Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
Character-driven storyline rather than wham-bam Marvel action (1 more)
Illyana Rasputin - great character
"Glass" - Half Full.
So, I've heard a lot of bad word-of-mouth about this X-Men flick, but otherwise knew very little about it. As such, I went in with low expectations. And although there is nothing remotely novel about the movie, I didn't think it was too bad at all.
The plot: So, my review title suggests that the plot is very closely aligned to M Night Shymalan's "Glass" - his "Split" sequel from last year. A Victorian-style hospital-cum-prison similarly forms the claustrophobic setting for the majority of the movie. This is where the troubled teen Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) is taken after being suddenly orphaned in dramatic and mysterious circumstances. The only doctor present, Dr Reyes (Alice Braga), says she is being held there for her own - and society's safety - while her puberty-driven mutant tendencies emerge.
Locked away with her is Rahne (Maisie Williams), Charlie (Sam Guthrie), 'hot' Brazilian hunk Roberto (Henry Zaga) and the gloriously named Illyana Rasputin (Anya-Taylor Joy). Danni's arrival sparks a serious of escalating events that literally lead to all hell breaking loose.
Blu is the warmest colour: What made this Marvel movie stand-out for me, from the normal glass-shattering standard, is that it is predominantly a character-led piece. We spend quite a bit of time (for a Marvel movie) in building relationships between the teens, including a sweet lesbian-coming-out 'will they/won't they' tension between Rahne and Danni.
I was also very much attracted to the performance of Blu Hunt. I admit that this might not just be due to her interesting performance (the indigenous / LBGT angle is intriguing) but because she reminded me strongly of a girl at school who I had a mad crush on and completely failed to get off with! Blu is actually native American (from the Lakota tribe). Given she is the lead and has to carry the movie, it's a surprise that she is only about 5th in the billing: I'd have been upset with the director (Josh "A Fault in our Stars" Boone) about that.
Maisie Williams is also effective in this, and gets top billing, although arguably Anya-Taylor-Joy has emerged - with her wonderful "Emma" - as the bigger star since filming.
But it's Taylor-Joy's Rasputin that really stands out as the most interesting of the characters on show. There's a scene where she goes into action - eyes blazing and 'daemon' hovering - that would make a splendid PC screensaver! Stuff the "Black Widow" standalone movie: I'd go watch Illyana Rasputin kicking ass in her own follow-up movie! (Of course, Anya Taylor-Joy was also prominent in "Glass", which unfortunately cements the similarities between the films.)
The movie has had a long and tortuous path to its final release, being made waaaaaayyyyy back in 2017. As an X-Men movie, it's appeared after the X-Men universe finally imploded (with the disappointing whimper of "Dark Phoenix"). So in that sense it's a bit of a ghost of a flick.
Overall, it's a mixed bag. There's a sense of great familiarity with the contents - particularly with the strong echoes of "Glass", actually filmed after this one (but with 'inversion', who knows anymore?). Even the "Indian legend" that runs through the movie swaps a bear for a wolf but ends with a familiar, rather groan-inducing, motto. (It was used in "Tomorrowland" I think?)
But the young cast are attractive and entertained me for the (pleasantly short) running time. It's not going to win any prizes for originality, or indeed anything else. But it really wasn't the X-Men bust I expected it to be.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/08/x-men-the-new-mutants-2020-glass-half-full/ . Thanks.)
The plot: So, my review title suggests that the plot is very closely aligned to M Night Shymalan's "Glass" - his "Split" sequel from last year. A Victorian-style hospital-cum-prison similarly forms the claustrophobic setting for the majority of the movie. This is where the troubled teen Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) is taken after being suddenly orphaned in dramatic and mysterious circumstances. The only doctor present, Dr Reyes (Alice Braga), says she is being held there for her own - and society's safety - while her puberty-driven mutant tendencies emerge.
Locked away with her is Rahne (Maisie Williams), Charlie (Sam Guthrie), 'hot' Brazilian hunk Roberto (Henry Zaga) and the gloriously named Illyana Rasputin (Anya-Taylor Joy). Danni's arrival sparks a serious of escalating events that literally lead to all hell breaking loose.
Blu is the warmest colour: What made this Marvel movie stand-out for me, from the normal glass-shattering standard, is that it is predominantly a character-led piece. We spend quite a bit of time (for a Marvel movie) in building relationships between the teens, including a sweet lesbian-coming-out 'will they/won't they' tension between Rahne and Danni.
I was also very much attracted to the performance of Blu Hunt. I admit that this might not just be due to her interesting performance (the indigenous / LBGT angle is intriguing) but because she reminded me strongly of a girl at school who I had a mad crush on and completely failed to get off with! Blu is actually native American (from the Lakota tribe). Given she is the lead and has to carry the movie, it's a surprise that she is only about 5th in the billing: I'd have been upset with the director (Josh "A Fault in our Stars" Boone) about that.
Maisie Williams is also effective in this, and gets top billing, although arguably Anya-Taylor-Joy has emerged - with her wonderful "Emma" - as the bigger star since filming.
But it's Taylor-Joy's Rasputin that really stands out as the most interesting of the characters on show. There's a scene where she goes into action - eyes blazing and 'daemon' hovering - that would make a splendid PC screensaver! Stuff the "Black Widow" standalone movie: I'd go watch Illyana Rasputin kicking ass in her own follow-up movie! (Of course, Anya Taylor-Joy was also prominent in "Glass", which unfortunately cements the similarities between the films.)
The movie has had a long and tortuous path to its final release, being made waaaaaayyyyy back in 2017. As an X-Men movie, it's appeared after the X-Men universe finally imploded (with the disappointing whimper of "Dark Phoenix"). So in that sense it's a bit of a ghost of a flick.
Overall, it's a mixed bag. There's a sense of great familiarity with the contents - particularly with the strong echoes of "Glass", actually filmed after this one (but with 'inversion', who knows anymore?). Even the "Indian legend" that runs through the movie swaps a bear for a wolf but ends with a familiar, rather groan-inducing, motto. (It was used in "Tomorrowland" I think?)
But the young cast are attractive and entertained me for the (pleasantly short) running time. It's not going to win any prizes for originality, or indeed anything else. But it really wasn't the X-Men bust I expected it to be.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/08/x-men-the-new-mutants-2020-glass-half-full/ . Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
Misses more than it hits
The first Gal Gadot-led WONDER WOMAN film (2017) is generally regarded by most (myself included) as the finest film in the DCEU and Gal Gadot’s portrayal of Diana Prince/Wonder Woman is the highlight of any DCEU film that she appears in, so it was with much (delayed) anticipation that a viewing of WONDER WOMAN 1984 (finally) took place.
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Aug 12, 2021
Reynolds and particularly Comer are great (1 more)
Lots of laughs, most of them on target
Ready Player Truman
I managed to see “Free Guy” last night at a Cineworld “Secret Cinema” event.
Positives:
- It’s a riot of noise and colour. Like a fevered teenager’s dream. And – in the main – very funny. Ryan Reynolds is, as always, anarchically brilliant, playing the role of both Guy and “The Dude” – the one with the slightly unformed catchphrase. Both Reynolds and actor/director Taika Waititi, who plays the flamboyant mega-games-mogul Antoine – are well known for their improv lines. And this is on show here in spades (for better and in some cases for worse). The Bluray extras on this one are sure to be a smorgasbord of different variants!
- Jodie Comer. Wow! The “Killing Eve” star had a cameo as Rey’s mother in “Star Wars – The Rise of Skywalker” and starred in 2017’s Morrissey biopic “England is Mine”. But she’s been TV’s hidden gem in the main. This will surely be a break-out movie for her since she is in a class of her own here. Her portrayal of the flashback teenage version of herself is brilliantly nuanced and believable. I know she’s a serious actress, but the end of the movie made me think that there’s a strong niche, alongside the likes of Rachel McAdams and Emilia Clarke, in delivering a top-class romcom in the future.
- NO SPOILERS! But there is a surprise cameo towards the end of the movie that made the whole cinema erupt with laughter.
- The score by Christophe Beck is great, and song selections (especially the wonderful “Make Your Own Kind of Music”) are well-chosen and snort-worthy with their inclusion. I was listening to an interview with Beck on the UK's Scala Radio and he used to be a protégé of the great Mike Post: and there’s a nice tribute to Post with the inclusion of his “Greatest American Hero” theme to accompany “Dude” at one point.
Negatives:
- Waititi as Antoine is supposed to be over-the-top, but he misses 11, 12 and 13 and cranks it right up to 14 with his performance. Some of his (presumably) improv lines cross a mark. Dude, CANCER JUST ISN’T FUNNY. Nobody laughed. I can’t understand why this line was left in the cut when presumably they had a number of other variants. Bad judgement. (This is about the only reason I’m not giving this movie 10*s).
- Per “Summary Thoughts” below – it’s not as original as it likes to think it is.
Summary Thoughts on “Free Guy”: So, this is a movie that a lot of folks I know have been waiting for. And it’s a blast that I enjoyed immensely. There is little original under the movie sun, and this is no exception. It strays significantly into Spielberg’s “Ready Player One“, especially towards the end of the movie. But I personally found the closest resonance was with Peter Weir’s peerless “The Truman Show”. I even wondered if Reynolds was acknowledging that at one point, with a Carrey-esque gurn on one of his “Good Morning goldfish” segments?
The great thing is that you can ONLY see this on the big screen (which I hope stays that way for a good number of months). So I recommend you do just that since it’s a fine big screen summer blockbuster to enjoy. But when you go, don’t have a good visit – have a GREAT visit!
And by the way, there is NO 'monkey' (a post-credits scene in One Mann's Movies speak), so you don’t need to “do a Marvel” and sit through the end credits (unless, like me, you want to listen to more of Christophe Beck’s score again).
For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- It’s a riot of noise and colour. Like a fevered teenager’s dream. And – in the main – very funny. Ryan Reynolds is, as always, anarchically brilliant, playing the role of both Guy and “The Dude” – the one with the slightly unformed catchphrase. Both Reynolds and actor/director Taika Waititi, who plays the flamboyant mega-games-mogul Antoine – are well known for their improv lines. And this is on show here in spades (for better and in some cases for worse). The Bluray extras on this one are sure to be a smorgasbord of different variants!
- Jodie Comer. Wow! The “Killing Eve” star had a cameo as Rey’s mother in “Star Wars – The Rise of Skywalker” and starred in 2017’s Morrissey biopic “England is Mine”. But she’s been TV’s hidden gem in the main. This will surely be a break-out movie for her since she is in a class of her own here. Her portrayal of the flashback teenage version of herself is brilliantly nuanced and believable. I know she’s a serious actress, but the end of the movie made me think that there’s a strong niche, alongside the likes of Rachel McAdams and Emilia Clarke, in delivering a top-class romcom in the future.
- NO SPOILERS! But there is a surprise cameo towards the end of the movie that made the whole cinema erupt with laughter.
- The score by Christophe Beck is great, and song selections (especially the wonderful “Make Your Own Kind of Music”) are well-chosen and snort-worthy with their inclusion. I was listening to an interview with Beck on the UK's Scala Radio and he used to be a protégé of the great Mike Post: and there’s a nice tribute to Post with the inclusion of his “Greatest American Hero” theme to accompany “Dude” at one point.
Negatives:
- Waititi as Antoine is supposed to be over-the-top, but he misses 11, 12 and 13 and cranks it right up to 14 with his performance. Some of his (presumably) improv lines cross a mark. Dude, CANCER JUST ISN’T FUNNY. Nobody laughed. I can’t understand why this line was left in the cut when presumably they had a number of other variants. Bad judgement. (This is about the only reason I’m not giving this movie 10*s).
- Per “Summary Thoughts” below – it’s not as original as it likes to think it is.
Summary Thoughts on “Free Guy”: So, this is a movie that a lot of folks I know have been waiting for. And it’s a blast that I enjoyed immensely. There is little original under the movie sun, and this is no exception. It strays significantly into Spielberg’s “Ready Player One“, especially towards the end of the movie. But I personally found the closest resonance was with Peter Weir’s peerless “The Truman Show”. I even wondered if Reynolds was acknowledging that at one point, with a Carrey-esque gurn on one of his “Good Morning goldfish” segments?
The great thing is that you can ONLY see this on the big screen (which I hope stays that way for a good number of months). So I recommend you do just that since it’s a fine big screen summer blockbuster to enjoy. But when you go, don’t have a good visit – have a GREAT visit!
And by the way, there is NO 'monkey' (a post-credits scene in One Mann's Movies speak), so you don’t need to “do a Marvel” and sit through the end credits (unless, like me, you want to listen to more of Christophe Beck’s score again).
For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Dean Connelly (17 KP) rated F1 2017 Day One Edition in Video Games
Jan 10, 2018
More depth then last year (6 more)
AI is better
Tougher then last year
No German Grand Prix
It makes you think more
Feels like a proper F1 game
More to do besides campaign
Ai still isn’t perfect (3 more)
Biased stewarding
McLaren is constantly cursed
Never be Hamilton’s team mate
Still got it to be at the top
I went off F1 games when I played F1 2011 for the Wii, so after I took a chance on F1 2016, which I love for the gameplay the graphics the engine, the pit stops, the drivers AI (well some of the AI.) i just loved how Codemasters made an F1 game that was worth paying for, so I suppose this one is the same right? Wrong, this is way way better the 2016, The high scores it has got, are validated. I’ve never seen graphics this smooth or advanced, even my other half who has no interest in games whatsoever went “wow” when she saw them. The R&D part of F1 2017 is bigger by all means. Last year you had 5 departments with 5 upgrades, this year, you have 4 but you have at least 20 upgrades per department with separate goals for achievements, like do 20 pits stops your pit crew gets quicker or you race 60 races as first driver you get 15% points back from what you earn all race weekends. The most challenging part of this R&D is what do you upgrade first? (If you race a McLaren, I’d recommend reliability then speed.) not only that but do you save up your points and buy quality control and/or make everything cheaper (it’s a long road but it is worth it.) The biggest change this year is reliability, last year you could put fill your car up, put it in rich and that’s it. Not so this year, you have to manage your parts, and every engine has to last you at least 6 races, same with the parts, otherwise more then 4 engines or parts, grid penalties I’m afraid. There are More ways to get R&D points this year, track acclimatisation, Tyre management team objectives and Qualifying pace now they've added fuel saving and Race Strategy. They don’t take as long as they used to too. The teams you can pick have been put into 3 categories. (Your McLarens and Saubers make the bottom, Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes make the top and everyone else makes the middle.) each team has different objectives, (so Mercedes is to stay top of the pile, Williams is challenging for podiums, Saubers is to challenge for points you get the idea.)
If youre bored with a season theres more to it there's the traditional multiplayer, events, time trials New for this year, there is a championship mode. Using cars using older and newer cars and invitational events. Ranging from overtake challenge (overtake cars in say 3 minutes) to pursuit (AI in slower cars but you have to pass them) to time attack (cover say 3 laps in 5 minutes.) There's also multiple championships (ranging from a championship in classic cars to a double header tour to an international street series. Agent wise, you still get the option of changing teams every year and half way through a season. She’s presented a lot more in this year.
Bad news, well if you’re thinking of driving a McLaren, be afraid to be disappointed. I’ve heard more complaints about McLaren being as bad in the game then they are in real life, dare I say worse. The Ai still decide to take you off but it’s not as bad as 2016s AI. Your engineer is not as useless as last year but he still needs work on, agent is stil the same as last year so could have her doing more. Marshall’s still are biased and can’t tell the difference
It’s definitely an upgrade on last season but AI still isn’t perfect and there is so much more that could’ve been done. But as far as a game goes, this is more Mercedes then McLaren.
If youre bored with a season theres more to it there's the traditional multiplayer, events, time trials New for this year, there is a championship mode. Using cars using older and newer cars and invitational events. Ranging from overtake challenge (overtake cars in say 3 minutes) to pursuit (AI in slower cars but you have to pass them) to time attack (cover say 3 laps in 5 minutes.) There's also multiple championships (ranging from a championship in classic cars to a double header tour to an international street series. Agent wise, you still get the option of changing teams every year and half way through a season. She’s presented a lot more in this year.
Bad news, well if you’re thinking of driving a McLaren, be afraid to be disappointed. I’ve heard more complaints about McLaren being as bad in the game then they are in real life, dare I say worse. The Ai still decide to take you off but it’s not as bad as 2016s AI. Your engineer is not as useless as last year but he still needs work on, agent is stil the same as last year so could have her doing more. Marshall’s still are biased and can’t tell the difference
It’s definitely an upgrade on last season but AI still isn’t perfect and there is so much more that could’ve been done. But as far as a game goes, this is more Mercedes then McLaren.
Lee (2222 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
May 17, 2019 (Updated May 17, 2019)
More of the same, and that's perfectly ok with me!
The original John Wick movie in 2014 was one hell of a pleasant surprise. Keanu Reeves exploded onto the screen as the retired contract killer, sporting sharp suits and expertly taking out the bad guys who stole his prized car, and killed his dog. Beautifully choreographed, intensely satisfying action - just pure escapism. John Wick 2 landed in 2017 and expanded on some of the mythology introduced in the first movie, delving into the wider world of an assassin community which seemingly outnumbers average citizens! But John Wick broke the rules, losing his cool and killing a member of the High Table on the grounds of the Continental Hotel, a place designated to be safe ground for those in the assassin business. His actions led to him being deemed "excommunicado" by the High Table, with all privileges removed and an open contract of $14 million placed on his head. Wick had just an hour head start granted to him by old friend Winston, before becoming fair game for anyone and everyone. And that is where the second movie left us dangling...
Chapter 3 picks things up pretty much right from where chapter 2 ended. It's around 5:10pm, and a wounded John Wick is making his way through New York with his latest doggy friend alongside him. Excommunicado kicks in at 6pm, and he is clocked by various assassins as he moves through the streets, all preparing themselves for getting their shot at the $14 million. He takes care of the important stuff - making sure his dog is in safe hands and that his wounded shoulder is patched up - and every so often we cut to the administration room, where communications are sent out to all the assassins, paperwork gets stamped and a time check is announced. 20 minutes until excommunicado, 10 minutes, 1 minute, 5 seconds. It's an intense build up and you have no idea what's going to happen at 6pm, but you cannot wait to find out!
When 6pm arrives, it's not quite the all out war you're expecting. Instead, we get a bunch of nicely choreographed fights involving small groups of chancers, all keen to try their hand at taking out the legendary John Wick. We get book-fu, we get horse-fu, and we get a fight in a room full of knives and swords. Which is great, unless you're squeamish about anything involving sharp objects and eyeballs (that would be me then).
As much as I'd love to watch two solid hours of John Wick just kicking ass, there does need to be the odd break here and there, and there's a lengthy period where the brakes are slammed on somewhat. We get bogged down in more mythology, and while John tries to arrange safe passage to Casablanca in order to bargain for his life, an adjudicator arrives in New York to question those who seemingly broke the rules to help John in the last movie and serve suitable punishment on them.
When John hooks up with old friend Sofia (Halle Berry), things move up a gear once more. Sofia can more than hold her own in a fight and it's an impressive, albeit far too brief performance from Halle Berry. But it's her two dogs who manage to steal the show during a fight between John, Sofia and another bunch of goons. Repeatedly leaping out of nowhere and viciously taking guys down with a set of pretty impressive moves of their own. Going for the neck, pulling on arms, but mostly going for the crotch.
The final act resorts to simply providing a relentless onslaught of opponents for John to take out, and that's perfectly fine by me. Pausing for breath after each round (for our benefit as much as his!), before moving to the next. While not quite as impressive as the original movie, this was on the same level as chapter 2 for me. And I certainly haven't tired of seeing John Wick do his thing just yet.
Chapter 3 picks things up pretty much right from where chapter 2 ended. It's around 5:10pm, and a wounded John Wick is making his way through New York with his latest doggy friend alongside him. Excommunicado kicks in at 6pm, and he is clocked by various assassins as he moves through the streets, all preparing themselves for getting their shot at the $14 million. He takes care of the important stuff - making sure his dog is in safe hands and that his wounded shoulder is patched up - and every so often we cut to the administration room, where communications are sent out to all the assassins, paperwork gets stamped and a time check is announced. 20 minutes until excommunicado, 10 minutes, 1 minute, 5 seconds. It's an intense build up and you have no idea what's going to happen at 6pm, but you cannot wait to find out!
When 6pm arrives, it's not quite the all out war you're expecting. Instead, we get a bunch of nicely choreographed fights involving small groups of chancers, all keen to try their hand at taking out the legendary John Wick. We get book-fu, we get horse-fu, and we get a fight in a room full of knives and swords. Which is great, unless you're squeamish about anything involving sharp objects and eyeballs (that would be me then).
As much as I'd love to watch two solid hours of John Wick just kicking ass, there does need to be the odd break here and there, and there's a lengthy period where the brakes are slammed on somewhat. We get bogged down in more mythology, and while John tries to arrange safe passage to Casablanca in order to bargain for his life, an adjudicator arrives in New York to question those who seemingly broke the rules to help John in the last movie and serve suitable punishment on them.
When John hooks up with old friend Sofia (Halle Berry), things move up a gear once more. Sofia can more than hold her own in a fight and it's an impressive, albeit far too brief performance from Halle Berry. But it's her two dogs who manage to steal the show during a fight between John, Sofia and another bunch of goons. Repeatedly leaping out of nowhere and viciously taking guys down with a set of pretty impressive moves of their own. Going for the neck, pulling on arms, but mostly going for the crotch.
The final act resorts to simply providing a relentless onslaught of opponents for John to take out, and that's perfectly fine by me. Pausing for breath after each round (for our benefit as much as his!), before moving to the next. While not quite as impressive as the original movie, this was on the same level as chapter 2 for me. And I certainly haven't tired of seeing John Wick do his thing just yet.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Visual Treat
It was always going to be a tricky proposition to craft a sequel to Ridley Scott’s divisive 1982 film, Blade Runner. By divisive, I mean that while it has gained a cult following in the decades since its initial release, the film’s initial box-office run resulted in a gross that many would label ‘disappointing.’
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here
It’s been 22 years since Joe Johnston thrilled cinemagoers with a little film called Jumanji. Starring the late, great Robin Williams, it has amassed a huge following over the years and has become nearly as loved as its leading star.
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The You I've Never Known in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Ariel has spent her entire life drifting from place to place with her Dad, Mark. Abandoned by her Mom as a baby, Ariel and her father move often, leaving Ariel unable to form relationships and always feeling as if the latest place they touch down is just the next in a series of temporary stops. They've been living in Sonora long enough for Ariel to finish an entire year of school, and she's finally formed a few friendships. One of them is to her closest friend, Monica, to whom Ariel feels a deep friendship-- and attraction. Their friendship and potential relationship is complicated somewhat when Ariel meets Gabe, the nephew of her father's girlfriend, Zelda. Ariel is attracted to Gabe, too, and she isn't sure exactly what that means.
Meanwhile, Maya is trying to escape her hateful mother, and the only out she can see is Jason Ritter, an older man in the military. But now Maya is pregnant, and married life with Jason is turning out to be scary and lonely.
Told in both prose and verse, there's no doubt that Hopkins' story is often beautifully done. My biggest issue with the novel wasn't the book itself, but that the plot description reveals, in my opinion, a major spoiler that doesn't actually occur until past page 350. If you ask me, that's far too deep within the tale to reveal in the description, and I would have enjoyed figuring that twist out myself and getting there on my own. The story itself, as I mentioned, is told in various ways, and you need to be prepared for the verse, as it does take some getting used to. I haven't read many of Hopkins' books (in fact, Goodreads tells me I've just read [b:Tilt|11133791|Tilt|Ellen Hopkins|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1346263814s/11133791.jpg|16057047], which I'll confess I don't recall at all), and I probably had to go at least 75 pages until I was sort of in the swing of the verse "thing." The book is told from both Ariel and Maya's point of view (though mostly Ariel) and most of Ariel's pieces are in verse.
So, combine the verse/prose aspect and the fact that I was constantly waiting for this plot twist to happen while reading, and it took a bit to get into the book. There's definitely a lot going on this novel, but it was nice that at least Ariel's sexuality wasn't always the main focus. It was also refreshing to find a bisexual teen heroine. Overall, the book seemed to handle it fairly well, too, without so much of the usual stereotyping you can find in other novels and/or the media. I think a teen struggling with similar issues could find some comfort in this book, and that's important. For me, I wasn't completely sure that all the threads of the book were truly fully formed. I'm not completely sure how to explain that fully; it's not that I expected resolution to everything, but there were some serious topics dealt with in in the novel (beyond Ariel's sexuality) and it sometimes felt like they all got glossed over or moved past rather quickly. Bisexuality, rape, abuse... those are serious topics, and I'm not sure they got the ultimate focus they always needed.
So, in the end, I find myself a bit stumped by THE YOU I'VE NEVER KNOWN. I was certainly intrigued by the book and enjoyed it. As a bisexual female, I greatly enjoyed the character of Ariel and welcomed finding her in literature. While parts of the book went on a bit for me (though perhaps that was the verse format, I'm not sure, or waiting for the aforementioned spoiler), I found it interesting. Still, in the end, something felt a tad off for me. However, much of the writing was lovely, and the storyline different and often engaging. Overall, I'd probably give this one 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 01/24/2017.
Meanwhile, Maya is trying to escape her hateful mother, and the only out she can see is Jason Ritter, an older man in the military. But now Maya is pregnant, and married life with Jason is turning out to be scary and lonely.
Told in both prose and verse, there's no doubt that Hopkins' story is often beautifully done. My biggest issue with the novel wasn't the book itself, but that the plot description reveals, in my opinion, a major spoiler that doesn't actually occur until past page 350. If you ask me, that's far too deep within the tale to reveal in the description, and I would have enjoyed figuring that twist out myself and getting there on my own. The story itself, as I mentioned, is told in various ways, and you need to be prepared for the verse, as it does take some getting used to. I haven't read many of Hopkins' books (in fact, Goodreads tells me I've just read [b:Tilt|11133791|Tilt|Ellen Hopkins|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1346263814s/11133791.jpg|16057047], which I'll confess I don't recall at all), and I probably had to go at least 75 pages until I was sort of in the swing of the verse "thing." The book is told from both Ariel and Maya's point of view (though mostly Ariel) and most of Ariel's pieces are in verse.
So, combine the verse/prose aspect and the fact that I was constantly waiting for this plot twist to happen while reading, and it took a bit to get into the book. There's definitely a lot going on this novel, but it was nice that at least Ariel's sexuality wasn't always the main focus. It was also refreshing to find a bisexual teen heroine. Overall, the book seemed to handle it fairly well, too, without so much of the usual stereotyping you can find in other novels and/or the media. I think a teen struggling with similar issues could find some comfort in this book, and that's important. For me, I wasn't completely sure that all the threads of the book were truly fully formed. I'm not completely sure how to explain that fully; it's not that I expected resolution to everything, but there were some serious topics dealt with in in the novel (beyond Ariel's sexuality) and it sometimes felt like they all got glossed over or moved past rather quickly. Bisexuality, rape, abuse... those are serious topics, and I'm not sure they got the ultimate focus they always needed.
So, in the end, I find myself a bit stumped by THE YOU I'VE NEVER KNOWN. I was certainly intrigued by the book and enjoyed it. As a bisexual female, I greatly enjoyed the character of Ariel and welcomed finding her in literature. While parts of the book went on a bit for me (though perhaps that was the verse format, I'm not sure, or waiting for the aforementioned spoiler), I found it interesting. Still, in the end, something felt a tad off for me. However, much of the writing was lovely, and the storyline different and often engaging. Overall, I'd probably give this one 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 01/24/2017.