Search
Search results
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Handmaid's Tale - Season 1 in TV
Jul 15, 2017
Phenomenal casting (4 more)
Changes to the plot add more to the characters and world of Gilead
Gorgeous technicolor visuals
Retains the dark tone of it's source material
Wonderful original soundtrack
June's character is changed in a way that goes against one of the original messages of the book (1 more)
Soundtrack sometimes included pop songs that were jarring and obnoxiously loud
Adds new depth to an already incredible story
I LOVE The Handmaid's Tale. Both the book and now the television show. The show is stunningly beautiful in terms of it's visuals and soundtrack. The casting was outstanding, it is everything I ever wanted from an adaptation of this marvelous book.
The story is changed in some pretty big ways in an attempt to modernize the story. The setting has been changed to what seems like the present day in a more integrated United States. The television show added extra plot lines, giving more attention to some of the side characters and giving us their points of view seamlessly, something that would have been difficult and confusing in a written format. I loved seeing more of the side characters and with it, seeing Gilead be fully fleshed out and more terrifying than I ever could have imagined. It was wonderful seeing the story expanded to include the infertility epidemic, the fall of the United States, the protests and gradual rise of the nation of Gilead.
I was hesitant at first when I saw images of a young Commander and Serena Joy but the casting couldn't be more on point. Yvonne Strahovski is a powerhouse that really embodies Serena Joy, making her both a sympathetic and terrifying character. Elizabeth Moss, Samira Wiley, Ann Dowd, Alexis Bledel, and Madeline Brewer all deserve some serious praise for the way that they made all of their characters come alive.
An unfortunate casualty from the book were the changes to June's character, who went from being a disoriented every woman who did not recognize freedom when she had it and tragically lost everything. She wasn't ever meant to be the "hero," not like her mother or Moira who were outspoken feminists. This was an intentional set up in the book to be a cautionary tale of the importance of being vigilant and fighting to preserve one's autonomy. The June in the show on the other hand IS our hero, the fact that there is a season two means that we will have the resistance and the story will become more of your stereotypical dystopia where good will prevail and evil will always lose. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a pretty standard plot that gets recycled over and over.
What the story added where the book was extremely bleak was that tiny glimmer of hope. Hope that Gilead won't last and that the bonds of family and friendship can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. Be prepared to cry and those with triggers will probably have difficulty digesting some of the content in the show. The story doesn't shy away from difficult topics and the brutality can be startling.
The story is changed in some pretty big ways in an attempt to modernize the story. The setting has been changed to what seems like the present day in a more integrated United States. The television show added extra plot lines, giving more attention to some of the side characters and giving us their points of view seamlessly, something that would have been difficult and confusing in a written format. I loved seeing more of the side characters and with it, seeing Gilead be fully fleshed out and more terrifying than I ever could have imagined. It was wonderful seeing the story expanded to include the infertility epidemic, the fall of the United States, the protests and gradual rise of the nation of Gilead.
I was hesitant at first when I saw images of a young Commander and Serena Joy but the casting couldn't be more on point. Yvonne Strahovski is a powerhouse that really embodies Serena Joy, making her both a sympathetic and terrifying character. Elizabeth Moss, Samira Wiley, Ann Dowd, Alexis Bledel, and Madeline Brewer all deserve some serious praise for the way that they made all of their characters come alive.
An unfortunate casualty from the book were the changes to June's character, who went from being a disoriented every woman who did not recognize freedom when she had it and tragically lost everything. She wasn't ever meant to be the "hero," not like her mother or Moira who were outspoken feminists. This was an intentional set up in the book to be a cautionary tale of the importance of being vigilant and fighting to preserve one's autonomy. The June in the show on the other hand IS our hero, the fact that there is a season two means that we will have the resistance and the story will become more of your stereotypical dystopia where good will prevail and evil will always lose. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a pretty standard plot that gets recycled over and over.
What the story added where the book was extremely bleak was that tiny glimmer of hope. Hope that Gilead won't last and that the bonds of family and friendship can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. Be prepared to cry and those with triggers will probably have difficulty digesting some of the content in the show. The story doesn't shy away from difficult topics and the brutality can be startling.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Demon Seed: A novel of terror to horrify you this Halloween in Books
May 16, 2018
One of the things I’ve noticed when I’m running around between thrift stores is an abundance of Dean Koontz novels. That said, I’ve definitely been stockpiling them up, and the first one I read out of my Koontz pile is Demon Seed. Demon Seed is told from a rather peculiar perspective: that of a computer with artificial intelligence. Before I delve deeper into my thoughts on Demon Seed, I would like to note that this is a copy of the 1997 release, and not the original novel published in 1973. There are differences in the two books, however because I have not happened to lay hands upon the original version, I am unable to compare or contrast their contents. As such, my review is based solely upon the second version of the book, which is told solely from the perspective of Proteus, the artificial intelligence program that is all too frighteningly real.
The idea of a computer striking fear into someone’s heart is a bit of an oddball, but with the idea of artificial intelligence an all too possible reality, fear over what could happen should the AI take control of itself and evolve is real. In Demon Seed that science is taken too far when Proteus takes control of his own programming and not only stalks the recently divorced Susan Harris, but holds her captive within her own home. With a plan for the ideal race of humans on its mind, Proteus sets forth on a horrifying adventure to create for himself the perfect body, and poor Susan is a key player in his endeavor.
As a premise, especially for something originally written in the early 70’s, the idea behind Demon Seed is intriguing. I find Proteus to be a very disturbing character, and the way in which Koontz pens Proteus gives me chills. I remember once, a long time ago, having a similar feeling while reading a novel by P. T. Deutermann, in which the occasional chapter was in the killer’s perspective. I don’t remember the name of the book, only the fact that I was left nerve-wracked. Koontz’s Proteus is not too far off from that mark and the mere fact that Koontz is able to capture that essence of a true sociopath with an inanimate object (if I can really call Proteus that) probably factors into my opinion on the book the most. The other characters, and to some degree Susan as well, strike me as a bit one-dimensional. They have a single, solitary purpose and while they possess wildly different backgrounds, the way in which the story progresses does not leave room for the development of feelings toward the characters.
Demon Seed is an extremely quick read, and if you’ve got the time to sit for a few hours and thumb through its pages, I’d definitely recommend it. While it isn’t among my favorite books, and only receives a passing “meh” score from me, it was enjoyable. The linear plot line, told from a single, solitary perspective, makes it an easy read as well. There is also a movie adaptation of the novel, but it is not presently on my to-watch list.
The idea of a computer striking fear into someone’s heart is a bit of an oddball, but with the idea of artificial intelligence an all too possible reality, fear over what could happen should the AI take control of itself and evolve is real. In Demon Seed that science is taken too far when Proteus takes control of his own programming and not only stalks the recently divorced Susan Harris, but holds her captive within her own home. With a plan for the ideal race of humans on its mind, Proteus sets forth on a horrifying adventure to create for himself the perfect body, and poor Susan is a key player in his endeavor.
As a premise, especially for something originally written in the early 70’s, the idea behind Demon Seed is intriguing. I find Proteus to be a very disturbing character, and the way in which Koontz pens Proteus gives me chills. I remember once, a long time ago, having a similar feeling while reading a novel by P. T. Deutermann, in which the occasional chapter was in the killer’s perspective. I don’t remember the name of the book, only the fact that I was left nerve-wracked. Koontz’s Proteus is not too far off from that mark and the mere fact that Koontz is able to capture that essence of a true sociopath with an inanimate object (if I can really call Proteus that) probably factors into my opinion on the book the most. The other characters, and to some degree Susan as well, strike me as a bit one-dimensional. They have a single, solitary purpose and while they possess wildly different backgrounds, the way in which the story progresses does not leave room for the development of feelings toward the characters.
Demon Seed is an extremely quick read, and if you’ve got the time to sit for a few hours and thumb through its pages, I’d definitely recommend it. While it isn’t among my favorite books, and only receives a passing “meh” score from me, it was enjoyable. The linear plot line, told from a single, solitary perspective, makes it an easy read as well. There is also a movie adaptation of the novel, but it is not presently on my to-watch list.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A Valentine's weekend wonder
It’s hard to believe that one of Marvel’s hottest properties – Deadpool, has taken this long to get to the silver screen. Of course, we can always cast our minds back to 2009’s disastrous X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But for goodness sake, let’s not.
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A tiresome affair
The Fifty Shades phenomenon is something very hard to calculate. Yes, we know its sold millions of copies worldwide, but its readership is likely to be much higher. I’m sure someone somewhere will know another person who didn’t go out and buy the book, but just borrowed it.
Creating a film from E.L. James’ novel was never going to be an easy task for numerous reasons. The harsh reality is that Brits have mixed views with regards to seeing sex on the big screen – nonetheless, Sam Taylor-Johnson, director of the critically acclaimed Nowhere Boy, was chosen to helm an adaptation. But is it a success?
Partially is the short answer. The film is nicely shot and well-acted, but in trying to craft a ‘classy’ movie, Taylor-Johnson has stripped it of what people read the novel for – escapism and of course sex.
For the uninitiated, Fifty Shades follows the story of young Ana Steele, a shy, timid virgin as she begins a rather, shall we say, unusual relationship with the wealthy, intimidating Christian Grey.
The lead roles are cast well with Dakota Johnson playing Ana as she appears in the novel – minus her irritating thought processes – and Jamie Dornan as Mr Grey. Other roles are scarce on the ground with glorified cameos for Rita Ora and Marcia Gay Harden.
It’s been well publicised that with only 20 minutes of sex in a 2 hour film, pleasing hardcore fans of the books was going to be a difficult task. The sex that is there is reasonably tastefully edited and nicely choreographed, though this also creates Fifty Shades’ biggest problem.
There simply is no story to speak of, with each raunchy scene being scattered alongside numerous plot fillers like helicopter rides which act as a catalyst to the next sequence of passion and when the majority of them are removed, watching is a tiresome affair.
Moreover, whilst the leads perform well on their own, the chemistry between them is sorely lacking. At no point in the film is there a whisper of sexual tension – with Dornan’s Grey coming across overly creepy and Johnson’s Ana reeking of desperation.
Despite its 18 certification here in the UK, Fifty Shades never feels like it is fully deserving of it. With a highly controversial and no doubt too lenient 12 rating being awarded to it in France, it almost feels like producers here tried as hard as they could to slip it into the 18 category – therefore maximising controversy before its release.
Unfortunately, digging beneath the surface reveals a good film trying desperately to break out of its shackles. Exploring the characters more than in James’ admittedly lacklustre novel ultimately does more harm than good.
Overall, Sam Taylor-Johnson should be commended for trying to bring a controversial novel to the big screen and the soundtrack is very good indeed. However, the lack of chemistry between the two leads and a lack of sex and story mean you’re more likely to be checking your watch than checking your heart rate.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/14/a-tiresome-affair-fifty-shades-of-grey-review/
Creating a film from E.L. James’ novel was never going to be an easy task for numerous reasons. The harsh reality is that Brits have mixed views with regards to seeing sex on the big screen – nonetheless, Sam Taylor-Johnson, director of the critically acclaimed Nowhere Boy, was chosen to helm an adaptation. But is it a success?
Partially is the short answer. The film is nicely shot and well-acted, but in trying to craft a ‘classy’ movie, Taylor-Johnson has stripped it of what people read the novel for – escapism and of course sex.
For the uninitiated, Fifty Shades follows the story of young Ana Steele, a shy, timid virgin as she begins a rather, shall we say, unusual relationship with the wealthy, intimidating Christian Grey.
The lead roles are cast well with Dakota Johnson playing Ana as she appears in the novel – minus her irritating thought processes – and Jamie Dornan as Mr Grey. Other roles are scarce on the ground with glorified cameos for Rita Ora and Marcia Gay Harden.
It’s been well publicised that with only 20 minutes of sex in a 2 hour film, pleasing hardcore fans of the books was going to be a difficult task. The sex that is there is reasonably tastefully edited and nicely choreographed, though this also creates Fifty Shades’ biggest problem.
There simply is no story to speak of, with each raunchy scene being scattered alongside numerous plot fillers like helicopter rides which act as a catalyst to the next sequence of passion and when the majority of them are removed, watching is a tiresome affair.
Moreover, whilst the leads perform well on their own, the chemistry between them is sorely lacking. At no point in the film is there a whisper of sexual tension – with Dornan’s Grey coming across overly creepy and Johnson’s Ana reeking of desperation.
Despite its 18 certification here in the UK, Fifty Shades never feels like it is fully deserving of it. With a highly controversial and no doubt too lenient 12 rating being awarded to it in France, it almost feels like producers here tried as hard as they could to slip it into the 18 category – therefore maximising controversy before its release.
Unfortunately, digging beneath the surface reveals a good film trying desperately to break out of its shackles. Exploring the characters more than in James’ admittedly lacklustre novel ultimately does more harm than good.
Overall, Sam Taylor-Johnson should be commended for trying to bring a controversial novel to the big screen and the soundtrack is very good indeed. However, the lack of chemistry between the two leads and a lack of sex and story mean you’re more likely to be checking your watch than checking your heart rate.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/14/a-tiresome-affair-fifty-shades-of-grey-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Giver (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Striking visual translation
Over the last decade, cinema-going audiences have had the treat of numerous adaptations of popular young adult novels. Some of them have been particularly great – the Harry Potter series the highlight – whilst others have been less than stellar – Twilight, I’m looking at you.
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Victim of its marketing
It’s always refreshing to see a film released primarily for the adult market. We all loved The Hunger Games, but imagine what the series could’ve been like had the franchise been given a 15 or even an 18 certification.
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
And Fifty Shades of Grey may have its critics (me being one of them) but at least it appealed to those of us not interested in sharing cinema screens with rambling tweens. The finest of the adult genre? Well, that has to be Gone Girl. But now there’s a new kid on the block, ready to steal its crown. Is The Girl on the Train a worthy adversary?
Alcoholic Rachel Watson (Emily Blunt) catches daily glimpses of a seemingly perfect couple, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), from the window of her train. One day, Watson witnesses something shocking unfold in the garden of the strangers’ home. Rachel tells the authorities what she thinks she saw after learning Megan is missing. Unable to trust her memory, the troubled woman begins her own investigation, while police suspect that Rachel may have crossed a dangerous line.
Emily Blunt has become one of Hollywood’s finest actors, constantly adding new genres to her resume. From The Devil Wears Prada to Sicario and beyond, there is nothing she won’t try and The Girl on the Train is bolstered by a career-best performance by the actress. It’s never easy to play a drunk convincingly; you can look to some UK soap operas for proof of that, but she manages to pull it off exceptionally well.
Of the supporting cast, only Justin Theroux makes a lasting impact as Rachel’s ex-husband Tom, now living with his new wife Anna – a lacklustre Rebecca Ferguson. It would be unfair to sling too much mud at a very talented group of actors, but up against Blunt, there really is no comparison.
Elsewhere, the complex narrative of Paula Hawkins’ book translates to a rather messy filming style when viewed on the big screen. Continuous flashbacks from within Rachel’s mind are handled reasonably well by director Tate Taylor (The Help) and he manages to wrench everything together to stop the plot from becoming incoherent.
Unfortunately, The Girl on the Train is a victim of its own intense marketing campaign. The trailers have given away far too much for those who haven’t read the book and whilst the twists and turns aren’t immediately obvious, some of the Cluedo-esque fun has been removed. It’s clear Dreamworks wanted the film to resemble Gone Girl as much as possible, aiming to attract a similar audience, but this may have backfired slightly.
Overall, The Girl on the Train is a particularly faithful adaptation of the novel of the same name, held up by an intense and frankly incredible performance by Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, some of the film’s suspense has been lost by a poorly executed marketing campaign and as such it becomes a passable addition to the adult thriller genre. This year’s Gone Girl it is not.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/06/a-victim-of-its-marketing-the-girl-on-the-train-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Potter goes International
It’s almost unbearable to think that Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone was released…wait for it… 15 years ago this very week. I know, I can’t believe it too, and what’s even more depressing is that the eight film behemoth concluded over five years ago.
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dad's Army (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Full of wasted British talent
I may be fairly young in years, but I grew up around comedies like Only Fools & Horses, One Foot in the Grave and of course Dad’s Army. I remember many evenings sitting at home with my dad as he cried with laughter at all three, though it was the latter’s influence that stuck with me the most.
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Wrinkle in Time (2018) in Movies
Mar 25, 2018
Need to iron out this Wrinkle
The target audience for Ava DuVernay's adaptation of the 1962 classic novel A WRINKLE IN TIME are youth ages 10-14.
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of Wolfenstein: Youngblood in Video Games
Aug 8, 2019
The latest game in the popular Wolfenstein series has arrived with
Wolfenstein Youngblood and it is a departure from the prior games in the
series. The series originated on early computers with Castle Wolfenstein
and Beyond Castle Wolfenstein before emerging years later as an early
First Person Shooter Game. The success of the series has endured with this
now being the fourth release in the series since Bethesda took control of
the series.
Unlike prior games in the series, BJ Blazkowicz is a minor character and
players will plat as either Soph or Jess; his teenage twins. Like the
prior games in the series, the Nazi’s are in control and in this alternate
version of the 1980s; the twins must work with one another to complete
various missions with the Resistance in order to save the day.
The game requires players to play in a Co-Op mode with either another
player or the A.I. controlling the other sister. This is tricky as if one
dies; the game ends and you also must repeat the entire level as there are
no checkpoints and saves.
I strongly suggest playing with another player as thanks to the Buddy Pass
option; you can play with a friend who has the Trial Version of the game
or be randomly matched with another player. The trick with being matched
with another player is that you do not have control over which missions
you will play and I have played far more of the “Brother 2” level than I
wanted to.
The A.I. also has issues with doing things like going full bore into a
large mass of enemies with low health when you are in need of aid. The
smart move would be to withdraw, help heal your sister, and regroup, but
this does not happen. It can be very frustrating to be deep in a level and
lose it due to issues like this.
There were also some annoying crashes like when I was in the final battle
with the Uber Boss and had to repeat several levels to return to where I
was.
Thankfully the game looks great and the action is as intense and brutal as
any in the series. There are numerous weapons which can be upgraded via
Silver coins that players collect and they will be needed as the enemies
are abundant and the Mechanized units can really end your game fast.
There are also special weapons players can obtain as well as gun
emplacements which really help turn the tide of the battle.
In between missions’ players can hang out in headquarters and explore as
well as take on additional side missions and interact with various N.P.C.
characters.
While some may take exception to the new style of play, the characters,
and other issues; the game is attractively prices at $29.99 and seeing how
Bethesda has been providing updates on a regular basis; this is a
Wolfenstein game that fans who exercise a bit of patience and adaptation
can warm up to as I did.
3 stars out of 5.
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/wolfenstein-youngblood/
Wolfenstein Youngblood and it is a departure from the prior games in the
series. The series originated on early computers with Castle Wolfenstein
and Beyond Castle Wolfenstein before emerging years later as an early
First Person Shooter Game. The success of the series has endured with this
now being the fourth release in the series since Bethesda took control of
the series.
Unlike prior games in the series, BJ Blazkowicz is a minor character and
players will plat as either Soph or Jess; his teenage twins. Like the
prior games in the series, the Nazi’s are in control and in this alternate
version of the 1980s; the twins must work with one another to complete
various missions with the Resistance in order to save the day.
The game requires players to play in a Co-Op mode with either another
player or the A.I. controlling the other sister. This is tricky as if one
dies; the game ends and you also must repeat the entire level as there are
no checkpoints and saves.
I strongly suggest playing with another player as thanks to the Buddy Pass
option; you can play with a friend who has the Trial Version of the game
or be randomly matched with another player. The trick with being matched
with another player is that you do not have control over which missions
you will play and I have played far more of the “Brother 2” level than I
wanted to.
The A.I. also has issues with doing things like going full bore into a
large mass of enemies with low health when you are in need of aid. The
smart move would be to withdraw, help heal your sister, and regroup, but
this does not happen. It can be very frustrating to be deep in a level and
lose it due to issues like this.
There were also some annoying crashes like when I was in the final battle
with the Uber Boss and had to repeat several levels to return to where I
was.
Thankfully the game looks great and the action is as intense and brutal as
any in the series. There are numerous weapons which can be upgraded via
Silver coins that players collect and they will be needed as the enemies
are abundant and the Mechanized units can really end your game fast.
There are also special weapons players can obtain as well as gun
emplacements which really help turn the tide of the battle.
In between missions’ players can hang out in headquarters and explore as
well as take on additional side missions and interact with various N.P.C.
characters.
While some may take exception to the new style of play, the characters,
and other issues; the game is attractively prices at $29.99 and seeing how
Bethesda has been providing updates on a regular basis; this is a
Wolfenstein game that fans who exercise a bit of patience and adaptation
can warm up to as I did.
3 stars out of 5.
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/wolfenstein-youngblood/