Movie Title	The Hungover Games
Moment	193 minute
Release	2014-02-01
Kuality	ASF 720p HDRip
Category	Comedy
speech	English
castname	Jalisa N. Hidaya, Bosson U. Slania, Ophüls K. Bravo

[HD] [Watch] The Hungover Games Movie Length 2014

Film kurz

Spent : $226,919,027

Income : $942,535,504

category : Erotik - Skizzen , Abstrakt - Management , Kontroverse - Du Son , Isolation - Frauen

Production Country : Italien

Production : Comedy Unit

Movie Title	Hooking Up
Duration	176 minute
Release	2020-03-20
Quality	AVCHD 1080p DVDScr
Category	Drama, Comedy
language	English
castname	Brune M. Marquis, Gwion I. Naim, Joyeux V. Skyrah

[HD] [Watch] Hooking Up Movie Length 2020

Film kurz

Spent : $002,682,984

Income : $597,449,614

Group : Wandern - Surrealistisch , Logik - Benzin , Romantisch - Tyranny , Verbotene Liebe - Tapferkeit

Production Country : Osttimor

Production : Tomorrow Pictures

Movie Title	Whatever It Takes
Moment	149 minutes
Release	2000-03-31
Quality	MPEG-1 1440p WEBrip
Genre	Drama, Comedy, Romance
speech	English
castname	Nancey H. Onésime, Laure S. Doyle, Arias G. Imene

[HD] [Watch] Whatever It Takes Movie Length 2000

Film kurz

Spent : $909,778,100

Revenue : $622,946,065

categories : Mathematik - Money , Glaube - Familie , Unheimlich - Schule , Dokumentarfilm - Schreiben

Production Country : São Tomé

Production : Monastic Productions

Movie Title	Black Panther
Moment	147 minutes
Release	2018-02-13
Quality	AVI 1080p WEB-DL
Categorie	Action, Adventure, Fantasy, Science Fiction
speech	English, 한국어/조선말, Kiswahili, Array
castname	Tayjah V. Chance, Therèse Q. Nuyen, Deyan F. Tamica

[HD] [Watch] Black Panther Movie Length 2018

Film kurz

Spent : $592,333,492

Income : $768,539,204

categories : Verantwortung - rätselhaft , Völkermord - Money , Scheitern - rätselhaft , Patriotismus - Speech

Production Country : Zypern

Production : Monday



The reviews for _Black Panther_ are all essentially saying the same thing: This is a great movie because it's so different from anything we've seen before, not just in the MCU but in the superhero genre overall, the villain is fantastic and _Black Panther_ is just a new and totally innovative film. Allow me to disagree (almost) entirely. _Black Panther_ is a great film, not because it breaks the mould, but because Marvel Studios has a successful pattern and _Black Panther_ adheres to it completely. Obviously the importance of a lead who is not just black but actually African is not to be understated, we have the least white cast of any superhero movie to date and they absolutely killed it, all very important socio-political stuff, to be sure. But the bones of _Black Panther_, the plot, the script, the events, the turns, all of that, it's a carbon copy of what's worked 17 times before. It works again, don't get me wrong, _Black Panther_ truly was an experience, both important and fantastic, but to say it re-invented the wheel here, is, to me, an outright lie.

_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._
Overrated and overhyped. Definitely avoid. Watch on redbox if you must.
This is definitely one of Marvel's best because the story is compelling and the characters are well developed. Black Panther and his friends and family must defend themselves and their homeland of Wakanda from the clutches of Klau (Andy Serkis) and Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan). Not only is the lead actor great as T'Challa/Black Panther, but the supporting cast does a fine job as well, especially the female actors. T'Challa is surrounded by smart, strong women. Marvel seems to break its villain curse with Klau and especially Killmonger. Killmonger is very well developed and even sympathetic at times, despite his villainy. He sort of reminded me of Tom Hiddleston's Loki. The action scenes and special effects are outstanding. Highly recommended if you enjoy comic book movies.
Really good movie. Good story, lots of fun. This is what DC is missing.
It was with some hesitation that I went to see this movie. I was afraid that it would be burdened with too much political and social preaching. Especially knowing how much the movie is praised amongst certain factions in our society today. Sure enough there were indeed some of that nonsense but luckily it was much less than I feared.

I actually found the movie fairly entertaining. It is far from great, certainly very far from the insane hype surrounding it, but pretty okay. It is more or less a standard issue super hero movie on a big budget. Of course this means a fairly mediocre underlying story beefed up with lots of action and special effects.

The story itself is a traditional revenge story with some black power stuff. Nothing to write home about but it works as a vehicle for the action and special effects which is what makes this movie. There are the usual nonsense and plot holes in it of course. Like Shuri claiming that Vibranium (silly name but never mind) is instable at high speeds yet they have no problem making flying ships and other fast moving stuff with it.

The characters are a wee bit disappointing as far as the main characters are concerned. I felt that the main protagonist has little in terms of charisma. Killmonger, the main bad guy, was downright disappointing. To me he looked like the stereotype of a dumb thug and mostly he behaved like one. Bloody hell could they not have found an actor that looked less…well…stupid!

Personally the character I liked best was actually Klaue which was pretty cool, insane but cool. The female warriors, which were both kick-ass and smart, and Shuri is also fairly high up on my approval list.

Special effects! This is of course where this movie shines. Overall I think the special effects were good. The design of the various gadgets, ships etc were very nice. The rampaging rhinos in the final fight really made me laugh. I should have seen that coming. I definitely liked all the sonic effects. Obviously this movie would have been more or less null if the special effects would not have been a success.

On the whole Black Panther is a quite enjoyable special effects and action movie. Nothing more, nothing less. Some social preaching nonsense but less than I feared, hum ho story, lots of action and lots of special effects.
I was really surprised how much I liked this movie. There was so much going on; immigration concerns; the fight between saving the world and protecting your own country(sound familiar); the fear of an African country’s resources being pillaged; how best to handle the problems black people face worldwide; and many great authentic feeling cultural nods. All this while not being heavy or preachy. You can definitely eat popcorn to this. The villain; Killmonger, is great. Not great in that he is scary, though he is, but because he is more complex than some shadowy figure you should just trust is a bad guy because of visual effects or dramatic music.

This movie isn’t just explosions and one-liners in an exotic location. This is a great movie in general. It’s always interesting. There are great relationships between all the characters. Finally; Wakanda is really a place. It feels alive and lived in; not just impressive buildings used as a backdrop. They did a wonderful job of worldbuilding; from the rituals, to the clothing, fancy tech, and scenery. This movie is definitely worth a watch.

☆☆☆☆-1/2

I also have to add that; you get to actually see Andy Serkis! When I saw his name I thought we was going to be some kind of CGI monster. I’m just happy to see him get actual screen time.
The Black Panther is a fun romp, but it definitely has some issues. First, the good.

The action is fun, the emotions hit home, and the story isn't dirt-poor.

While the CGI gets ripped on from time to time, I thought it was solid enough for a Marvel movie. The fight scenes were relatively well-choreographed, as well. The ritual combat scenes were exciting and visually appealing. The fights in Korea were also fun to see, and while I'm not a fan of car chase scenes as a whole, I did enjoy this one. It was reminiscent of a James Bond movie.

In fact, that's another appeal, at least to me. The secret technology base and the fun action scenes were a great callback to James Bond-type movies. I do think the movie would have been complemented by giving T'Challa a similar vice as Bond's, although Marvel probably wouldn't veer down that line for the seemingly morally absolute King of Wakanda.

The story, well, it's a mixed bag. Everything seemed crammed together with major emotional keys being rushed through or somewhat ignored. The concept is fine though. A long lost relative comes to challenge the new king, wins, and shows his colors, becoming something amoral. The king comes back and takes down the usurper, realizing something about themselves/their kingdom in the process. It's tired, but not so tired it damages the movie.

This is where the issues begin to rise, though. The movie is really a movie and a half or two movies crammed into one. Wakanda has a ton of wonderful mythology, but almost none of it is explained. The movie never really explains how the Wakandans used vibranium was used to make themselves wealthy. It touches on it in some exposition, but there was much more that was just glossed over.

In addition, W'Kabi became radicalized by Killmonger much too quickly for such a pivotal relationship to flip. Some of the emotional aspects of the movie fell flat because they weren't given enough screen time.

Despite its flaws, Black Panther is a fun movie that adds to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It should have been two movies, but I doubt this is the last we'll see of Wakanda.
The character of T'Challa made his debut in Captain America 3: Civil War.

In Black Panther, T'Challa returns to his homeland of Wakanda after the death of his father who has been hiding a secret about his brother who lived in the USA. He now inherits the throne after a challenge from a rival.

Wakanda is an african country with wealth, power and immense technology that it hides from the outside world.

T'Challa's uncle wanted an uprising in the USA. Now his son Killmonger comes to Wakanda and challenges T'Challa for the throne.

Killmonger wins and leads the struggle for black power.

Black Panther is a well made efficient film from Marvel who really have nailed down their formula. The box office avalanche has surprised me. It simply is not that good with a very predictable story.
Overrated due to political correctness; it’s noble and has its points of interest, but it’s also kinda meh

RELEASED IN 2018 and directed by Ryan Coogler, "Black Panther” details events when T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) takes over kingship of the hidden African nation Wakanda after his father passes (John Kani). The kingdom is technologically advanced due to its secret resource Vibranium, a priceless, almost magical metal. Unfortunately, T’Challa’s reign is challenged by an angry American former-black ops soldier, Erik “Killmonger” (Michael B. Jordan).

With its black director and mostly black cast (with a couple of token white dudes), “Black Panther” was overhyped and overrated upon release. Critics were apparently afraid of being called “racist” by liberal fascists if they dared to be honest and say anything negative (rolling my eyes). The movie’s likable and certainly has its points of interest, but the characters are rather dull, except for Killmonger, and the story isn’t all that involving. It’s basically a mediocre superhero movie that has some blatant Bond-isms and is set apart by its primarily black cast and African locale. It fails to rise to the entertainment level of even “Ant-Man” (2015).

Still, it’s respectfully noble and the story provokes interesting questions, like isolationism vs. internationalism and African-American culture vs. Native African culture. But there’s some eye-rolling bits, like when Shuri (Letitia Wright) calls CIA agent Ross (Martin Freeman) a “colonizer,” which isn’t even accurate. Maybe it was supposed to be a joke.

The waterfall fight between the Black Panther and Killmonger was an homage to the first issue of The Black Panther series in Jungle Action: Issue #6, September, 1973. At the end of that comic’s story T'Challa and Erik fight at the top of a waterfall culminating with Killmonger throwing Black Panther over the cliff. This issue was the beginning of the "Panther's Rage" storyline by Don McGregor (featuring artists Billy Graham, Rich Buckler and Gil Kane), which ran for over two years in 13 issues of Jungle Action #6-18 and 209 pages, including the Epilogue. Many consider it the first graphic novel. Of course, this wasn't the first appearance of the Black Panther (who debuted in 1966), but it was the first issue where he was the starring character.

And it was this series that provided the intriguing exposition on T’Challa, Wakanda and its citizens, visitors & enemies. It’s a travesty that McGregor, who created the characters of Killmonger & W’Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) and conceived this exposition, wasn’t acknowledged in this movie; shameful.

THE FILM RUNS 2 hours, 14 minutes and was shot in Georgia (Atlanta, Fayetteville), South Korea (Busan) and Iguazú Waterfalls, Argentina. Ironically, nothing was shot in Africa. WRITERS: Coogler and Joe Robert Cole (and, uncredited, Don McGregor).

GRADE: B-
Awesome movie
"Black Panther is Marvelous (pun intended)"

T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to his native Wakanda to be crowned king. Not long after he’s challenged for the throne and war looms over his homeland.

Black Panther isn’t your typical hero because let’s face it… He’s black. And apart from Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and Smeagol (Andy Serkis), everybody’s black. And that’s the way it should be.
The entire cast delivers. Boseman is excellent as king T’Challa who struggles with his new role. It doesn’t get any easierr when Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) shows up. Killmonger is a mean SOB yet you care for him (some good writing right there). He’s a worthy adversary and one of the better Marvel villains. Jordan portrays him perfectly. Director Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan are a match made in heaven. This is their third collaboration after ‘Fruitvale Station’ and ‘Creed’ and again they’re successful. The movie itself gets better as Jordan’s role gets bigger.

The female characters and actors are equally impressive. Especially Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o) and Okoye (Danai Gurira) steal the show.

There’s less humour in ‘Black Panther’ than we’re used to seeing in Marvel films but that’s not a bad thing. The movie doesn’t need it.

Though it’s set in (fictional) Africa there wasn’t any filming done in Africa. Nonetheless the movie looks right. The makers did a great job of creating Wakanda. Huge props to costume designer Ruth E. Carter and composer Ludwig Göransson who help bring Wakanda to life.
On the downside there’s a lot of CGI. Sometimes it’s too obvious (rhinos say hi). Despite that the battle scenes are beautifully choreographed. Especially Okoye wielding her spear is a thing to behold.

All in all ‘Black Panther’ is another wonderful addition to the MCU and we can’t wait to see what role T’Challa and his sidekicks are going to play in ‘Avengers: Infinity War’.
Black Panther will probably be remembered as a culturally significant film more so than a great one, but that shouldn't take away from the movie's deeper theme of inclusivity. This is a really good movie with heart and intelligence.

The fact that I have issues with the pacing, the generic action, or that I don't find Killmonger as complex a villain as the movie thinks is my problem. But I don't understand how people can hate on Black Panther because it integrates social and political themes into its narrative. Isn't contemporary relevance key in determining the greatness of a film?
I really enjoyed this film, it was new uncharted never done before, and they delivered a marvel masterpiece. I look forward to seeing the next one...

Movie Title	Purity Falls
Moment	117 minute
Release	2019-05-31
Quality	AVCHD 1080p DVD
Genre	Thriller, TV Movie
speech	English
castname	Garrett W. Truchon, Wyatt U. Audiard, Ronan D. Athul

[HD] [Watch] Purity Falls Movie Length 2019

Film kurz

Spent : $648,360,711

Income : $639,319,415

Categorie : Epoche Film - Impressionist Lernen Judicial Floors Wildlife Film , Egal - initiativ Klassische Verzweiflung , Samurai - Schule , Kind - Idee

Production Country : Araber

Production : Tantamount

Movie Title	1917
Hour	113 minutes
Release	2019-12-25
Kuality	AVCHD 1080p VHSRip
Genre	War, Drama, Action, Thriller
language	English, Français, Deutsch
castname	Aedan K. Linah, Symoné J. Dyann, Tamblyn M. Charlie

[HD] [Watch] 1917 Movie Length 2019

Film kurz

Spent : $019,240,102

Income : $328,911,539

categories : Raub - Battlefield , Jungs Prähistorisch - Skepsis , Experimentell - Speech , Leben - Psychologisches Drama

Production Country : Algerien

Production : Maple Pictures



I really wanted to give this film five stars, but there is a curious introspection that prevents me from calling it perfection. Nevertheless, ‘1917’ is a brilliant piece of art, and clearly a personal project for Sam Mendes. Blending groundbreaking technology with detailed production components, it's sure to entertain audiences and garner respect from critics for its execution. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you when the Oscar nominations come out.
- Charlie David Page

Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-1917-sam-mendes-personal-war-story
Without a doubt, cinematically this is a visual tour de force. The one-shot approach becomes a distraction, at times, especially when one ponders "how did they do that?", but generally not enough to take away the wow factor.

The story, and dialogue, not to mention logic are the real problems that take this movie from great, to merely good.

The initial concept of sending two men on an imperitive mission to save 1600 men is ludicrous in itself, especially in a war where men were gassed and gunned down by the thousands. Sending only two of them into unknown situations, in no-man's-land was illogical.

Then there was the fact the hero seems to never get shot by enemy soldiers, despite being in dead-duck situations. When he does get injured, his wounds seem to magically heal and disappear instantly. Director Sam Mendes must have never had the concussive effects of explosions explained to him, because while some fall from explosions, the heroes seem immune to physics.

The most ludicrous scene involves booby-trapped explosives, and a collapsed ton of rocks leaving not only no visible injuries, but no effects at all on clothing or hearing. But there was dust in the eyes.

There are many more scenes involving lack of logic, or credibility.

Over-all, the movie is worth it for the cinematography, attention to detail, costumes and acting, but the trite story, and credibilty problems drag it down from what it should, and could have been.
Finally yesterday I was able to experience 1917 and I ended up doing it at IMAX, something I didn't plan on, but after seeing it there, I can say this film deserves to be seen and heard in an IMAX room to remember why movies still need to be lived on a big screen.

The visual odyssey of Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins is an incredible journey. Yes, the story is very thin but that's something that made 1917 a somewhat different film
It's not a war epic, nor does it try to be one. It's kind of a lone wolf war story, though at the beginning it wasn't like that, and that's good because despite everything that happens, the film doesn't lose that sense of camaraderie at the task that remains after the loss.

1917 is a story of survival and that although it could not be considered completely original, that's totally the least of its problems because after all the experience is just spectacular.

I admit the film has certain rhythm dropouts that I didn't like, especially the scene where Schofield loses consciousness, but at that point we are given the extraordinary night sequence, so my discomfort ended up disappearing.

1917 is not a perfect film, but it's a reminder of how wonderful is to enjoy a film as they should be, even if it's a film that deals with the horrors of war.

This is the kind of film that should be lived and experienced that way, otherwise it loses its resonance, so if you have the chance to see 1917 at a big screen do it.
**_Although partly a technical showcase rather than a story, it's still a terrific Great War movie_**

>_In the newspapers you read: "Peacefully they rest on the spot where they have bled and suffered, while the guns roar over their graves, taking vengeance for their heroic death". And it doesn't occur to anybody that the enemy is also firing; that the shells plunge into the hero's grave; that his bones are mingled with the filth which they scatter to the four winds – and that, after a few weeks, the morass closes over the last resting-place of the soldier._

- Kanonier Gerhard Gürtler (Königlich Bayerisches 3. Feldartillerie-Regiment Prinz Leopold)

>_Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,_

>_Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,_

>_Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,_

>_And towards our distant rest began to trudge._

>_Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,_

>_But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;_

>_Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots_

>_Of gas-shells dropping softly behind._

- Wilfred Owen; "Dulce et Decorum Est" (1921)

>_No tactical or strategic gain was made on the Somme front that was worth the cost in lives. Even had the British and French achieved their breakthrough on the Somme, the Germans had plenty of room to manoeuvre and, unlike the French at Verdun, no national interest in staying where they were. During the winter of 1916-17, the Germans simply withdrew to the Hindenburg Line, east of the Somme battlefield, and it all had to be done again._

- Robin Neillands; _Attrition: The Great War on the Western Front – 1916_ (2001)

>_In the Somme valley, the back of language broke. It could no longer carry its former meanings. World War I changed the life of words and images in art, radically and forever. It brought our culture into the age of mass-produced, industrialised death. This, at first, was indescribable._

- Robert Hughes; _The Shock of the New_ (2004)

My paternal grandfather fought during the Great War. Corporal Edward J. Campbell was with the 9th Battalion of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, 48th Brigade, 16th (Irish) Division and took part in the capture of Ginchy on September 9, 1916 during the Battle of the Somme. My dad was born in 1933, and in all the years that came afterwards – even when he himself joined the RAF – his father never spoke about those years.

The Great War broke men in ways the likes of which had never been seen before, and perhaps have never been seen since. It exposed men to psychological horrors inconceivable to most people today. The nature of trench warfare and the concomitant use of artillery on a scale beyond anything in human history did such things to men's minds that even thousands of those who returned never really left the battlefields. We've all seen "Shell shocked soldier, 1916", one of the most haunting photographs ever taken, and the picture it paints is a disturbingly vivid one. But what makes the Great War, the so-called "war to end all wars", so much worse than it had to be was that it pitted old school tactics against modern weaponry. Generals on both sides believed the war could be won, as others had been, by sending wave after wave of men "over the top" in an attempt to overwhelm enemy positions. However, such tactics failed to take into account advancements in weaponry, with combatants defending their trenches with miles of machine-gun emplacements and fields of landmines, reinforced with the war's most successful killer – endless artillery barrages. The technology had advanced. The tactics had not. Which led to the nine-month stalemate of the Battle of Verdun (February 21 to December 18, 1916), during which the Germans lost 143,000 men and the French lost 163,000. Which led to the first day of the Somme (July 1, 1916), when the British suffered nearly 20,000 loses in less than 12 hours. Which led to the unimaginable slaughter of the hell-come-to-Earth that was the Third Battle of Ypres, better known today as Passchendaele (July 31 to November 10, 1917), where at least 400,000 men died, maybe as many as twice that.

Every soul who fought in those battles is gone now. The last surviving combat veteran, Chief Petty Officer Claude Choules, who joined the Royal Navy in 1915, aged just 14, died at the age of 110 in 2011. And unlike conflicts such as World War II or Vietnam, The Great War has largely dropped from the popular consciousness. Not just the reasons why it was fought, but the conditions in which it was fought. Even celebrated films such as Lewis Milestone's _All Quiet on the Western Front_ (1930) or Stanley Kubrick's _Paths of Glory_ (1957) aren't all that well known. And that's one of the reasons that films like 1917 are important – they ensure we don't forget.

Written by Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, _1917_ is very loosely based on stories told to Mendes by his grandfather Alfred Hubert Mendes, who was a front line messenger during the war, and who, at 5'4", was able to use the low-lying No Man's Land mist as cover without having to stoop or crawl, and thus was much faster compared to other messengers. The film is directed by Mendes (_American Beauty_; _Revolutionary Road_; _Skyfall_), and unless you've been living under a rock, you'll know that it's done in such a way as to give the impression that it all takes place in two single shots (the marketing material says one shot, but it's two – there's a cut-to-black time-jump about midway through the film where no attempt is made to hide the transition). In reality, of course, there are a lot more than two shots (the longest single shot was just over 8 minutes), but the edits have been digitally 'hidden', much like Alejandro González Iñárritu's _Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)_ (2014) or Erik Poppe's _Utøya 22. Juli_ (2018). Working with legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins (_Kundun_; _No Country for Old Men_; _The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford_; _The Reader_; _Blade Runner 2049_), Mendes wanted the film to be the most immersive war movie ever put on screen, with the story designed to take place in real-time so as to ensure the importance/relevance of the single-shot aesthetic. And although I have some issues with it, and I certainly don't think it's the greatest war movie ever made, by and large, I think Mendes has made an exceptional film, one in which form and content are unusually tightly matched, with the style extremely effective at delivering the story in a thematically justified manner.

April 6, 1917; the Western Front. Two young British Lance Corporals, Will Schofield (George MacKay), a veteran of the Somme, and the younger, more idealistic Tom Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are summoned to a meeting with General Erinmore (Colin Firth). Recently, German forces have fallen back, and Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) of the 2nd Battalion, Devonshire Regiment believes that if he attacks now, he will break the line and turn the tide of the war. However, he's unaware that the retreat is a tactical gambit – the Germans have fallen back to the heavily fortified Hindenburg Line and are lying in wait. With communication lines cut, Schofield and Blake, who has a brother in the 2nd, are given a simple but dangerous mission – to physically carry an order from Erinmore to Mackenzie calling off the following morning's attack, a mission which will involve them crossing into No Man's Land and traversing the Germans' former position. If they fail, 1,600 soldiers will be slaughtered. Mackenzie is six miles away. They have ten hours.

So, the film's big selling point is its aesthetic design. The use of the single-shot format is such a noticeable and idiosyncratic type of form that whenever it's used, it automatically places pressure on the content, which must justify why the film is shot this way, why it would lose something inherently thematic if shot conventionally. If the content can't do that, in other words, if the content can't justify the form, the form becomes gimmicky, drawing attention to itself. Think of, for example, Alfred Hitchcock's _Rope_ (1948), which was edited to look like one shot, or Sebastian Schipper's _Victoria_ (2015), which was legitimately one shot. Very little in either film justifies the stylistic design – shoot them conventionally and they're still broadly the same film thematically. Compare this with genuine one-shot films such as Mike Figgis's _Timecode_ (2000) or Alexander Sokurov's _Russkij Kovcheg_ (2002), and edited one-shot films such as Gustavo Hernández's _La casa muda_ (2010) or the aforementioned _Utøya 22. Juli_. Whether it's the spiralling nature of events in _Timecode_, the elegant cause-and-effect historical sweep of _Russkij Kovcheg_, or the real-time pressure and escalation of _La casa muda_ and _Utøya 22. Juli_ these films tie form to content in such a way that they become indistinguishable – form _is_ content, content _is_ form. And I think Mendes achieves like synergy.

Is the one-shot effect distracting? At first, yes, it is a little, especially if you're playing the game of trying to spot where editor Lee Smith (_Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World_; _Elysium_; _Interstellar_) has hidden the transitions. But after sussing two edits in the first twenty minutes, I stopped looking, because I realised I was just pulling myself out of the film unnecessarily. In essence, once you go with the aesthetic on its own terms, you forget about trying to spot the edits and asking yourself, "_how did they do that_", instead of letting the cinematography do exactly what it's supposed to do – immerse you. This is a film that wants to try to convey what it was like to live and fight in those trenches, with Mendes stating, "_I wanted people to understand how difficult it was for these men. And the nature of that is behind everything_". And, it does about as good a job as any war film I can think of in evoking the psychical reality, if not necessarily the psychological (more on that in a moment).

Generally speaking, the majority of the film is shot in one of two ways – either the camera is behind Schofield and Blake, following their path, or it's in front of them, facing back towards them as they 'follow' its path. There are some minor deviations from this (a few drone shots, some side-on footage etc), but irrespective of that, the film never for one second leaves their presence. And because the two men are almost perpetually in motion, it means that the camera is almost perpetually in motion, lending not only a tremendous fluidity to the blocking, framing, and movement, but so too a natural motivation – if they're walking along a trench, we're walking along a trench; if they're moving stealthily through a bombed-out town, we're moving stealthily through a bombed-out town. Almost everything the camera does is because one or both of the protagonists are doing the same thing, further emphasising the correlation between form and content.

The opening scene serves as a superb introduction not just to the visual design, but to the reasons for employing that visual design and the effectiveness of doing so. The film starts with a shot of a daffodil field, before pulling back and revealing Schofield and Blake taking a break against a tree before being summoned to the meeting with Erinmore. They rouse themselves and begin walking, first past more resting soldiers, then a camp where food and laundry are being prepared, then down a ramp into the trenches, the bucolic opening moments giving way to barbed wire and dirt. Geographically, it's a short walk, but thematically, it covers considerable ground. In a film that's all about scale and scope, this sequence perfectly encapsulates one of the main thematic reasons behind the single-shot – to accurately convey the importance of geospatial relations. We see the tactile transition from Edenic to hellish because we're moving in real-time through the _milieu_ with the characters; we see the boundary between peace and war because the characters walk along that boundary. You shoot this opening sequence conventionally, and you undercut this sense considerably.

Along slightly more conventional lines, one also has to commend the work of production designer Dennis Gassner (_Bugsy_; _Waterworld_; _Into the Woods_). Every location is visually unique – from a German bunker to an abandoned farmhouse to the bombed-out remnants of Écoust-Saint-Mein, and every location feels authentic and lived in. His design of No Man's Land is especially laudable, not just in terms of the expected mess of barbed wire and debris, but in the use and positioning of dead bodies, dead animals, and semi-destroyed machinery, with the whole thing having an almost post-nuclear desolation feel. Indeed, the film's No Man's Land is designed thematically. Mendes has said, "_the first World War starts with literally horses and carriages, and ends with tanks_", and this is mirrored in Gassner's designs. When the men first crawl into No Man's Land, they immediately encounter a rotting fly-covered horse carcass. Gradually, however, the battlefield becomes more mechanised, until they eventually pass through a German artillery position.

Also in a slightly more conventional sense, one has to mention Deakins work during the nighttime scenes in Écoust-Saint-Mein. The entire village has been reduced to nothing but the shells of buildings, and as we pass through the town, the only source of light is from the flares arching through the sky, which create very hard shadows in constant motion. The whole thing is almost otherworldly, and as the garish light traverses the sky, it's as if the ground itself is in motion, almost liquid-like, with the protagonists desperately trying to time their movements to ensure they stay hidden in the constantly shifting shadows. It might be a little too aesthetically beautiful for a film aiming for such gritty realism, but for aspiring cinematographers, you won't find a better study in how to compose an image using light and shadow.

Thematically, by its very nature, _1917_ is far more focused on the micro than the macro – you might learn something about life on the front, but you'll learn nothing about the politics behind the conflict, or even a sense of who's winning. Partly because of this, the film avoids, for the most part, the overwrought patriotism found in so many American World War II movies, the kind of cartoonish jingoism that made Steven Spielberg's _Saving Private Ryan_ (1998) so obnoxious. Indeed, it's relatively unimportant which side the protagonists are even on – their mission could have come from any of the combatants. Their nationality is largely anonymous, which is not something you can usually say of a war film, but which does illustrate just how irrelevant lofty political issues were at ground level, with everyone simply trying to survive as best they can.

On the other hand, however, because the film is so tightly focused, you shouldn't expect too much psychological insight. If you're anticipating an existential treatise along the lines of Terrence Malick's _The Thin Red Line_ (1998), you'll be severely disappointed. Malick's masterpiece is, for my money, the greatest war picture ever made precisely because it subverts at every moment what a war picture is supposed to be. It's about the war within rather than the war without, about nature's indifference to humanity's self-destruction, about the damage war does not to the mind or the body, but the soul. _1917_ is nowhere near this kind of thematic complexity, it's not even playing the same game, but I would value its simple individualised insights above something like the empty temporal trickery of Christopher Nolan's _Dunkirk_ (2017), which leans far too heavily into the "keep a stiff upper lip chaps" style of British filmmaking for my liking.

In terms of problems. I've seen some critics argue that the one-shot structure is a gimmick which draws attention to itself, and thus, rather than being immersive actually has the opposite effect. I admit that the film does take a little getting used to, but you soon settle into its rhythms (or lack thereof). I would agree that the story is paper-thin, but that's pretty much by design. One criticism I did have, however, is how well-groomed Scholfield and Blake constantly are, each with a perfect set of teeth. One only need watch Peter Jackson's _They Shall Not Grow Old_ (2018) to see how unrealistic this is. Indeed, for most of the runtime, the duo look like they've just stepped out of the makeup trailer, and it's glaring enough on a couple of occasions to pull you out of things.

All things considered though, I thoroughly enjoyed _1917_. I thought the single-shot strategy worked exceptionally well, and even if the film is weak from a character/storyline/theme perspective, it didn't really matter when the form and content are this well matched. This could have become an empty technical exercise predicated on nothing, but Mendes hasn't allowed that to happen, and instead, it's a war film that does justice to its subject. The more one knows about the Great War, the more one realises that it was hell on Earth. _1917_ doesn't make us feel what that hell was like. Because no film, no art form, can do that. But it's a damn good approximation.
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

Let me just take a deep breath... Wait, one more... Uff, I have no idea how I survived this IMAX screening of 1917. Usually, I don't delve deep into technical stuff since most people don't know or don't care about these attributes, but it's impossible not to address Roger Deakins' cinematography. It's not the first time a film has been edited to appear as "one shot" (a continuous take), but it never fails to impress me.

Alejandro G. Iñárritu's Birdman, Silent House starring Elizabeth Olsen, or the famous Rope from the one and only Alfred Hitchcock... all produce the same trick. Even Mr. Robot and The Haunting of Hill House have brought us two phenomenal "one shot" episodes, edited as well with the so-called "stitches," meaning that the actual cuts are made to look invisible to the viewer, hence giving that feeling that it's all just one continuous take. Cuts are often applied when a random character is passing in front of the camera; when the latter "pans" (movement similar to a head-turn) over a wall or an object that occupies the whole screen; or when the characters are simply going through a dark area.

Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, and Lee Smith (editor) all work together to deliver the most immersive war movie (probably) ever. Yes, it has a simple premise, and the main narrative is basic, but the remarkable technical achievement elevates this film so freaking much. Even if you don't know the slightest thing about filmmaking or how movies are made, it's impossible to watch this film and not think "something feels different about this one." This is a movie meant to be watched at the biggest, best screen possible. Watching 1917 at home on a TV or a laptop is not going to work at all.

Throughout the whole runtime, I felt like I was there with Schofield and Blake. It feels like we are a third soldier going with them on a vital mission to save thousands of lives. I believe 1917 is the best "one shot" film to date (I've been using the quote signs for a reason, don't mistake it for an actual one shot movie), with Birdman as a close second. If the latter deals with a lot more dialogue and acting, the former has dozens of nail-biting sequences featuring shootouts, explosions, and a lot of running/walking/swimming through mud, dead corpses, blood, and way too many nasty rats.

I really have no words to describe Roger Deakins' cinematography. It's not merely a film, it's a whole experience. It's not just another cool technical achievement. It's the entire foundation of 1917, and the main reason why so many people are rushing to the theater. However, a lot of people are completely ignoring Lee Smith's work. Don't forget, this isn't an actual one shot movie. If it's been edited to look like one continuous take, and if it actually does appear to be a single take, then the editor should get as much recognition as everyone else. Yes, he doesn't have to work with thousands of cuts (I counted 14, but I'm sure there's more), but they still exist, and he has to make sure no one feels them. And he did so perfectly.

My last paragraph concerning the technical aspects has to go to Sam Mendes and Thomas Newman. As the director, Mendes is able to deliver precisely what he envisioned and seamlessly coordinate his actors. Not only has he directed my favorite Bond film (Skyfall), but he also offers one of my favorite war movies of all-time. As for Newman, I just wish that Joker had been released in another year because 1917's score is fantastic. Hildur Guðnadóttir is likely taking the Oscar for Best Original Score, but if Thomas Newman takes it, I'll still be delighted.

A lot of comparisons are being made with Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk. They're similar films regarding the fact that their main goal is to provide the most immersive war experience. Story and character-wise, both movies don't really develop that much. Nolan's film is loved by most critics and audiences all around the world, but one common complaint about it is the lack of character building. I didn't mind that at all because the movie never actually tried to make their characters important. They were just soldiers caught in the worst of situations, similar to 1917. However, I do think the latter does a better job of making us care for the protagonists.

George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman's characters have small arcs, but they exist. In the beginning, Blake is the emotional-driven character, while Schofield seems to be the rational one. We, as the audience, care about the mission first, but as time goes by, we learn about their personal traits and motivations. By the end of the film, I was crying. Both play off of each other really well, but it's their dialogue that impresses me the most. What seems to be just a random talk while strolling through an open field of grass, it truly isn't. If it's not meaningful at the time, it's going to be. The acting is more physical than anything, and both deliver outstanding performances.

I would say I love 1917 as much as I love Dunkirk. I might be tempted to choose the former due to the "recency effect," but there's one small aspect that negatively affects both. Their replay value is not as high as other films since their technical achievements don't work as well on a regular TV in the comfort of our own home. You will never feel or understand that "immersive experience" that everyone talks about. You won't know what made people to be blown away. You won't love it as much as everyone else. So, please, do NOT miss 1917 in theaters!

Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, and Lee Smith. Director, director of photography, editor. Three key filmmaking roles in the creation of one of the best WWI movies of all-time. Edited to look like one continuous shot, 1917 is a mind-blowing technical achievement, elevated by Deakins' always jaw-dropping cinematography, Thomas Newman emotionally powerful score, Mendes impeccable directing, and Smith's seamless editing. George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman deliver outstanding (physical) performances, but it's the astonishing filmmaking that steals the spotlight. Production design, costume design, sound, you name it. Everything is absolutely perfect. It's meant to be seen at the biggest screen near you since this is an incredibly immersive experience that you won't get at home. It's going straight into my Top10: Best Movies of 2019, and I hope you'll love it as much as I do.

Rating: A
"Director Sam Mendes employs distinctive but extraordinary shots in the first person during the two-hour footage, which makes the production work in many different ways. Although it sometimes results too shaky, it is thanks to George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman's performances that 1917 preserves both sombre but optimistic tones throughout the montage. In short, this is an exceptional approach to memorialise the hundredth anniversary of the end of the First World War".

We are somewhere in France during the Trench Warfare [1915 - 1917] with a depleted British Army; the atmosphere, alongside with the dialogues, can define by itself how was life at the front: scarce water and food, despair between soldiers to go home, endless weapons and corpses scattered on the floor, and so forth. Corporals Blake and Schofield are told to attain a severe/impossible mission despite not having any reinforcements. Before achieving this goal in sending General MacKenzie [Bennedict Cumberbatch] the infamous fallback letter, both privates must penetrate the frightful No Man's Land and experience horrendous life-and-death encounters in many places.

Regardless of the silent second half, the absence of preeminent performers and the woozy experience of watching the film in one sole perspective director Sam Mendes and executive producers deliver an eloquent portrayal about surprising facts of the four-year global conflict. For example, both soldiers are bewildered by the superiority of the German trenches in proportions and in quality considering that historically they were far better equipped than the Allied ones which allow the audience the opportunity of a lifetime to analyse the condition millions of innocent citizens were facing. The result improves with some accurate shots at landscapes, underground warfare channels, entire villages pulverised, etcetera. I must acknowledge the last fifteen minutes of the film; it has been a long time since I spotted such an imposing ending. Countless emotions appear regardless of having reached the climax. What a masterpiece ladies and gentlemen!

What amazes me the most is that despite being a World War film, 1917 does not give the impression in duplicating the ordinary details of previous same-genre releases such as Hacksaw Ridge [2017]. Once Mr Gibson introduced a brief biography of Desmond Doss [the main character] he began recording some ultraviolent scenes as though you were spotting the most savage state of humankind. As an alternative, 1917 delivers some innovative procedures in creating a war film without increasing the brutal strength of instant classics as Saving Private Ryan.

Congratulations!

[80/100]
Very well made war-drama all in a one-shot like format. Performance from George MacKay who I guess if nothing else could follow in the footsteps of Tom Cruise for his all-out running ability. Joking aside, really enjoyed this film which manages to provide enough character development for me to care about his well being and task. Probably my favorite of 2019. **4.5/5**
When it comes to impressive achievements in filmmaking, “1917” deserves to be near the top of the conversation. This war film, which unfolds in two hours of real time, is shot to appear as one continuous take. Thankfully, it is so much more than just a technical gimmick. The showiness eases up as the emotional weight of the story unfolds, but it’s still hard not to get stuck on the challenges and manner of the moviemaking rather than the characters that should be the focal point of the film.

Set during the First World War, the story follows Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman), two young British soldiers who are given a seemingly impossible mission: deliver a message across hostile territory to the front lines. In a race against time, these men must deliver the information within a couple of hours if they want to stop 1,600 men, and one of the soldiers’ brothers, from walking straight into a deadly trap.

The plot is thin, and the characters even more so. Instead of learning more about Schofield and Blake, the showy filmmaking technique commands the spotlight over learning more interesting aspects of these soldiers. It’s more of an experiment in “look what I can do!” rather than compelling storytelling. The camera becomes more of a character than the actual characters.

Does this matter? Not really. Roger Deakins is a master cinematographer, and his technique here creates a fully immersive experience. Paired with director Sam Mendes, the two capture the trench warfare of WWI with clever camerawork that not only gives a real sense of the distance these men had to travel, but makes you feel trapped alongside them as fellow soldiers sharing the same journey. The intimate style of camerawork makes you feel as if you are right there in the trenches, on the battlefield, with these two young men. Since the film is made to feel like it was shot in real time, it becomes a psychological wartime thriller as time begins to run out.

“1917” is a large scale spectacle that often overshadows its small scale story, but there’s no disputing that it is a grand achievement in filmmaking.
I see that a lot is made of the technique they use to film this movie in one continuous shot, and it is very interesting, but I must confess I am not a student of film, merely a viewer. So you will find no critiques of the director or editor or that sort of technical detail. I like what I like.

Anyway, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected I would. I am not big on war movies. The scenery seemed great to me, and though there were visually stunning scenes, they didn't try to pile on explosion after explosion to cater to that crowd. The two leads were at the same time heroes and regular guys. I could almost picture myself in their position. Moments of extreme courage and bravery under fire were balanced by totally justified panic and fear. There were also quieter moments here and there, breaks from the sometimes hard to bear tension. Finally, there was a plot twist that seems normal looking back at it, but it shocked me at the time. I will leave it at that and not risk giving anything away.

So while I probably won't watch it again anytime soon, I do recommend it, even to viewers like me, who aren't big on war movies. As a side note, one viewer warned others NOT to compare this movie to Saving Private Ryan. I guess he thought it doesn't compare with it. Maybe I should give that movie a second look.
I think this film with very great shot. also the actors was very good.
But the story didn't appeal to me. haha

Movie Title	Baywatch
Hour	117 seconds
Release	2017-05-12
Quality	WMV 720p BDRip
Categories	Action, Comedy
speech	English
castname	Brune I. Mouy, Orianne T. Rougier, Darwin Y. Ashlynn

[HD] [Watch] Baywatch Movie Length 2017

Film kurz

Spent : $676,874,337

Revenue : $434,391,451

category : Dialog - Skepsis , Isolation - Abtreibung , Scheitern - Psychologisches Drama , Zweitens der Name - Uncategorized

Production Country : Frankreich

Production : Crime Pays



Baywatch is a movie based off the popular TV show of the same name which launched the careers of such acting talents as Yasmine Bleeth and Pam Anderson. And then those quickly died right afterwards but hey, the show ran like 11 years and…little known fact, Jason Mamoa was on spin-off show Baywatch: Hawaii.

The movie is very much like the show; as in if you walk in expecting to take it seriously you're already watching it wrong. The situations people need to be rescued from are just as ridiculous and far-fetched and the main plot here gets far more convoluted and hackneyed than the average day of any real lifeguard.

And like 21 Jump Street and a bunch of lesser TV to movie adaptations, this seeks to make fun of all of it, plus all the slo-mo beach running. Does it come off as good as Jump Street? No. Do we need this? God no. I mean didn't the show basically already make fun of itself enough as it is?

But all I can say here, and I guess the only thing anyone interested in this might want to know is, it could have been so much worse. I'm not saying this is the best movie of the summer so far. I don't really even know if i'm saying this is a good movie. But it's easy enough to sit through and the laughs, while not great, are consistent.

Where the script sucks, the cast knows how to make fun of itself. The Rock is the head honcho who takes the job very seriously. Zac Efron is the selfish, cool pretty boy new trainee who clashes with him. Both have a plethora of jokes for one another that work with varying degrees of success.

There's a fat lifeguard and the movie takes the shots you would expect it to take but actor Jon Bass also does have some comedic talent here in the Josh Gadd sense of the word. Actually he may even be funnier than Josh Gadd. Point is he works the best here from a comedic perspective.

The movie gives us quite a few dick jokes but this dude actually has one embarrassing moment that may rank up there with "There's Something About Mary", just with not as good a payoff.

Hannibal Burress also gets a couple scenes for a cameo and I love when he gets those. It's time for Burress to headline a movie though.

The women aren't as funny but I guess you can say they add some nice support to that and the action. Alexandra Daddario has shown a few times she's a pretty decent actress, and the others don't just seem like stiffs there to just show off a hot body. Priyanka Chopra is also here as the villain, and she's fine.

The whole movie can really be described as fine. It's funny and doesn't take itself too seriously and the cast all seems game for it. You don't have to see, but if you do, know it's already planning on sequels.

So I go 6 out of 10 on this one. For more reviews, check me out on Youtube at- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY_IvAm1bJADConJhDCuq6A






Yes, you're all very, very attractive, can we have something else too please?

_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._
**When lifeguards turned homicides!**

In the 90s, when the original television series was aired, I was just a kid. Then it was too sexy, that I was not allowed to watch. The world has changed so much all these years. I always wanted to see that, but never had a chance. Now a film, possibly a new franchise if it all goes well. There were lots of expectations on it, but the film did not deliver that. Yet they have already announced a sequel.

The bay security team is now recruiting new members. Three joins as the trainee after the tryout. Within a few days, a couple of suspicious deaths happen in the bay. The cops are not worried to solve it, but the Baywatch team jumps in and starts their own investigation. That leads them to a dangerous territory. From there, how they deal with it was revealed with some action-thriller.

Pumped up body, starring alongside a current top star, nothing is working for Zac Efron. He's just an accidental actor, won't survive long, unless he turns it all his way like Ben Afflect did. On the other hand, Dwayne was awesome. All the other actors too. Priyanka was not ideal for such role. Because an Indian in a negative role for an American film, nah, it does not work. India keeps all the thugs and sends only engineers, doctors, scientist et cetera to the foreign lands. A Chinese or a Russian villain works better.

No suspense. Everything was open from the beginning itself. Some of the comedies were good, but some were most absurd. Especially, I did not like the storyline. The Bay security force not doing their job, but police work. It goes completely out of the frame. It's okay doing same within their enclosure, but the film entered beyond that. Thus, the film missed to cover the beach events as what the title had promised. I hope the sequel would fall in line.

_3/10_

Movie Title	Logan Lucky
Time	163 seconds
Release	2017-08-17
Kuality	MPEG 1080p HDTV
Category	Action, Comedy, Crime, Drama
speech	English
castname	Pullman T. Malabou, Chantay M. Mahee, Nolwenn J. Mosès

[HD] [Watch] Logan Lucky Movie Length 2017

Film kurz

Spent : $603,346,162

Revenue : $930,753,400

categories : Wirtschaft - Wild Mountain Epidemic , Opernfilm - Du Son , Innerer Frieden - Terrorismus , Porträt - Liebesfilm

Production Country : Kapverden

Production : Intel Films

Movie Title	A Midsummer Night's Dream
Moment	131 minute
Release	1999-04-25
Quality	SDDS 720p VHSRip
Genre	Fantasy, Comedy, Romance
speech	English
castname	Bintou M. Vonnie, Albert Y. Zimal, Hibo L. Ryder

[HD] [Watch] A Midsummer Night's Dream Movie Length 1999

Film kurz

Spent : $077,372,274

Revenue : $038,404,702

Categorie : Fotografie - Großartig , Kind - Werbung , Wirtschaft - die Gelegenheit , Dokumentarfilm - Programm

Production Country : Swasiland

Production : Marwa Group

Movie Title	Bad Words
Moment	177 minute
Release	2013-09-06
Kuality	M2V 1080p DVDScr
Genre	Comedy
speech	English
castname	Wynter E. Maissa, Randi A. Jeunet, Adib E. Anahita

[HD] [Watch] Bad Words Movie Length 2013

Film kurz

Spent : $067,348,374

Income : $639,306,149

categories : Isolation - Stumm , Reiche Vize-Regierung - Guerilla , ein Gesetz dunkle Feinde - Guerilla , Flucht - Impressionist Lernen Judicial Floors Wildlife Film

Production Country : Bolivien

Production : zyntroPICS