Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Blue Room (2014) in Movies
Sep 24, 2018
Not Bad
Two lovers involved in an affair explore the possibilities of murder.
Acting: 10
Top to bottom the acting is absolutely magnificent. Each actor/actress excels in their role and gets you completely wrapped up in the story. There is so much intrigue and passion to convey in a story like this and this stellar group didn’t disappoint.
Beginning: 10
A steamy beginning introduces the characters and gives you a taste of what you can expect from the film. Again, this story succeeds by intriguing you from one moment to the next. The tone is set from jump, capturing your attention with the intro to the lovers and a police case we have yet to uncover.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 6
This is where the story loses me a bit. You can tell things are bubbling up behind the scenes, but I always had the strangest feeling that I was in for a let down. There wasn’t as much implosion as I was hoping for or that should come with a story of this magnitude. This man’s world is falling apart, yet it felt like the movie went through the paces for me at times.
Genre: 9
I think this scoring might be more of a result of not as many strong films in the genre. I classify this as an erotic drama or a drama centered around sexuality. It’s not a genre I’m well-versed in, but I will say that it’s one of the best I’ve seen considering the strong cast and overall appeal.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 5
Plot: 5
Resolution: 1
Shoddy and predictable. This film deserved better. Perhaps if it had gotten better, The Blue Room would have moved from decent to great. Seriously, it made the entire movie feel like a waste of time due to a lack of payoff. I don’t know what I expected…but it wasn’t this.
Overall: 75
While the film definitely gets a lot of things right with solid acting and beautiful shots that stand out in your brain, it lacks the proper punch to get it over the hump of mediocrity. While I would watch it again, The Blue Room won’t go down as one of my favorites.
Acting: 10
Top to bottom the acting is absolutely magnificent. Each actor/actress excels in their role and gets you completely wrapped up in the story. There is so much intrigue and passion to convey in a story like this and this stellar group didn’t disappoint.
Beginning: 10
A steamy beginning introduces the characters and gives you a taste of what you can expect from the film. Again, this story succeeds by intriguing you from one moment to the next. The tone is set from jump, capturing your attention with the intro to the lovers and a police case we have yet to uncover.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 6
This is where the story loses me a bit. You can tell things are bubbling up behind the scenes, but I always had the strangest feeling that I was in for a let down. There wasn’t as much implosion as I was hoping for or that should come with a story of this magnitude. This man’s world is falling apart, yet it felt like the movie went through the paces for me at times.
Genre: 9
I think this scoring might be more of a result of not as many strong films in the genre. I classify this as an erotic drama or a drama centered around sexuality. It’s not a genre I’m well-versed in, but I will say that it’s one of the best I’ve seen considering the strong cast and overall appeal.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 5
Plot: 5
Resolution: 1
Shoddy and predictable. This film deserved better. Perhaps if it had gotten better, The Blue Room would have moved from decent to great. Seriously, it made the entire movie feel like a waste of time due to a lack of payoff. I don’t know what I expected…but it wasn’t this.
Overall: 75
While the film definitely gets a lot of things right with solid acting and beautiful shots that stand out in your brain, it lacks the proper punch to get it over the hump of mediocrity. While I would watch it again, The Blue Room won’t go down as one of my favorites.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 15, 2019
As real as a donut
once upon a timeinhollywood is slow paced, tight methodical, uplifting & intricately woven look into the life of a hollywood star in the late 60s. I have to say im not overly a big Tarantino fan (with Inglorious bastards & the hateful eight being my favourites of his) so I wasnt really that excited about seeing this but once I stopped being on edge waiting for something bad to happen & finally sat back letting the film pull me in I knew this wasnt the usual Tarantino movie & I found that strangely compelling. While slow 90% of the run time the film never drags or ever stops being interesting & fascinating. Characters just drip cool are all likeable well fleshed out & distinguishable with every performance absolutely killing it even people that arnt in it much. It just all feels very human, relatable, down to earth & real. Sets are crafted with such perfection & filled with so much painstaking detail that you would swear the film was actually shot in the 60s creating an atmosphere & believability like no other. Accompany that with a smooth soundtrack you have a movie that just pops with style constantly. While everyone does a fantastic job its brad pitt that owns the film, his character is so deep, inspirational & the true hero of the film. Overall I saw this film as a more chill ed out & about how every day life for us all most of the time is way more exciting, thrilling, full of drama & strange events day to day making our lives just as exciting & as watchable as going to the movies & if we all just stopped worrying/stressing for just a second about technology, love, being successful etc life would fall into place, be stress free, we would be healthier & happier. Masterfully filmed, inteligent, mature & well executed this is not only a true love letter to the art of film making but a tribute to movies & how inspiring they can be in general. So sit back enter the decade & relax it may all seem very anti violence at first but the violence does come with time & when it finally hits its shocking & nasty but it feels earned & perfectly timed.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Steelheart in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I didn't really feel like writing a full review for <i>Steelheart</i>, so here's a list for you to take a gander at (and it sums up what I think... mostly).
<h2><strong>Six Things You Should Know About <i>Steelheart</i></strong></h2>
1. In the overall view, this is a revenge book laced with superheroness. Eight-year-old David witnessed his father being killed by an Epic, a human with superpowers. Ten years later, he vows to join the Reckoners, a group of people who hunt and kill Epics for a living and convince them to help him kill Steelheart.
2. From the two superhero books I've read, superheroes have really sad nicknames. Steelheart, Nightwielder, Firefight – it might sound really cool, but... ew. (You'll find a review for that other one sometime in the near future.) O_O
3. Sanderson writes this in a way that I actually liked and I'm not annoyed David is out wanting Steelheart's head on a platter in revenge. Not... really.
4. David is as socially awkward as <a title="The Sorcerer's Apprentice" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/movie-review-the-sorcerers-apprentice/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">that one dude who probably has the same name in that one movie</a>. Lucy London still takes the trophy as the <a title="Imperfect Chemistry by Mary Frame" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-imperfect-chemistry-by-mary-frame/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">best socially awkward character</a> (plus, who can beat her? She's absolutely adorable!).
5. David sucks at metaphors. I don't know if that's just Sanderson or the character, but David just tries <i>too hard</i> with the metaphors. Have I mentioned it makes him seem socially awkward?
6. Have I mentioned those metaphors are so bad, it's bleeping hilarious? The explanations David comes up with makes it even worse, thus more hilarious.
I really think I'm only interested in the second book because I want to see what David and the Reckoners are going to be up to.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-steelheart-by-brandon-sanderson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><strong>Six Things You Should Know About <i>Steelheart</i></strong></h2>
1. In the overall view, this is a revenge book laced with superheroness. Eight-year-old David witnessed his father being killed by an Epic, a human with superpowers. Ten years later, he vows to join the Reckoners, a group of people who hunt and kill Epics for a living and convince them to help him kill Steelheart.
2. From the two superhero books I've read, superheroes have really sad nicknames. Steelheart, Nightwielder, Firefight – it might sound really cool, but... ew. (You'll find a review for that other one sometime in the near future.) O_O
3. Sanderson writes this in a way that I actually liked and I'm not annoyed David is out wanting Steelheart's head on a platter in revenge. Not... really.
4. David is as socially awkward as <a title="The Sorcerer's Apprentice" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/movie-review-the-sorcerers-apprentice/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">that one dude who probably has the same name in that one movie</a>. Lucy London still takes the trophy as the <a title="Imperfect Chemistry by Mary Frame" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-imperfect-chemistry-by-mary-frame/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">best socially awkward character</a> (plus, who can beat her? She's absolutely adorable!).
5. David sucks at metaphors. I don't know if that's just Sanderson or the character, but David just tries <i>too hard</i> with the metaphors. Have I mentioned it makes him seem socially awkward?
6. Have I mentioned those metaphors are so bad, it's bleeping hilarious? The explanations David comes up with makes it even worse, thus more hilarious.
I really think I'm only interested in the second book because I want to see what David and the Reckoners are going to be up to.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-steelheart-by-brandon-sanderson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
I firmly believe that this is one of the best movies on the face of the planet. Anyone who knows me and knows my reviews knows how much it bothers me when film adaptations are so bad or so off or they just lose everything the book had. The exact opposite happens here. I think what makes this movie so good and so well put together is that it's still Stephen's story. He wrote the book, then the screenplay, then he directed it so it was his entire vision coming to life on screen and it worked. I think if anyone else would've directed or wrote the script, it wouldn't have translated so well.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Escape Room: Tournament of Champions (2021) in Movies
Jul 21, 2021
Taylor Russell - as in the first film, very watchable (1 more)
Production design of the "games"
The script is lazy, lame and insulting to the audience (1 more)
There are a load of plot holes
Totally clueless
I only gave Adam Robitel's original "Escape Room" 5/10. It was perhaps hoping for too much that his sequel - "Escape Room: Tournament of Champions" - would be better.
Positives:
- As in the first film, Taylor Russell again stands out as a personable, attractive and convincing actress. She deserves a role in something a lot better.
- The production design on the "game sets" is certainly very impressive.
Negatives:
- The fact that SIX people are down with writing credits for this astonishes me. The whole thing comes across as lazily plotted, with virtually no character development of the players. (Yes, even less than the first film.) You might think Nathan (Thomas Cocquerel) as an athletic priest might be an interesting character. I was expecting him at one point to channel the dramatic demise of Gene Hackman's similar character in "The Poseidon Adventure". But no. Nothing much is done with this.
- It's a movie where the more you think about it afterwards, the less sense it makes. Some examples:
-- People are dead, but then again - when inconvenient for the plot - dead no longer.
-- There's some bizarre "daughter kidnap" sub-plot at one point, but that's never referred to again.
-- Acid rain has no effect on a lock... until that is, the rainwater is captured and poured on the lock! Bonkers!
- There's a tragic amount of inane running around and wailing that gets mentally tiresome. You can imagine this written in the script as "Now run down the corridor and adlib some 'teenagers in peril' noises". (This is a best case guess: I'd hate to think that some of the "Quick!"s and "Hurreeeee!"'s had actually been scripted).
Summary Thoughts on "Escape Room: Tournament of Champions": I found this one to be tragically bad. A lame attempt to cash in on the bizarre $155M success of the first B-movie. My personal recommendation: Avoid!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- As in the first film, Taylor Russell again stands out as a personable, attractive and convincing actress. She deserves a role in something a lot better.
- The production design on the "game sets" is certainly very impressive.
Negatives:
- The fact that SIX people are down with writing credits for this astonishes me. The whole thing comes across as lazily plotted, with virtually no character development of the players. (Yes, even less than the first film.) You might think Nathan (Thomas Cocquerel) as an athletic priest might be an interesting character. I was expecting him at one point to channel the dramatic demise of Gene Hackman's similar character in "The Poseidon Adventure". But no. Nothing much is done with this.
- It's a movie where the more you think about it afterwards, the less sense it makes. Some examples:
-- People are dead, but then again - when inconvenient for the plot - dead no longer.
-- There's some bizarre "daughter kidnap" sub-plot at one point, but that's never referred to again.
-- Acid rain has no effect on a lock... until that is, the rainwater is captured and poured on the lock! Bonkers!
- There's a tragic amount of inane running around and wailing that gets mentally tiresome. You can imagine this written in the script as "Now run down the corridor and adlib some 'teenagers in peril' noises". (This is a best case guess: I'd hate to think that some of the "Quick!"s and "Hurreeeee!"'s had actually been scripted).
Summary Thoughts on "Escape Room: Tournament of Champions": I found this one to be tragically bad. A lame attempt to cash in on the bizarre $155M success of the first B-movie. My personal recommendation: Avoid!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) in Movies
Dec 24, 2021
Great Combination of Character, Humor, Action and Nostalgia
The newest Spiderman film, NO WAY HOME, is pretty much review proof in that there is such a strong, built-in audience for it, that it would do well even if it is a bad movie.
Fortunately for everyone, it is a really, really GOOD film.
Dipping deeply into nostalgia, but being it’s own movie as well, NWH strikes the balance between nostalgia and sentimentality quite well. This is because the nostalgic portion of this film is a compliment to the story itself - and not the main focus.
Credit for this must go to returning Director Jon Watts (he Directed the previous Spidey outing, FAR FROM HOME) and screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (and the powers to be at Marvel Studios). They balance the action -and a plotline that could be confusing - with ease. They made a basic, but important, decision. They kept things as simple as possible and leaned on the characters - and performances - to be the core of this film (and not the plot intracancies, the nostalgia and the Special Effects).
This is easy to do when you have 3 main characters in Tom Holland, Zendaya and Jacob Batalon as Peter Parker, MJ and Ned that are very charming and endearing performers at the heart of it - characters that the audience wants to spend time with. Add to that the domineering and forceful performance of Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr. Strange, the comic relief of Jon Favreau’s Happy Hogan and the warm and loving performance of Marisa Tomei as Aunt May and this film has a solid foundation to build on.
And, of course, there are the appearances of other characters/performers that the audience will well know from other properties - to mention them would be to spoil this film - but, suffice it to say, each one tops the one before it, building to a fun crescendo of heart, humor, action and nostalgia.
A very winning combination - and well worth checking out. And…if you’re comfortable with doing this - see it with an audience, it adds to the experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Fortunately for everyone, it is a really, really GOOD film.
Dipping deeply into nostalgia, but being it’s own movie as well, NWH strikes the balance between nostalgia and sentimentality quite well. This is because the nostalgic portion of this film is a compliment to the story itself - and not the main focus.
Credit for this must go to returning Director Jon Watts (he Directed the previous Spidey outing, FAR FROM HOME) and screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (and the powers to be at Marvel Studios). They balance the action -and a plotline that could be confusing - with ease. They made a basic, but important, decision. They kept things as simple as possible and leaned on the characters - and performances - to be the core of this film (and not the plot intracancies, the nostalgia and the Special Effects).
This is easy to do when you have 3 main characters in Tom Holland, Zendaya and Jacob Batalon as Peter Parker, MJ and Ned that are very charming and endearing performers at the heart of it - characters that the audience wants to spend time with. Add to that the domineering and forceful performance of Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr. Strange, the comic relief of Jon Favreau’s Happy Hogan and the warm and loving performance of Marisa Tomei as Aunt May and this film has a solid foundation to build on.
And, of course, there are the appearances of other characters/performers that the audience will well know from other properties - to mention them would be to spoil this film - but, suffice it to say, each one tops the one before it, building to a fun crescendo of heart, humor, action and nostalgia.
A very winning combination - and well worth checking out. And…if you’re comfortable with doing this - see it with an audience, it adds to the experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A teen, her mum and dog are moving to a new neighbourhood, on her first day of school she is invited to a party but turns it down to hang with her mum, however, her mum is too busy with her new job so she decides to go to the party. The party ends up being cancelled and the teens decide to drink instead, but as they're underage they struggle to get anyone to buy them alcohol, until a seemingly nice woman agrees to buy it for them. It soon becomes apparent that this woman is dodgy as we see her stalking the teens on Facebook (how did she get their full names?) and phoning one of their dads to tell him of their drinking plan who then phones the police to stop them in their tracks. This doesn't stop them trying again the next day by asking the same woman to buy them alcohol. This time she invites them to drink in her basement which the teens quickly agree to.
The evening turns sour when sue Anne pulls a gun out, but she soon turns it around as a good prank and invites them to party again and again. Eventually the teens realise how obsessed sue Anne is when she's constantly messaging them and they all decide to block her. That's when things go from bad to worse with a few surprises on the way.
I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie, it was in the horror section of Netflix but for the first hour I didn't really get a horror vibe, I got the vibe of a lonely woman so desperate to be liked that it becomes obsessive and I did feel sorry for her........ At first.
I liked the inclusion of her back story as I felt for her even more, making the second half of the movie such a kick in the teeth. I mean this woman is proper psychotic and the things she does is messed up, but damn it's a good watch! Octavia Spencer plays Ma so incredibly well, I honestly couldn't have picked anyone else to play her.
The evening turns sour when sue Anne pulls a gun out, but she soon turns it around as a good prank and invites them to party again and again. Eventually the teens realise how obsessed sue Anne is when she's constantly messaging them and they all decide to block her. That's when things go from bad to worse with a few surprises on the way.
I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie, it was in the horror section of Netflix but for the first hour I didn't really get a horror vibe, I got the vibe of a lonely woman so desperate to be liked that it becomes obsessive and I did feel sorry for her........ At first.
I liked the inclusion of her back story as I felt for her even more, making the second half of the movie such a kick in the teeth. I mean this woman is proper psychotic and the things she does is messed up, but damn it's a good watch! Octavia Spencer plays Ma so incredibly well, I honestly couldn't have picked anyone else to play her.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Oct 13, 2022
Just to be clear from the get go, a lot of Jurassic World Dominion is pure nonsense, and is yet another entry in this series that is worlds apart from Jurassic Park in terms of quality, and what it's trying to be. It has the courtesy at least, to be slightly better than the garbage fire of it's predecessor, Fallen Kingdom, and even a cynical bastard like me can admit to enjoying the extended presence of some of the legacy characters, but it's not enough to distract from the aspects that drag it down.
Perhaps most prominently, is the promise of dinosaurs rampaging the world with regular society, teased at the end of the last movie. There are parts here and there that show what that would be like, but the main bulk of the plot is focused on a potential famine cause by giant locusts. It's mind boggling why this is the main narrative, when all people want to see is massive dinosaurs fucking shit up in the suburbs or whatever. Jurassic Park is easily in my top 10 films of all time, a movie that I think of fondly, and even more so when Dominion is giving us James Bond style villains. How did we get to this point?
As mentioned, it's nice to have the likes of Alan Grant, Ellie Satler, and Ian Malcolm back in the mix, but it mainly serves as a reminder of how little chemistry Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard share. It's also ludicrous at this point, how every dinosaur will stop in it's tracks everytime Pratt's character does the dumb hand thing.
It's not all bad, honestly. Some of the action scenes are pretty fun, and a lot of the dinosaurs are puppeteered. When it's time to fall back on CGI, it's as good as it gets, and some of the new dinosaurs introduced are memorable.
It's another entry in this franchise that will no doubt have kids hitting the ceiling, but I personally think it's a shame that the quality has dipped to make room for crowd pleasing spectacle. Still though, it's better than Fallen Kingdom, so I'll take that as a small victory.
Perhaps most prominently, is the promise of dinosaurs rampaging the world with regular society, teased at the end of the last movie. There are parts here and there that show what that would be like, but the main bulk of the plot is focused on a potential famine cause by giant locusts. It's mind boggling why this is the main narrative, when all people want to see is massive dinosaurs fucking shit up in the suburbs or whatever. Jurassic Park is easily in my top 10 films of all time, a movie that I think of fondly, and even more so when Dominion is giving us James Bond style villains. How did we get to this point?
As mentioned, it's nice to have the likes of Alan Grant, Ellie Satler, and Ian Malcolm back in the mix, but it mainly serves as a reminder of how little chemistry Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard share. It's also ludicrous at this point, how every dinosaur will stop in it's tracks everytime Pratt's character does the dumb hand thing.
It's not all bad, honestly. Some of the action scenes are pretty fun, and a lot of the dinosaurs are puppeteered. When it's time to fall back on CGI, it's as good as it gets, and some of the new dinosaurs introduced are memorable.
It's another entry in this franchise that will no doubt have kids hitting the ceiling, but I personally think it's a shame that the quality has dipped to make room for crowd pleasing spectacle. Still though, it's better than Fallen Kingdom, so I'll take that as a small victory.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated I Am a Hero (2015) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Oct 29, 2020)
The Hero's Journey In The Zombie Apocalypse Is As Serious As It Is Funny
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have to say that this movie is one of the best zombie movies I've seen lately. From the beginning I like the way that the main character Hideo has these little moments where he zones out and has these little fantasies where he imagines himself as being more outgoing or heroic. Even if its just something small like the first one where he's at work and get's everyone cheering about being proud to work there when in reality he was just muttering to himself quietly. I really like how he's this kind of everyday regular guy who's just kind of down on his luck doubting himself. He's not where he thought he would be career wise which is hindering his relationship with his girlfriend and his co-workers. His girlfriend even kicks him out because of this and throws out some of his stuff. He really has bad luck because as he tries to make up for the fight with his girlfriend Tekko, he goes back to the apartment to find out that she has been infected by the ZQN virus and she attacks him and nearly infects him too. The ZQN's were pretty cool by the way. At first I thought that the whole cross-eyed look to them looked a little too silly but as it became a signature visualization that marked when someone had become a zombie. When his girlfriend turned it was quite horrifying as she contorted all over the place and did everything in her power to try and eat him. She even bit the door so violently she broke off all of her teeth, which was quite lucky for Hideo because when she bit him she didn't break the skin infecting him. The scene when he is running through the city and everything is in chaos was one of the more memorable scenes for me because so much was going on. There were ZQN's and regular people running all over the place in all directions and cars hitting people, but the car scene with the business man, the school girl Hiromi, and the taxi driver was spectacular. In fact one of the coolest things I've seen in a zombie movie is the school girl Hiromi who becomes a abnormal ZQN. She says that she was bit by a baby who was probably infected from breast milk if the mother was a ZQN. She didn't exhibit any symptoms for like 2 days and when she turns she doesn't attack Hideo but instead saves him by killing a ZQN that was trying to kill him. She has one eye that looks like a ZQN and has crazy superhuman strength but for some reason sleeps a lot. Most of the time in these survival zombie movies the story suffers from a lack of plot structure but a news report stating that the virus can't sustain itself at higher elevations make traveling to Mt. Fuji a destination propelling the plot further in a direction that makes sense. I also like how they used foreshadowing in certain scenes like when he finds a shopping basket with a logo of a marketplace, you can tell that place is more than likely the next destination. I also thought it was pretty cool how Hiromi wasn't the only abnormal and there was a weird "grudge" spider walking girl and then the infamous track star zombie with the crushed head. That one ran super fast and jumped really high and was pretty cool. One of the things I kind of didn't like was that Hideo had a gun for a lot of the movie but never even shot it until close to the end but it did go with the characters personality and make the story more interesting. It's just a little hard to believe. Also why weren't there anybody using any samurais swords on the zombies. I mean with the ZQN's being hard to kill because you need to destroy the whole brain, cutting their heads off would have been really efficient and machetes or swords would have been perfect. And just because it's Japan, I don't expect there to be swords everywhere but I'm surprised there wasn't even one. This movie was just so unexpectedly good it's hard for me to nitpick at things with it and I'm sure there's more that bothered me with it but I really enjoyed and liked this movie. I give this movie a 8/10 and my "Must See Seal of Approval"