tina hurried over. Her heart sank when she was only halfway across the hall; Robert was shaking his head._

>_”Nothing?” she asked._

>_”No,” said Robert. “Well, nothing that concerns us, anyway.”_

>_”What do you mean?”_

>_Robert drew her a little di__stance away from the door._

>_”Let me put it this way: you can rest easy. He did have something to hide, but nothing punishable by law. The problem is that we’ve now stopped him twice without…”_

>_”Yes, yes. Do you think I don’t know that? So what is it, then?”_

>_The thought had struck her, but she hadn’t seriously considered what Robert was suggesting: the fact that they might have been guilty of professional misconduct. Subjecting Vore to an examination on two separate occasions without any solid evidence for doing so. If Vore made a complaint, they would probably be reprimanded._

>_”The thing is,” said Robert, “he’s…he’s a woman.”_

>_”Come on, stop winding me up.”_

>_Robert folded his arms and looked uncomfortable. With exaggerated clarity he said, “He…or rather she, does not have a penis but a vagina, to use the technical term._ You _should have carried out that search, not me.”_

>_Tina stared at him open-mouthed for a few seconds._

>_”You’re not joking?”_

>_”No. And it was rather…embarrassing.”_

>_Robert looked so miserable that Tina burst out laughing. He looked at her, his expression furious._

>_”Sorry. Has he got…breasts as well?”_

>_”No. He must have had an operation or something. I didn’t actually ask. He’s got like a big scar just above his bum, by his tailbone. Whatever that might be. Now it’s_ your _turn to talk to him and try to explain that -“_

>_”What did you say? A scar?”_

>_”Yes. A scar. Here.” Robert pointed to the bottom of his back. “If you want to take this any further, you can do it yourself.” He shook his head and headed off towards the cafeteria. Tina stayed where she was, looking at the closed door. When she had thought things through she opened it and went in._

– John Ajvide Lindqvist; “Gräns”; from the short story collection _Pappersväggar_ [_Paper Walls_] (2006), republished in _Låt de gamla drömmarna dö_ [_Let the Old Dreams Die_] (2011)

Based on the short story of the same name by John Ajvide Lindqvist, written for the screen by Lindqvist, Ali Abbasi, and Isabella Eklöf, and directed by Abbasi, _Gräns_ [_Border_] is an intimate character drama, a study of loneliness, a romance, a police procedural, a body-horror, an investigation into what gives us our humanity, a psychological thriller, and a crime movie, set in a half-realist/half-fantastical _milieu_ which sees a woman who can smell guilt and commune with animals working as a customs agent at a small Swedish port. Because, obviously! However, no matter how fanciful the plot becomes, it remains grounded in an emotional realism which serves to normalise the outrageous events we’re witnessing.

Also a socio-political allegory and a mythological fable, _Gräns_ is indefinable, switching fluidly from one genre to the next and one idea to the next, taking in such issues as the Other, the tribe, social ostracisation, social assimilation, and our tendency to rush to superficial judgements of that which we don’t understand or which is different. Superbly acted and directed, there are, of course, a few problems; a subplot that feels disconnected from the main narrative, a ridiculous coincidence (the likes of which only ever happens in films), a twist you can see a mile away, and a pronounced moral ambiguity which is extremely difficult to parse. Nevertheless, this is unique filmmaking, which raises all manner of questions about how we act towards others, a crucial theme in a political arena which has seen an unprecedented growth in casual racism and xenophobic hatred.

Tina (a superb Eva Melander, acting under heavy prosthetics) is a customs officer with the ability to smell guilt, which makes her exceptionally good at her job. Suffering from deformities that give her a somewhat Neanderthal-like appearance, she lives an isolated life with her boyfriend Roland (Jörgen Thorsson), who is more interested in his pet Rottweilers that he is Tina. Unable to have sex because it hurts her too much, she and Roland sleep in separate beds. As the film begins, Tina intercepts a man (Viktor Åkerblom-Nilsson) carrying child pornography on his SIM card. It transpires that the police have been attempting to crack a prolific child porn ring for several months without any luck, and needing all the help she can get, the lead detective, Agneta (Ann Petrén), asks Tina to assist on the case. Meanwhile, Tina is shocked to encounter Vore (an extraordinarily physical performance by Eero Milonoff), who has the same deformities as herself. Although she smells something on him, she isn’t sure what it is, and she lets him through customs. A few days later, he passes through again, this time volunteering to be searched. Her colleague, Robert (Andreas Kundler), conducts the body search, but quickly discovers that Vore has a vagina. When he tells Tina that Vore also has a large scar on his back, at the base of his spine, she is shocked, as she too has such a scar. She visits her father, Birger (Sten Ljunggren), who is suffering from early stage dementia, to ask about her scar, which he says she got from a fall when she was three. Intrigued by Vore, Tina meets up with him and offers to let him stay in her guest house, much to Roland’s chagrin. Back on the trail of the child porn ring, Tina is able to identify the apartment in which the filming is taking place, and although they bust those in the apartment, they are unable to find anything on who may be trafficking the children. Meanwhile, back at Tina’s house, she and Vore begin to grow closer, until a fierce thunderstorm brings them together in ways they never expected.

Given the fantastical elements of the plot, one of the most interesting things about _Gräns_ is how grounded in realism the aesthetic is. According to Abbasi, the

> _story is stylised, it’s not realism; there are other elements, and it’s elevated. So we thought instead of going with that, with stylised shots or framing that kind of signals something_ special _is going on, we tried to go the_ other _way. Instead of going with the magical, we went with the realism in our cinematic language, which I think was the right thing to do because it kind of anchors the realism. Because if it wasn’t_ real_, you probably wouldn’t care about Tina._

Abbasi has a point here – one of the strongest elements of the film is how emotionally engaging and relatable Tina’s arc is; the events are fantastical in places, but the emotions are very much grounded in the everyday – loneliness, shyness, fear, love, disgust etc. The magic realist aesthetic allows the more unusual elements to exist without seeming (too) ridiculous, whilst also establishing that the world of the film is essentially the real world, just with some garnish added (in a strange way, it actually reminded me of Phil Alden Robinson’s _Field of Dreams_ (1989), a film set in a realistic _milieu_ that also features, without commentary or explanation, ghosts, communication with the afterlife, and time travel).

Abbasi does set up a contrast, however, between the scenes in the forest which surrounds Tina’s home and the rest of the locations. The forest is presented as a somewhat magical place from the start – it is where Tina is most comfortable (an early scene in which she chills with a gigantic moose is both illustrative of her psychology and extremely beautiful), where she goes when life starts to overwhelm her, often taking her shoes off so as to feel better connected to the natural world. Later, the forest is where Tina and Vore spend a lot of their time, where they give in to their attraction to one another (in what is easily the most bizarre sex scene outside a Lizzy Borden film you’re likely to see all year), and where they explore their history. Whilst everything else is filmed with a cold palette dominated by grey and washed out light blues and greens, with relatively unattractive locations, the forest is presented very differently – the colours are richer and deeper; the design elements are more imaginative; the camera work is more fluid; even the sound design is different, heightening the crunch of feet on the forest floor, the scurrying of insects, the wind blowing through the trees, the crash of water at a small waterfall, suggesting the whole place is vibrant and alive, in stark contrast to the cold stolid concrete and steel world seen elsewhere.

Thematically, _Gräns_ functions as both a straightforward narrative about loneliness and morality _and_ as a political allegory about the Other, belonging, tribalism, hatred based on difference. The opening scene establishes Tina as the emotional lynchpin of the story, showing both her kindness and her attraction to the animal world, as she gently handles a bug, before carefully placing it back into the grass. This theme continues throughout the film – there’s the aforementioned scene with the moose, a scene with a fox at Tina’s window in the middle of the night, a scene in which she is rushing her neighbour to hospital to give birth and stops to let a family of deer cross the road. These scenes are shot by cinematographer Nadim Carlsen with a sense of wonder, and an almost ethereal quality that wouldn’t have been out of place in something like Ridley Scott’s _Legend_ (1985) or Rob Reiner’s _The Princess Bride_ (1987). It’s as far removed from the mundanity of the customs desk or the brutality of the child porn ring as you can imagine. This is also reflected in the sex scene, which Abbasi and Carlsen shoot in such a way as to imply that Tina and Vore attain an emotional and spiritual transcendence far removed from the commonplaceness of an orgasm. The fact that immediately afterwards, as they lie side by side in the forest, he tells her the history of their “species”, solidifies the role the forest plays in the themes of the film, as their bond serves to deconstruct societal norms.

For all her closeness to animals, however, Tina is just as distant from humans; she has a good relationship with her father, with Robert, and with a young couple who live nearby (Tomas Åhnstrand and Josefin Neldén), but her relationship with Roland is dysfunctional at best, and she’s desperately lonely, in a society that shuns based on appearance. Indeed, one of the most salient themes in the film is the question of how we treat the Other, people who don’t fit into our definition of normal, or whom we don’t understand. Vore himself is introduced as something of a rebel against social norms; whereas Tina is ashamed of and tries to hide her differences from everyone else, he is proud of and leans into his – seen most clearly at a buffet, where he takes all the smoked salmon, and then hungrily eats it with little concern for social etiquette (or buffet etiquette).

The film also touches on issues such as what gives us our humanity, suggesting that in a world populated by humans lacking in humanity (seen most clearly in the child pornographers), maybe Tina and Vore are the most human characters, or certainly the most humane. Tied to this is the notion of finding one’s tribe, and what kind of sacrifices and subversions of one’s moral code, if any, are acceptable in that search. However, the film is also interested in the audience’s morality as well as that of the characters’. In short, it ends in an extremely morally ambiguous manner, and, to be honest, I found it very difficult to parse what Abbasi (or Lindqvist) is trying to say with it. I don’t want to give any spoilers, but in essence, Tina is forced to make decisions based on her own morality, at the expense of her emotional instincts, whilst Vore must attempt to justify something horrific (actually several things horrific) by way of arguing that humans have always persecuted beings like them. I’m not sure if the film had a happy ending or not, and although I got most of the symbolism and the allegories and the socio-political critiques, I’ve rarely come out of a movie with such a pronounced case of “what was the director trying to say with that?”

Elsewhere, the whole child porn subplot is troubling from a narrative point of view. For starters, it’s not very convincing in its concrete details (for example, Tina is allowed sit in on a suspect interrogation), whilst the idea of a couple running a child porn ring from their apartment seems a little unlikely. Additionally, for the most part, the subplot serves to do little but detract from the main plot. I get that it’s there to show us Tina’s abilities and her moral code, but too much time is given to it without it being made to seem in any way urgent or important. And when it is finally integrated into the main narrative, it does so with a plot twist so telegraphed, if you don’t see it coming, you’ve never seen a thriller before. Also, when we learn how the two plots connect, and when we backtrack in our mind to the start of the film, we find that the entire house of cards relied on a monumental coincidence which none of the characters could possibly have predicted, which cheapens both plot strands.

These missteps aside, _Gräns_ defies and subverts genre at every turn, remaining impossible to classify. Positing a message about how being different isn’t that bad when you still have your morals and self-respect, it also suggests to those of us that consider ourselves normal, that we shouldn’t be so quick to judge the Other, whether that Other is physically different, of a different ethnicity, a different religion etc. Exposing the layers upon which our society is built, the film is unafraid to suggest that hypocrisy and exclusion are major facets of Western civilisation. At a time when there are increasing calls for closed borders, increasingly irrational fear of the Other as represented by normal men and women who practice Islam, and increasingly jingoist and xenophobic hatred of anything not perfectly in line with established societal norms, the fact that Tina wants to integrate into normal society, but is essentially prevented from doing so, speaks volumes for our social ethos. The plot does go off the rails in the third act, and the morality of the _dénouement_ is a little questionable, but this is still a fine piece of work with a lot on its mind.

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Watch Movie Border

Border,Watch Movie

Border Online Movie

Border complete Film izle

See full Movie

See Border complete Movie “

Border

Border records

Border the trailer Movie

Border Movie

Border cast

Border

Border Imdb

Border blog Movie

Border wikipedia

Border wiki

Border age rating

Border Movie poster

Border best

Border Movie trailer

Border mask

Border for the first time

Download Arctic 2018 Full Movie Streaming

most popular movies of all time

Castname:Mads Mikkelsen, Maria Thelma Smáradóttir, Tintrinai Thikhasuk

Crewname :Joe Penna, Martha De Laurentiis, Einar Thorsteinsson, Ryan Morrison, Joe Penna, Chadwick Struck, Atli Geir Grétarsson, Margrét Einarsdóttir, Ryan Morrison, Tómas Örn Tómasson

Release :2018-11-21

Overview: A man stranded in the Arctic is finally about to receive his long awaited rescue. However, after a tragic accident, his opportunity is lost and he must then decide whether to remain in the relative safety of his camp or embark on a deadly trek through the unknown for potential salvation.

Reviews :Seems to be very little more than a blank slate on which to show to us that Mads Mikkelsen is a great actor, but like… We bin knew.

_Final rating:★★½ – Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Rochester Community and Technical College – RCTC is the ~ In July of 1996 Rochester Community College RCC and Minnesota Riverland Technical College Rochester merged to create Rochester Community and Technical College RCC is the oldest community college in Minnesota with roots dating back to 1915

Transportation Solutions ~ Mobility affects everyone and RCTC is the agency in Riverside County for transportation solutions that support our quality of life and our region’s economy

eServices – Rochester Community and Technical College ~ IMPORTANT REGISTRATION INFORMATION — PLEASE READ By clicking below you agree that you have read and understand the policies and procedures for responsibly managing your enrollment

D2L Brightspace Login for Rochester Community Technical ~ Welcome Please login to Rochester Community and Technical Colleges D2L Brightspace to access your courses New student accounts are created 55 days before the semester

RCTC TheRCTC Twitter ~ The latest Tweets from RCTC TheRCTC We deliver mobility solutions to improve life in Riverside County Responsible steward of voterapproved Measure A 12¢ sales tax for transportation Riverside County

RCTC ~ Rochester Community and Technical College RCTC 851 30th Ave SE Rochester Minnesota 55904 Rated 42 based on 84 Reviews When I started

Nursing Assistant Certified Renton Technical College ~ The Nursing Assistant program prepares students to earn their certification and work in a healthcare setting It is also the first rung of the career ladder for students to become Licensed Practical or Registered Nurses

Renton Technical College Careers Start Here ~ Renton Technical College offers world class career training opportunities

RCTC Bookstore ~ Rochester Community and Technical College Bookstore Email Us 851 30th Avenue SE Rochester MN 55904 5072857202 bookstore Rochester Community and Technical College a member of Minnesota State

MSN Outlook Office Skype Bing Breaking News and ~ Your customizable and curated collection of the best in trusted news plus coverage of sports entertainment money weather travel health and lifestyle combined with OutlookHotmail Facebook

Watch Movie Arctic

Arctic,Watch Movie

Arctic Online Movie

Arctic complete Film izle

See full Movie

See Arctic complete Movie “

Arctic

Arctic records

Arctic the trailer Movie

Arctic Movie

Arctic cast

Arctic

Arctic Imdb

Arctic blog Movie

Arctic wikipedia

Arctic wiki

Arctic age rating

Arctic Movie poster

Arctic best

Arctic Movie trailer

Arctic mask

Arctic for the first time

Watch Creed II 2018 Full Movie Online

Download Creed II 2018 Full Movie Streaming

popular movies right now

Castname:Michael B. Jordan, Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, Florian Munteanu, Tessa Thompson, Wood Harris, Phylicia Rashād, Andre Ward, Brigitte Nielsen, Milo Ventimiglia

Crewname :Sylvester Stallone, Steven Caple Jr., Sylvester Stallone, Ryan Coogler, Guy Riedel, Sylvester Stallone, Franco-Giacomo Carbone, Lizz Wolf, Kramer Morgenthau, Michael B. Jordan

Release :2018-11-21

Overview: Between personal obligations and training for his next big fight against an opponent with ties to his family’s past, Adonis Creed is up against the challenge of his life.

Reviews :that’s the movie I wanted to see badly for a long time I watched its first part that was too awesome and creed 2 is marvelous I had to do my college homework but I skipped that just to watch creed 2 the training part and the last fight I can’t describe in words what I feels after watched.
**_Decent enough, but adheres far too rigidly to the_ Rocky _template_**

> _I have not met one person who didn’t like a_ Rocky _movie._

– Steven Caple Jr.; “How _Creed II_ Director Crafted His _Rocky IV_ Successor” (Mia Galuppo); _The Hollywood Reporter_ (November 21, 2018)

Ryan Coogler’s _Creed_ (2015) was probably the best of the remakequels (ostensible sequels that are, for all intents and purposes, remakes) that came out in the mid-2010s (the most obvious ones being J.J Abrams’s _Star Wars: The Force Awakens_, Colin Trevorrow’s _Jurassic World_, and Adam Wingard’s _Blair Witch_), and was the first _Rocky_ film not written by Sylvester Stallone, and not directed by either Stallone or John G. Avildsen. After _Rocky Balboa_ did the seemingly impossible, redeeming and concluding the franchise after the damage done by _Rocky V_, _Creed_, written by Coogler and Aaron Covington, and directed by Coogler, did something even more unlikely – revitalising the franchise with Rocky himself as a supporting character. For the sequel, Stallone is back as a writer (sharing credit with Juel Taylor, from a story by Sascha Penn and Cheo Hodari Coker), with Steven Caple Jr. directing (Coogler is credited as an executive producer). Whereas _Creed_ was essentially a remake of the original _Rocky_, _Creed II_ is more of a combination of _Rocky III_ and _Rocky IV_, with some elements from _Rocky II_, and whilst it hits all the beats one expects from a _Rocky_ movie, the problem is that it hits them so slavishly, and does little else. It also, perhaps inevitably, suffers badly in comparison to its predecessor, especially in terms of direction – whereas Coogler’s directorial work was assured, distinctive, and inventive, Caple Jr.’s is pedestrian and functional. Had it strayed from the formula just a tad, the way _Creed_ did, the way _Rocky Balboa_ did, it would have been a much better film instead of a bland rehash of something we’ve seen multiple times (and not just in this franchise, but in virtually every boxing movie). The kernel for a terrific film is there, but the execution is not, it features a litany of clichés, it’s dull, repetitive, the antagonist’s subplot is infinitely more compelling than the main plot, and the culminating fight is almost parodic in design.

In _Rocky IV_, former WBC Heavyweight Champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) was killed in the ring during an exhibition bout against Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren). Determined to avenge the loss of his best friend, reigning champion Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) travelled to Moscow, where he not only defeated Drago, he also got the Soviet crowd on his side. 33 years later, Ivan’s son, Viktor (the man-mountain that is Florian Munteanu), is training as a professional boxer in Ukraine, under the watchful eye of promoter Buddy Marcelle (Russell Hornsby). Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, three years after his professional debut against “Pretty” Ricky Conlan (Tony Bellew), Apollo’s son, Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan), is preparing for a bout against the champion, Danny “Stuntman” Wheeler (Andre Ward). Upon winning the title, Adonis proposes to his girlfriend, Bianca Taylor (Tessa Thompson), who says yes. Life seems perfect. That is until Viktor and Ivan head to the US and issue a very public challenge to Adonis. Meanwhile, Ivan tells Rocky, who is in Adonis’s corner, that the fight is a way to regain honour for the Drago name, explaining that after their bout 33 years ago, he lost everything, including his wife, Ludmilla (Brigitte Nielsen), who left him shortly after Viktor’s birth. Spurred on by Marcelle, and seeing an opportunity to avenge his father’s death, Adonis plans to take the fight, but is warned against doing so by Rocky. When Adonis insists, Rocky says he can no longer train him. Adonis and Bianca move to Los Angeles so she can pursue her singing career, moving into a luxury apartment near Apollo’s widow, Mary Anne (Phylicia Rashād). To replace Rocky, Adonis recruits Tony “Little Duke” Evers (Wood Harris), Wheeler’s former trainer, and son of Tony “Duke” Evers (Tony Burton), who trained both Apollo and Rocky in the past. Feeling betrayed by Rocky, and finding it difficult to adjust to the recent changes in his life, including the fact that Bianca is pregnant, Adonis’s preparations for the bout are not what they should be, whilst Ivan makes sure to push Viktor as hard as he possibly can.

What’s perhaps most surprising about _Creed II_ is that not only is it a sequel to _Creed_, it’s also a sequel to one of the most ridiculous films of all time, and one which certainly didn’t cry out for a continuation of the narrative, _Rocky IV_. _Creed_ recast the _Rocky_ template for a modern audience, setting it in a social-realist African-American _milieu_ and relegating Rocky to a supporting player. _Rocky IV_, by contrast, was the movie wherein the franchise abandoned all semblance of realism; the film in which Rocky himself, the working-class everyman, became a superhero (he even had a talking robot sidekick), travelling to the Soviet Union, defeating Communism, and winning the Cold War by preaching _glasnost_ to the Soviet people (two years before Ronald Reagan’s “_tear down this wall_” speech). It’s a movie so ridiculous that the poster quite literally tells you how it ends! It also features Sylvester Stallone all but sexually abusing Sergei Eisenstein’s theories of montage. The first example of such (Rocky driving pensively into the night) is a montage of Rocky thinking about montages, and the second (Rocky training by cutting down trees and running atop mountains) is probably the most 80s thing to ever exist. The film is, in fact, so preposterous, far-fetched, and ludicrous that if you’re unable to have fun watching it, you may as well just stop watching movies.

From an aesthetic point of view, _Creed II_ is largely unremarkable (there’s certainly nothing as epic as the single-shot fight from the first film), but one aspect that did stand out is the sound. As the first film established, Bianca is losing her hearing, something which is manifested in the aural design of _Creed II_ several times. At the start of the film, for example, as Bianca walks through the backstage area prior to the title fight, the sound of the crowd is soft and distanced until she puts in her hearing aid. Later, when Creed is training in a swimming pool, Bianca and Mary Anne are talking at another location, with their conversation carrying over his scenes. However, every time he goes below the water, the sound of their voices dulls as if it were diegetic. When Adonis is knocked down during his bout with Viktor, all sound is pulled from the film, only returning when he locks eyes with Bianca in the crowd. Even Adonis’s marriage proposal involves her hearing aid. This is all thematic, of course, insofar as they are worried their child may inherit her hereditary hearing loss.

Thematically, legacy is a huge issue in _Creed II_, particularly as it relates to fathers and sons – Apollo and Adonis, Ivan and Viktor, Duke and Little Duke. Rocky himself is something of a surrogate father to Adonis, and is estranged from his own son, Robert (Milo Ventimiglia, who played the role in _Rocky Balboa_), and a grandson he has never met. Whilst _Creed_ saw Adonis use boxing as a way to symbolically bond with a father he never knew, _Creed II_ is more concerned with the emotionally fraught terrain that can result when fathers try to live vicariously through their sons, and when sons must live with their father’s failures. Everything Viktor does, for example, is an attempt to earn Ivan’s approval, whilst Ivan sees Viktor as the only way to atone for what happened to him after losing to Rocky.

Indeed, the depiction of the Dragos in general is especially interesting, and is both one of the best aspects of the film, and simultaneously one of the most problematic. In _Rocky IV_, Ivan was a cartoon villain, a badly written, pseudo-xenophobic hyperbole of what some Americans seemed to think Soviets were like. He was barely one-dimensional. In _Creed II_, he’s still relatively thin as a character, but Lundgren is given enough room to portray him as essentially broken, living on nothing but bitterness, resentment, and shame. When he meets up with Rocky in the latter’s restaurant, promising, “_my son will break your boy_”, he comes across as more pathetic than anything else, a million miles from the almost automaton-like warrior of three decades prior. When Ivan mentions their fight, Rocky tries to dismiss it, “_that’s like a million years ago_.” Ivan, however, replies, “_but just yesterday to me_.” One gets the impression that from the moment of his loss he’s been waiting for this, seeing his son as nothing more than the delivery method of his vengeance. Ivan has raised Viktor in pure hate, teaching him that the only thing that matters is winning, but you can see in every move that Viktor is far more concerned with earning his father’s respect – winning as an end unto itself means relatively little to him. There’s a lot of pathos in that, and both Lundgren and Munteanu act the hell out of the complex dynamic. Working with Stallone for the fifth time, Lundgren’s understated and subtle performance is easily the best of his career, and the best in the film, with the quietness that spoke to lack of interiority in the previous film, here suggesting a deeply felt pain.

The training montages also do something very interesting in respect to Viktor. Showing him jogging through economically impoverished communities, stacking crates, lugging around bags of cement, and working with less than state-of-the-art equipment, the parallel is not to Ivan, who trained with hi-tech gizmos and gadgets in _Rocky IV_, but to Rocky’s training in the original film. Indeed, whilst Adonis lives in a luxury apartment, Viktor and Ivan live in a dingy bedsit in Ukraine that recalls Rocky’s original digs in Philadelphia.

The problem with all of this is that the Dragos’ story is by far the most compelling one in the film. One should not come away from a film named _Creed II_ wishing there had been less Creed and more of the antagonists. Although Creed, Bianca, and Rocky all get a little character development, the most interesting story arc is that of Ivan. Set against the complex and fascinating Drago family drama, Creed and Bianca’s story is pretty insipid, and is essentially a rehash of Rocky’s relationship with Adrian (Talia Shire) in _Rocky II_. The most dramatic and heartfelt moments of the film involve Ivan and Viktor, and the long middle section where Creed falls into a depression seems to go on forever; the whole time we were watching him fall apart, I was yearning to get back to the Dragos.

And this feeds into the film’s most egregious problems – its rigid adhesion to the _Rocky_ template, and the concomitant predictability. Chances are that everything you think might happen in _Creed II_ does, as the film makes no attempt whatsoever to be original. Aside from the Drago subplot, there is nothing here that we haven’t seen before. Granted, the _Rocky_ franchise has always tended to wear its predictability like a badge of honour, and the core template does undoubtedly work. But even when a film adheres to that template, one shouldn’t be able to predict each narrative beat with near perfect accuracy. Even _Rocky V_, as awful as it was, tried something new, culminating with a street fight rather than an in-ring bout. It didn’t even remotely work, but the thinking behind it was admirable. Aside from two unexpected cameos, _Creed II_ never once caught me off-guard, doing nothing original, unexpected, or in any way daring. And because of that, for large portions of the runtime, particularly the middle section, the film is interminably boring.

Even the boxing itself is not especially well-done. The cinematography by Kramer Morgenthau (_Thor: The Dark World_; _Chef_; _Terminator Genisys_) is fine, but nothing special, and pales in comparison to Maryse Alberti’s work in the first film. Similarly, Caple Jr.’s direction is efficient, but not in the same ballpark as Coogler’s. Aside from Martin Scorsese’s _Raging Bull_ (1980) and Michael Mann’s _Ali_ (2001), both visually unique in their own ways, _Creed_ is arguably the most technically proficient boxing movie in terms of in-ring competition. _Creed II_, however, shoots all the fights very conventionally, holding a fairly uniform three-quarters distance from the actors, with Caple Jr.’s only trick seeming to be slow-motion, which he grossly over-uses. This has the effect of making the fights seem repetitive, even when the story being told by the fighting action is different (which isn’t helped by the fact that Ivan tells Viktor to “break him” about 150 times).

While we’re on the subject of the boxing itself, the culminating fight between Adonis and Viktor is beyond ridiculous, even for this franchise. The boxing in _Rocky_ films has never been even remotely realistic, with a laughable number of haymakers landing cleanly in every round of every fight, but _Creed II_ takes this almost to the point of parody. In the recent Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury fight, the total power punches landed was 31-38 from 182-104 thrown (17%-36.5%), whilst overall punches was 71-84 from 430-327 (16.5%-25.7%). These numbers are a little below the heavyweight average (which is 15 punches per round), but they’re not especially unusual. In one round towards the end of _Creed II_, I counted Creed landing 19 power punches to Drago’s 12. That’s just ridiculous, to the point where it completely takes you out of the film. There’s also an unintentionally hilarious moment when Adonis is knocked down, and Little Duke, apparently auditioning as the worst corner man in boxing history, looks out to Bianca in the crowd and shrugs!

Insanely, even “Gonna Fly Now”, that most fundamental aspect of all _Rocky_ movies (except the one it wasn’t used in) is underwhelming; whereas the first film used it to carry the audience to the emotional highpoint, combining Ludwig Göransson’s interpolation of Bill Conti’s legendary score with the on-screen action and Rocky screaming, “_You’re a Creed_” as a way to inspire Adonis off the canvas, _Creed II_ just kind of randomly drops it into the mix without a whole lot of justification or thematic relevance.

Although there are some laudable elements here, _Creed II_ is a disappointment in almost every way, from the dull and soulless domestic scenes to a _dénouement_ that goes beyond suspension-of-disbelief, with not a hint of unpredictability. By essentially deconstructing the _Rocky_ template, _Creed_ found its way to unexpected thematic depths, recasting the great-white-hope subtext into a narrative about a struggling black man, whilst also examining notions of masculinity in the 21st century, and having Rocky himself face his own mortality. _Creed II_ exists entirely on the surface. Sure, the _Rocky_ melodrama is there, the _Rocky_ fights are there, the Stallone one-liners are there, but with a narrative focused almost entirely on the less interesting characters, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Apart from the Drago subplot, everything is by-the-numbers. Yes, we care about these characters, but that’s primarily because of the previous films, and whereas _Creed_ forged a path very much its own, _Creed II_ returns us to the safety of the overly familiar.

These are the best movies of all time, ranked by movie experts and film fans alike. What are the greatest movies of all time? This list of the top films ever made was created by taking best movie suggestions from Ranker users and letting them vote to determine which films are the best ever made.
So, what are the best movies of all time? The list includes a wide range of films, from art house European cinema to top action films and blockbusters to established, highly-regarded classics of the Golden Age of Hollywood
Included are movies that were recognized in their own time – including a number of Academy Award recipients and even Best Picture selections – as well as cult movies or sleeper hits that took time to find an audience. Shawshank Redemption, for example, was not highly regarded or popular in theaters when it first opened, but has since risen to the top of many best movie lists.

Watch Movie Creed II

Creed II,Watch Movie

Creed II Online Movie

Creed II complete Film izle

See full Movie

See Creed II complete Movie “

Creed II

Creed II records

Creed II the trailer Movie

Creed II Movie

Creed II cast

Creed II

Creed II Imdb

Creed II blog Movie

Creed II wikipedia

Creed II wiki

Creed II age rating

Creed II Movie poster

Creed II best

Creed II Movie trailer

Creed II mask

Creed II for the first time