Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bullet Train (2022) in Movies
Aug 10, 2022
Ultra-Violent...and a TON of Fun!
Early conversations surrounding the new Brad Pitt action flick BULLET TRAIN label this film as “Ultra-Violent”.
They say this as if it is a bad thing.
Directed by David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2) with a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz (FEAR STREET: PART TWO) and based on the book Kotaro Isaka, BULLET TRAIN is (no arguing here) an Ultra-Violent action flick in every sense of the term, set on the famed titular Japanese Bullet Train and follows an operative by the codename Ladybug (played by Pitt who you know from such gentle fair as FIGHT CLUB and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS) who’s easy “snatch and grab” job is nothing easy thanks to the appearance of various other nefarious individuals who also are looking for that case.
Following in the footsteps of such similarily-violent flicks as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, TRAINING DAY, FARGO and just about anything Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Director Leitch uses the violence, mayhem and bloodshed to ADD to the story (which all of the aforementioned films also did with great affect) and not “just” to be violent. And that’s an important distinction here. If the ultra-violence is fun and important to moving the story and plot along (and not just there to be gratuitous), then the movie can succeed quite well - and this one does.
What also makes these types of movies succeed is the plotting - which is sharp by writer Okewicz - and the twists and turns that you do not see coming - but make sense along the way (and will reward the viewer upon repeated viewing) and Bullet Train does this as well. It is a smartly made film that is crisply directed with some terrific action sequences (though, if I’m being fair, at times the CGI is not as good as it could/should be), but it is entertaining as all get out.
Leading us through this mayhem is the always charming and charismatic Pitt who parlays the “goofball” personae of a person in just a little over his head but comes out on top due to luck (or skill) - you be the judge. Pitt is the perfect performer for the audience to become invested in as he is the one that you need to be rooting for throughout - and you do from just about the beginning.
Leitch, wisely then, surrounded Pitt with some terrific character actors in this venture. From Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICK-ASS) to Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) to Joey King (THE CONJURING) to the always terrific Hiroyuki Sanada (MORTAL COMBAT) and a host of others who do extended cameos - and to name them would be to spoil the fun of them. They all understand what type of film they are in and all seem to be having a good time going along with it all.
And why not? Bullet Train is a delight in the cinema - for those of you who like action and violence that is pretty spectacular and over the top. It is a heckuva lotta fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (Out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
They say this as if it is a bad thing.
Directed by David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2) with a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz (FEAR STREET: PART TWO) and based on the book Kotaro Isaka, BULLET TRAIN is (no arguing here) an Ultra-Violent action flick in every sense of the term, set on the famed titular Japanese Bullet Train and follows an operative by the codename Ladybug (played by Pitt who you know from such gentle fair as FIGHT CLUB and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS) who’s easy “snatch and grab” job is nothing easy thanks to the appearance of various other nefarious individuals who also are looking for that case.
Following in the footsteps of such similarily-violent flicks as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, TRAINING DAY, FARGO and just about anything Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Director Leitch uses the violence, mayhem and bloodshed to ADD to the story (which all of the aforementioned films also did with great affect) and not “just” to be violent. And that’s an important distinction here. If the ultra-violence is fun and important to moving the story and plot along (and not just there to be gratuitous), then the movie can succeed quite well - and this one does.
What also makes these types of movies succeed is the plotting - which is sharp by writer Okewicz - and the twists and turns that you do not see coming - but make sense along the way (and will reward the viewer upon repeated viewing) and Bullet Train does this as well. It is a smartly made film that is crisply directed with some terrific action sequences (though, if I’m being fair, at times the CGI is not as good as it could/should be), but it is entertaining as all get out.
Leading us through this mayhem is the always charming and charismatic Pitt who parlays the “goofball” personae of a person in just a little over his head but comes out on top due to luck (or skill) - you be the judge. Pitt is the perfect performer for the audience to become invested in as he is the one that you need to be rooting for throughout - and you do from just about the beginning.
Leitch, wisely then, surrounded Pitt with some terrific character actors in this venture. From Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICK-ASS) to Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) to Joey King (THE CONJURING) to the always terrific Hiroyuki Sanada (MORTAL COMBAT) and a host of others who do extended cameos - and to name them would be to spoil the fun of them. They all understand what type of film they are in and all seem to be having a good time going along with it all.
And why not? Bullet Train is a delight in the cinema - for those of you who like action and violence that is pretty spectacular and over the top. It is a heckuva lotta fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (Out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The First Purge (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Yet another wasted opportunity
Yes! Get in! Finally, the producers over at Platinum Dunes and Blumhouse realised that what fans of the Purge series were wanting was a look at how the night of legalised crime came to be. It’s all we’ve been asking for since 2013 after all.
After three films of decent quality in which the second, Purge: Anarchy is the highlight, The First Purge promises to shake up the formula by introducing a prequel into the horror franchise. But does it do enough to stop the series from feeling stale or are we looking at yet another paint-by-numbers horror flick?
No. That’s the short answer anyway. Director Gerard McMurray falls into all the usual horror movie clichés with a film that is definitely Purge-like in its construction, but once again plays it all frustratingly safe.
To push the crime rate below one percent for the rest of the year, the New Founding Fathers of America test a sociological theory that vents aggression for one night in one isolated New York community. But when the violence of oppressors meets the rage of the others, the contagion will explode from the trial-city borders and spread across the nation.
The cast of characters in this instalment is possibly the most unlikeable of the bunch, apart from a few exceptions. Marisa Tomei is hideously underused as the experiment’s creator, Dr. May Updale, when in fact she should and could be the most interesting part of the movie. The rest of the cast are one-dimensional characters that you could cut and paste into any horror film of the last decade. Y’Ian Noel as Dmitri is probably the only one who leaves any lasting impression.
Subtlety has never been the series’ strong point. One of the leaders of the New Founding Fathers is called Donald T for heaven’s sake, but that was always part of its dark charm. It has never been afraid to show us an America that, for now at least, doesn’t feel that too far into the future but the political side-swiping in this instalment bashes us over the head with what feels like a brick. It’s so on the nose.
The premise has always been the best part, and the Achilles heel, of the series and so it continues with The First Purge. Fans waiting to get a really intricate look at how the night of crime came to be will be disappointed as we’re treated to barely 10 minutes of exposition before we’re slung head-first into the same killing-fest that the last three films descended into after their first acts.
This gets old quickly, even more so in this instalment as the repetitive jump scares come thick and fast with uninspiring camerawork, dreadful dialogue and lethargic kills. The use of contact lenses to create some striking neon visuals aren’t enough to lift anything in the film above average.
Thankfully, the final act in a dimly lit tower block shows the audience the type of film it could have been. Slickly shot and nicely styled, it’s a much-improved finale that is only let down by some truly dreadful CGI blood splatter. However, the use of strobe lighting is an inspired choice in this sequence as we follow two groups of people each trying to dispatch the other.
Unfortunately, this highlight isn’t enough to lift the rest of The First Purge above the mundane. Where the first in the series was a film testing the waters regarding its premise and the second improved on that ten-fold taking the action out onto the streets, this tries to use a hybrid of both but it comes across as stale as a ten day old loaf.
The pacing too is an issue. The first 20 minutes or so are excruciatingly slow as the film tries to set-up as many of its plot-points as possible. Now, 20 minutes might not sound too bad, but this is a 97 minute film – that’s a fifth of the time gone with nothing achieved.
If we must get a fifth film, and from the box-office figures, it bafflingly looks like we will, all we can do is hope they take the cheap jump scares and replace them with a thrilling look at the people who brought the purge to life in the first place. Until then, save your money and wait for the network premiere when it comes to television in a couple of years.
When the best part of your film is the purge announcement that has featured in every instalment, you know you’ve run into some trouble.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/12/the-first-purge-review-yet-another-wasted-opportunity/
After three films of decent quality in which the second, Purge: Anarchy is the highlight, The First Purge promises to shake up the formula by introducing a prequel into the horror franchise. But does it do enough to stop the series from feeling stale or are we looking at yet another paint-by-numbers horror flick?
No. That’s the short answer anyway. Director Gerard McMurray falls into all the usual horror movie clichés with a film that is definitely Purge-like in its construction, but once again plays it all frustratingly safe.
To push the crime rate below one percent for the rest of the year, the New Founding Fathers of America test a sociological theory that vents aggression for one night in one isolated New York community. But when the violence of oppressors meets the rage of the others, the contagion will explode from the trial-city borders and spread across the nation.
The cast of characters in this instalment is possibly the most unlikeable of the bunch, apart from a few exceptions. Marisa Tomei is hideously underused as the experiment’s creator, Dr. May Updale, when in fact she should and could be the most interesting part of the movie. The rest of the cast are one-dimensional characters that you could cut and paste into any horror film of the last decade. Y’Ian Noel as Dmitri is probably the only one who leaves any lasting impression.
Subtlety has never been the series’ strong point. One of the leaders of the New Founding Fathers is called Donald T for heaven’s sake, but that was always part of its dark charm. It has never been afraid to show us an America that, for now at least, doesn’t feel that too far into the future but the political side-swiping in this instalment bashes us over the head with what feels like a brick. It’s so on the nose.
The premise has always been the best part, and the Achilles heel, of the series and so it continues with The First Purge. Fans waiting to get a really intricate look at how the night of crime came to be will be disappointed as we’re treated to barely 10 minutes of exposition before we’re slung head-first into the same killing-fest that the last three films descended into after their first acts.
This gets old quickly, even more so in this instalment as the repetitive jump scares come thick and fast with uninspiring camerawork, dreadful dialogue and lethargic kills. The use of contact lenses to create some striking neon visuals aren’t enough to lift anything in the film above average.
Thankfully, the final act in a dimly lit tower block shows the audience the type of film it could have been. Slickly shot and nicely styled, it’s a much-improved finale that is only let down by some truly dreadful CGI blood splatter. However, the use of strobe lighting is an inspired choice in this sequence as we follow two groups of people each trying to dispatch the other.
Unfortunately, this highlight isn’t enough to lift the rest of The First Purge above the mundane. Where the first in the series was a film testing the waters regarding its premise and the second improved on that ten-fold taking the action out onto the streets, this tries to use a hybrid of both but it comes across as stale as a ten day old loaf.
The pacing too is an issue. The first 20 minutes or so are excruciatingly slow as the film tries to set-up as many of its plot-points as possible. Now, 20 minutes might not sound too bad, but this is a 97 minute film – that’s a fifth of the time gone with nothing achieved.
If we must get a fifth film, and from the box-office figures, it bafflingly looks like we will, all we can do is hope they take the cheap jump scares and replace them with a thrilling look at the people who brought the purge to life in the first place. Until then, save your money and wait for the network premiere when it comes to television in a couple of years.
When the best part of your film is the purge announcement that has featured in every instalment, you know you’ve run into some trouble.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/12/the-first-purge-review-yet-another-wasted-opportunity/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Light and breezy but utterly forgettable
It’s a peculiar state of affairs, the film industry that is. While reboots, remakes, prequels and sequels seem to be garnering much disdain from the movie-going audience of late, studios still push ahead with them regardless.
I mean, look at poor Disney and the performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story if you need any indication of a tiring audience. Female-led reboots are all the rage now too with Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters being met with a dreadful run at the box office despite decent critical responses. Next up, we’ve got Ocean’s 8, a sequel no-one was really asking for but got anyway. Is it worth a watch?
Five years, eight months, 12 days and counting – that’s how long Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) has been devising the biggest heist of her life. She knows what it’s going to take – a team of the best people in the field, starting with her partner-in-crime Lou Miller (Cate Blanchett). Together, they recruit a crew of specialists, including jeweller Amita, street con Constance, suburban mom Tammy (Sarah Paulson), hacker Nine Ball (Rihanna), and fashion designer Rose (Helena Bonham Carter). Their target: a necklace that’s worth more than $150 million.
Gary Ross, director of the first Hunger Games movie, takes over from Steven Soderbergh to helm a film that is perfectly passable popcorn fodder, but sadly nothing more. But, for the sake of this review, let’s start with the positives.
The cast is by far, the biggest selling point for this film. Filled to the brim with talent like Bullock, Blanchett and Paulson, it was always going to be a win-win situation pulling an ensemble like this together. Bullock is absolutely fabulous from the minute the film begins and Anne Hathaway is clearly having a ball playing an over-the-top version of herself. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly good as a failing Irish fashion designer and it’s always a joy seeing Sarah Paulson’s understated performances grace the big screen.
What’s not so good is the way the film treats its stars from different ethnicities however. Rihanna, Mindy Kaling (Amita) and Awkwafina (Constance) are sorely underused throughout. In fact, outside of Paulson, Awkwafina and Kaling provide the film with its most intriguing characters – but we learn very little about them apart from a few scenes studying their personal/professional lives.
It’s also best not to talk about James Corden and his hideously over-acted performance as fraud investigator John. Filled with cringeworthy dialogue, it’s a miracle his part is relatively short. Like a bad smell however, he lingers for much too long.
The biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility
Then there’s the plot, or rather the script. In making these women the absolute best-of-the-best, there are no high stakes, no tension to be had or anything remotely resembling a narrow-escape.
There’s the obligatory ‘oh no’ moment as something looks like it’s going to go wrong, but it’s rectified so suddenly that any joy in watching the heist unfold is completely lost. Where the previous Ocean’s movies were riddled with tension, Ocean’s 8 is devoid of it.
Thankfully, the plan is fun if a little uninspiring to behold, filled with bland cinematography very similar to what was seen in the first Hunger Games film way back in 2012. It’s all just very staid, like the studio was simply ticking boxes on a checklist to make sure they got a film that would make them money, but was lacking anything in the way of originality.
But perhaps the biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility. Article upon article has already been created in which writers dissect the film’s heist plan and come up with the same conclusion: it can’t be done. You don’t need those articles though, because the plot holes are big enough for anyone to see and that’s a real shame. This becomes increasingly evident in the film’s final 10 minutes which makes a mockery of everything that came before.
Overall, Ocean’s 8 is your typical summer blockbuster. It’s light, breezy and like a big tub of cottage cheese, devoid of any personality whatsoever. It’s saving grace is the cast. Managing to pull together an ensemble this good takes a lot of effort, and for that, it deserves some praise – faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/21/oceans-8-review-light-and-breezy-but-utterly-forgettable/
I mean, look at poor Disney and the performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story if you need any indication of a tiring audience. Female-led reboots are all the rage now too with Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters being met with a dreadful run at the box office despite decent critical responses. Next up, we’ve got Ocean’s 8, a sequel no-one was really asking for but got anyway. Is it worth a watch?
Five years, eight months, 12 days and counting – that’s how long Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) has been devising the biggest heist of her life. She knows what it’s going to take – a team of the best people in the field, starting with her partner-in-crime Lou Miller (Cate Blanchett). Together, they recruit a crew of specialists, including jeweller Amita, street con Constance, suburban mom Tammy (Sarah Paulson), hacker Nine Ball (Rihanna), and fashion designer Rose (Helena Bonham Carter). Their target: a necklace that’s worth more than $150 million.
Gary Ross, director of the first Hunger Games movie, takes over from Steven Soderbergh to helm a film that is perfectly passable popcorn fodder, but sadly nothing more. But, for the sake of this review, let’s start with the positives.
The cast is by far, the biggest selling point for this film. Filled to the brim with talent like Bullock, Blanchett and Paulson, it was always going to be a win-win situation pulling an ensemble like this together. Bullock is absolutely fabulous from the minute the film begins and Anne Hathaway is clearly having a ball playing an over-the-top version of herself. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly good as a failing Irish fashion designer and it’s always a joy seeing Sarah Paulson’s understated performances grace the big screen.
What’s not so good is the way the film treats its stars from different ethnicities however. Rihanna, Mindy Kaling (Amita) and Awkwafina (Constance) are sorely underused throughout. In fact, outside of Paulson, Awkwafina and Kaling provide the film with its most intriguing characters – but we learn very little about them apart from a few scenes studying their personal/professional lives.
It’s also best not to talk about James Corden and his hideously over-acted performance as fraud investigator John. Filled with cringeworthy dialogue, it’s a miracle his part is relatively short. Like a bad smell however, he lingers for much too long.
The biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility
Then there’s the plot, or rather the script. In making these women the absolute best-of-the-best, there are no high stakes, no tension to be had or anything remotely resembling a narrow-escape.
There’s the obligatory ‘oh no’ moment as something looks like it’s going to go wrong, but it’s rectified so suddenly that any joy in watching the heist unfold is completely lost. Where the previous Ocean’s movies were riddled with tension, Ocean’s 8 is devoid of it.
Thankfully, the plan is fun if a little uninspiring to behold, filled with bland cinematography very similar to what was seen in the first Hunger Games film way back in 2012. It’s all just very staid, like the studio was simply ticking boxes on a checklist to make sure they got a film that would make them money, but was lacking anything in the way of originality.
But perhaps the biggest sin that Ocean’s 8 commits is its complete lack of plausibility. Article upon article has already been created in which writers dissect the film’s heist plan and come up with the same conclusion: it can’t be done. You don’t need those articles though, because the plot holes are big enough for anyone to see and that’s a real shame. This becomes increasingly evident in the film’s final 10 minutes which makes a mockery of everything that came before.
Overall, Ocean’s 8 is your typical summer blockbuster. It’s light, breezy and like a big tub of cottage cheese, devoid of any personality whatsoever. It’s saving grace is the cast. Managing to pull together an ensemble this good takes a lot of effort, and for that, it deserves some praise – faint praise, but praise nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/21/oceans-8-review-light-and-breezy-but-utterly-forgettable/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Is the MCU all out of surprises?
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has become one of the most successful movie franchises ever made, and it’s easy to see why. Featuring incredible actors, up-and-coming directors and that trademark sense of humour, each film in the MCU has something to offer.
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Film that turned me vegetarian
Netflix has been hitting it out of the park with their original movies and TV series recently. Stranger Things, The Sinner, and Gerald’s Game have all been recent Netflix releases, with a caliber to beat some of the most seasoned of television broadcasters and filmmakers. One of the main films that stood out to me was Joon-ho Bong’s Okja – a heartfelt tale of a ‘superpig’ and her family.
Okja follows a young girl called Mija and her mission to save her best friend, Okja, from being kidnapped by a multi-national company. As much as this is a magical and funny tale of friendship, it is also a heartbreaking satire for corporate greed and the mistreatment of animals in the food industry.
Mija is trying to save Okja from Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) – the CEO of the Mirando Corporation, who wants to create a ‘superpig’ to fuel her latest food venture. This movie really highlights how we, as humans, see animals as less than us, when actually they are our friends.
The ending of this film is especially poignant. Not to reveal any spoilers, but I haven’t cried that hard at a film since Marley & Me. It puts you in the position of these animals, innocent but not naive, and seeing things from their perspective really made me consider my actions in a different light.
Before I went to university, I wasn’t that interested in vegetarianism. I had tried it a few times, forgot I was a vegetarian, and then given up almost immediately. When I moved to uni and one of my flat mates was a long-time veggie, it intrigued me.
My interest was cemented after watching Okja. This story of friendship between man and beast made me realise that animals, as much as people may not like to think about it, can feel and think and be in pain. Whilst watching this, my heart ached for these imaginary creatures, that much that I made a big decision.
I decided to try to be vegetarian. For once in my life, I was going to genuinely try. It took me a while, and of course, I have lapsed at some points in these few months since watching the film. It’s only recently that I have genuinely been sticking to a mainly vegetarian diet, and I feel so much better, both morally and physically, in myself.
There’s no denying the health benefits of vegetarianism. It lowers your cholesterol, you tend to lose weight, and you generally have quite a balanced diet. However, the idea that I could be fighting against the mistreatment of animals just by changing my diet a bit, was reason enough for me.
By no means am I the perfect vegetarian. I still eat meat sometimes, if I want to, or if I don’t fancy any of the (usually awful) vegetarian offerings at a restaurant. I am just trying my hardest to live a 90% vegetarian lifestyle.
Some may say that this is a bit of a drastic decision to make off of the back of a film that isn’t real. This is the power of good storytelling. It can make you feel things, say things, change things. It’s a powerful skill to master.
By no means am I telling you that watching Okja will make you vegetarian immediately. It’s just so heart warming and also devastating at the same time, that I couldn’t ignore what it was telling me.
The friendship between Mija and Okja is beautiful. It’s fun, it’s hilarious, it’s special. They have a bond that even the threat of death cannot break, and Mija will not let go of Okja until she has her back.
Overall, this movie is an absolute triumph. Director/writer Joon-ho Bong creates a script that’s almost lyrical in its approach, so fluid and well strung together that there are no seams, no breaks in the approach, no cracks in the well-polished veneer. He creates a story that breaks and heals, it takes the watcher on a journey of both the mind and the heart. It’s art.
This film’s aim is not to make you vegetarian. It’s not to make you feel bad about your food choices or your love of meat. It’s a story of love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/13/okja-review-the-film-that-turned-me-veggie/
Okja follows a young girl called Mija and her mission to save her best friend, Okja, from being kidnapped by a multi-national company. As much as this is a magical and funny tale of friendship, it is also a heartbreaking satire for corporate greed and the mistreatment of animals in the food industry.
Mija is trying to save Okja from Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) – the CEO of the Mirando Corporation, who wants to create a ‘superpig’ to fuel her latest food venture. This movie really highlights how we, as humans, see animals as less than us, when actually they are our friends.
The ending of this film is especially poignant. Not to reveal any spoilers, but I haven’t cried that hard at a film since Marley & Me. It puts you in the position of these animals, innocent but not naive, and seeing things from their perspective really made me consider my actions in a different light.
Before I went to university, I wasn’t that interested in vegetarianism. I had tried it a few times, forgot I was a vegetarian, and then given up almost immediately. When I moved to uni and one of my flat mates was a long-time veggie, it intrigued me.
My interest was cemented after watching Okja. This story of friendship between man and beast made me realise that animals, as much as people may not like to think about it, can feel and think and be in pain. Whilst watching this, my heart ached for these imaginary creatures, that much that I made a big decision.
I decided to try to be vegetarian. For once in my life, I was going to genuinely try. It took me a while, and of course, I have lapsed at some points in these few months since watching the film. It’s only recently that I have genuinely been sticking to a mainly vegetarian diet, and I feel so much better, both morally and physically, in myself.
There’s no denying the health benefits of vegetarianism. It lowers your cholesterol, you tend to lose weight, and you generally have quite a balanced diet. However, the idea that I could be fighting against the mistreatment of animals just by changing my diet a bit, was reason enough for me.
By no means am I the perfect vegetarian. I still eat meat sometimes, if I want to, or if I don’t fancy any of the (usually awful) vegetarian offerings at a restaurant. I am just trying my hardest to live a 90% vegetarian lifestyle.
Some may say that this is a bit of a drastic decision to make off of the back of a film that isn’t real. This is the power of good storytelling. It can make you feel things, say things, change things. It’s a powerful skill to master.
By no means am I telling you that watching Okja will make you vegetarian immediately. It’s just so heart warming and also devastating at the same time, that I couldn’t ignore what it was telling me.
The friendship between Mija and Okja is beautiful. It’s fun, it’s hilarious, it’s special. They have a bond that even the threat of death cannot break, and Mija will not let go of Okja until she has her back.
Overall, this movie is an absolute triumph. Director/writer Joon-ho Bong creates a script that’s almost lyrical in its approach, so fluid and well strung together that there are no seams, no breaks in the approach, no cracks in the well-polished veneer. He creates a story that breaks and heals, it takes the watcher on a journey of both the mind and the heart. It’s art.
This film’s aim is not to make you vegetarian. It’s not to make you feel bad about your food choices or your love of meat. It’s a story of love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/13/okja-review-the-film-that-turned-me-veggie/
Darren (1599 KP) rated About a Boy (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: About a Boy starts as we meet Will Freeman (Grant) who lives the perfect life in his head, no job because of his father’s royalties, no responsibilities and no relationship, he can jump from woman to woman and now he has learnt about single mums, he new target. Marcus (Hoult) is a young boy whose single mother is battling depression and when the two become unlikely friends.
As the friendship builds between Will and Marcus, the two learn valuable life lessons with Will finally learning the serious side to life, one he had coasted over through his life.
Thoughts on About a Boy
Characters – Will is the playboy bachelor who has gone from woman to woman never taking responsibility in anything in his life, at the age of 38 he isn’t getting any younger and wants to look to a new location to meet women, which finally gives him a chance to look at his own life errors and start to make something from life. Marcus is a bullied young boy, his mother is battling depression and he never fits in at school, he sees a male role model in Will and starts to becoming friends with Will where he can starts to learn how to be who he should be. This character is drawn up wonderfully because he doesn’t understand the problems his mother is going through, while he is aware there is a problem it reflects in his everyday life. Fiona is the mother of Marcus, she is battle depression in her life while trying her hardest to stay positive for Marcus, a battle she isn’t always winning. Rachel is the woman that shows Will a new meaning to life, only she is the one that could shatter his new look too.
Performances – Hugh Grant is easily one of the most British actors out there, he gives one of his best performances here that will make you like his bad character. This role could easily be a look at the person people believed he would be in real life. Nicholas Hoult gives one of the greatest breakthrough performances for a young star and by seeing just how far he has gone since this shows the early talent he showed. Toni Collette gives us a supporting performance that is just as difficult to watch because of her characters problems that it is an essential performance to see. Rachel Weisz is good in her supporting role, she doesn’t need to do too much with her character though.
Story – The story here plays out as a middle-aged man needing to grow up, a young boy who needs a male role model and understand that life isn’t going to be perfect no matter how much you want to believe it. The growing up side of the story is the one that we get to focus on the most and is everything you expect it to be. There is however a much deeper and stronger side to this story we see, that comes from seeing how young Marcus doesn’t completely understand his mother’s depression and just wants somebody to talk to, while finding his own way to fix her. Now this is important because the mental health issues are a bigger talking point now and showing it through the eyes of an innocent young boy shows how difficult it can be to talk about and deal with, with him never truly understanding what the problems are.
Comedy/Romance – This film did get me laughing a lot, this is usually hard for any comedy movie, this has so many clever visions on life through the shallow nature Will has. The romance is the backburner because it shows us just how Will is trying to find women, even if one does change his life.
Settings – The film is set in London, we get the see the home environment, which for the most part are empty, the social life and everyday life, nothing is new.
Scene of the Movie – Be a Godfather question?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The generic bullies.
Final Thoughts – This is a brilliant comedy that gets everything right with the way the comedy is handled, we do get a big issue covered and is a film that people need to look back on and watch.
Overall: Must watch comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/26/about-a-boy-2002/
As the friendship builds between Will and Marcus, the two learn valuable life lessons with Will finally learning the serious side to life, one he had coasted over through his life.
Thoughts on About a Boy
Characters – Will is the playboy bachelor who has gone from woman to woman never taking responsibility in anything in his life, at the age of 38 he isn’t getting any younger and wants to look to a new location to meet women, which finally gives him a chance to look at his own life errors and start to make something from life. Marcus is a bullied young boy, his mother is battling depression and he never fits in at school, he sees a male role model in Will and starts to becoming friends with Will where he can starts to learn how to be who he should be. This character is drawn up wonderfully because he doesn’t understand the problems his mother is going through, while he is aware there is a problem it reflects in his everyday life. Fiona is the mother of Marcus, she is battle depression in her life while trying her hardest to stay positive for Marcus, a battle she isn’t always winning. Rachel is the woman that shows Will a new meaning to life, only she is the one that could shatter his new look too.
Performances – Hugh Grant is easily one of the most British actors out there, he gives one of his best performances here that will make you like his bad character. This role could easily be a look at the person people believed he would be in real life. Nicholas Hoult gives one of the greatest breakthrough performances for a young star and by seeing just how far he has gone since this shows the early talent he showed. Toni Collette gives us a supporting performance that is just as difficult to watch because of her characters problems that it is an essential performance to see. Rachel Weisz is good in her supporting role, she doesn’t need to do too much with her character though.
Story – The story here plays out as a middle-aged man needing to grow up, a young boy who needs a male role model and understand that life isn’t going to be perfect no matter how much you want to believe it. The growing up side of the story is the one that we get to focus on the most and is everything you expect it to be. There is however a much deeper and stronger side to this story we see, that comes from seeing how young Marcus doesn’t completely understand his mother’s depression and just wants somebody to talk to, while finding his own way to fix her. Now this is important because the mental health issues are a bigger talking point now and showing it through the eyes of an innocent young boy shows how difficult it can be to talk about and deal with, with him never truly understanding what the problems are.
Comedy/Romance – This film did get me laughing a lot, this is usually hard for any comedy movie, this has so many clever visions on life through the shallow nature Will has. The romance is the backburner because it shows us just how Will is trying to find women, even if one does change his life.
Settings – The film is set in London, we get the see the home environment, which for the most part are empty, the social life and everyday life, nothing is new.
Scene of the Movie – Be a Godfather question?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The generic bullies.
Final Thoughts – This is a brilliant comedy that gets everything right with the way the comedy is handled, we do get a big issue covered and is a film that people need to look back on and watch.
Overall: Must watch comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/26/about-a-boy-2002/
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Captor (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Story: The Captor starts when American Kaj Hansson (Hawke) walks into a bank taking hostages in bank clerks Bianca Lind (Rapace) and Klara Mardh (Santos), he wants Gunnar Sorensson (Strong) released from prison along with his outlandish demands that Chief Mattsson (Heyerdahl) must try to put together.
As the hostage situation continue we start to see the truth unravel and see how Bianca starts to respect Kaj even feeling like she is part of the heist herself, can they make it out of the heist as the origin of the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ is born here.
Thoughts on The Captor
Characters – Kaj Hansson is the American that has walked into the bank, he doesn’t really have a plan, he knows what he wants though, he wants to be fair to his hostages, never actually wanting to hurt anybody, just to make sure the police see him as a threat. He starts to make friends with the hostages too. Bianca Lind is the bank clerk that has her own family and finds herself being held hostage, she becomes the stronger of the two women, she starts to become attracted to Kaj believing he isn’t a bad guy, this is her story. Gunnar Sorensson is the man that Kaj wants released from prison, he is one of the most famous bank robbers in the country and he sees the mistakes that Kaj is making, while having a deal with the Chief. Chief Mattsson is the man trying to end the situation, he is trying to stay one step ahead of Kaj to get everyone out alive.
Performances – Ethan Hawke is a delight to watch in this film, he plays the over the top which sums up what the character needs to be through this film. Noomi Rapace plays her role well giving us a character which is both interested and scared through the film. Mark Strong is the supporting acting for a generation, he brings his complex character to life with ease once again. Christopher Heyerdahl is strong through the film showing a determined, though calm man through the film.
Story – The story here follows a bank heist which led to the first case of Stockholm Syndrome, where the hostage falls in love with the hostage taker, we see how this hostage situation unfolds with the outlandish demands as the woman starts to fall for him. When it comes to bank heist movies, we have seen plenty, they usually revolve around the criminals and the police trying to stay ahead of each other, with this one we do have that, but we have the added dynamic of seeing how the hostages and takers start to bond when they see that everything can be kept under control, remember this is set in 1973 so the technology isn’t going to be a game changer in how everything is solved. Seeing both sides get to the talking can go through moments of slow story telling, but it isn’t long until Kaj goes a little bit crazy demanding our attention once again. With a subplot involving Gunnar’s position in the situation, we get to see how Kaj really doesn’t know what he is doing making it easier to help the hostages take sympathy with him. It was nice to have just normal police that aren’t looking to solve a personal problem with this case, which is so often the case in these stories.
Comedy/Crime – The comedy in the film comes from everything Kaj seems to do, from his outfit with wig, cowboy hat and American swagger, to how he overreacts to everything that is going on, the crime is loosely based on a real incident, with the names changed, it is a hostage situation, but you never feel like there is a threat.
Settings – Most of the film is set within the walls of the bank, it is a simple and well craft set that shows us just how the people have been thrown together in this situation.
Scene of the Movie – Kaj shares a pear.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t feel like there is a threat in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a different way to tell a heist movie, it does show us how hostages can fall in love with their captors and overtime even support them, we get the routine hostage talks and end up right where we need to for the story to flow with ease.
Overall: Nice spin on the heist genre.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/17/the-captor-2019/
As the hostage situation continue we start to see the truth unravel and see how Bianca starts to respect Kaj even feeling like she is part of the heist herself, can they make it out of the heist as the origin of the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ is born here.
Thoughts on The Captor
Characters – Kaj Hansson is the American that has walked into the bank, he doesn’t really have a plan, he knows what he wants though, he wants to be fair to his hostages, never actually wanting to hurt anybody, just to make sure the police see him as a threat. He starts to make friends with the hostages too. Bianca Lind is the bank clerk that has her own family and finds herself being held hostage, she becomes the stronger of the two women, she starts to become attracted to Kaj believing he isn’t a bad guy, this is her story. Gunnar Sorensson is the man that Kaj wants released from prison, he is one of the most famous bank robbers in the country and he sees the mistakes that Kaj is making, while having a deal with the Chief. Chief Mattsson is the man trying to end the situation, he is trying to stay one step ahead of Kaj to get everyone out alive.
Performances – Ethan Hawke is a delight to watch in this film, he plays the over the top which sums up what the character needs to be through this film. Noomi Rapace plays her role well giving us a character which is both interested and scared through the film. Mark Strong is the supporting acting for a generation, he brings his complex character to life with ease once again. Christopher Heyerdahl is strong through the film showing a determined, though calm man through the film.
Story – The story here follows a bank heist which led to the first case of Stockholm Syndrome, where the hostage falls in love with the hostage taker, we see how this hostage situation unfolds with the outlandish demands as the woman starts to fall for him. When it comes to bank heist movies, we have seen plenty, they usually revolve around the criminals and the police trying to stay ahead of each other, with this one we do have that, but we have the added dynamic of seeing how the hostages and takers start to bond when they see that everything can be kept under control, remember this is set in 1973 so the technology isn’t going to be a game changer in how everything is solved. Seeing both sides get to the talking can go through moments of slow story telling, but it isn’t long until Kaj goes a little bit crazy demanding our attention once again. With a subplot involving Gunnar’s position in the situation, we get to see how Kaj really doesn’t know what he is doing making it easier to help the hostages take sympathy with him. It was nice to have just normal police that aren’t looking to solve a personal problem with this case, which is so often the case in these stories.
Comedy/Crime – The comedy in the film comes from everything Kaj seems to do, from his outfit with wig, cowboy hat and American swagger, to how he overreacts to everything that is going on, the crime is loosely based on a real incident, with the names changed, it is a hostage situation, but you never feel like there is a threat.
Settings – Most of the film is set within the walls of the bank, it is a simple and well craft set that shows us just how the people have been thrown together in this situation.
Scene of the Movie – Kaj shares a pear.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t feel like there is a threat in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a different way to tell a heist movie, it does show us how hostages can fall in love with their captors and overtime even support them, we get the routine hostage talks and end up right where we need to for the story to flow with ease.
Overall: Nice spin on the heist genre.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/17/the-captor-2019/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mid90s (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
At 1 hour 25 minutes you'd be forgiven for thinking this would be a brief affair, but if you're not into it then this 85-minute film is agonisingly long.
Going into this the only thing I knew about this film was that it was directed by Jonah Hill, and I like him so that felt like something positive.
31 people had booked to see this preview at my Cineworld, I think there were maybe 10 of us that showed up. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm from any of us until it was time to leave.
Kudos on going with the 4:3 look on the screen and the grainier quality on the filming (I'm sure there are technical terms for that but I don't know them!) That combined with accurate costumes and settings to really take you back to the 90s. I found the smaller aspect to be rather distracting on the big screen though. I watch 4:3 a lot at home on my widescreen TV without it seeming odd, perhaps this is just one of those things, I go so often that I'm probably just expecting it to fill the whole screen.
The film starts with a particularly jarring scene, and while I don't have an issue with that shock impact I don't like that there's no context. You can infer things later on, but at no point do you explicitly find out the reason behind some of the shocking scenes. The film feels much more like we've been plonked down into his life rather than learning about it.
It's difficult to sum up how I feel about the characters.
Sunny Suljic is fine in the main role but there wasn't anything that wowed me from the role. That's no slur on the acting, I just didn't feel that the dialogue or story gave us more than a glance at his life.
Ray came across as the strongest out of all the skaters, we see a few different aspects of him and he gets a proper chance to open up. Had all the characters had this opportunity then I think we'd have had something much more interesting... but then teenage boys aren't notoriously fans of opening up emotionally on screen unless we're in a romantic film.
Those of you who read my reviews will know how I feel about Lucas Hedges, that is to say, I don't really get it. This role offers little backstory apart from the fact that he clearly has a long passion for beating the crap out of his brother, Stevie. Despite my growing indifference for him I feel like Hedges wasn't given enough time in the movie. I can see why he wasn't, Ian is hyper-aggressive and a very threatening presence so having more of him would have changed the dynamic a lot. Having more of him though might have allowed us to understand him a little bit more and take away some of the unanswered questions at the end of the film.
There are a lot of scenes with drug use and alcohol, and I can see those being relevant to the story, but the "sex" scene was uncomfortable and really didn't feel like it fit in at all. From the moment you see it coming to the point where the boys are prying out details of the encounter I sat there wondering why. Why it needed to be there and why the script was just so bad through it.
The ending was the only part of the film that actually made me feel anything for the characters and the events. That in itself is quite an achievement being that you can tell exactly what is coming. The way the final event is handled was visually striking and leads us into a moment where all the characters get to show something that finally feels like genuine emotion. I think it says a lot that the most effective bits of the film had no dialogue in them. The events at the end of this film saved Mid90s from getting one of the lowest ratings in my reviewing history.
I'd say that had they given over an extra 20 minutes to better character development then this would have been better, but I worry that an extra 20 minutes would just have made the event even more excruciating.
What you should do
I'm sure this has it's audience somewhere, after all, people seem to be raving about it. Sadly I am not that audience and I really can't recommend this to anyone.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I love the idea of making customer skateboards.
Going into this the only thing I knew about this film was that it was directed by Jonah Hill, and I like him so that felt like something positive.
31 people had booked to see this preview at my Cineworld, I think there were maybe 10 of us that showed up. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm from any of us until it was time to leave.
Kudos on going with the 4:3 look on the screen and the grainier quality on the filming (I'm sure there are technical terms for that but I don't know them!) That combined with accurate costumes and settings to really take you back to the 90s. I found the smaller aspect to be rather distracting on the big screen though. I watch 4:3 a lot at home on my widescreen TV without it seeming odd, perhaps this is just one of those things, I go so often that I'm probably just expecting it to fill the whole screen.
The film starts with a particularly jarring scene, and while I don't have an issue with that shock impact I don't like that there's no context. You can infer things later on, but at no point do you explicitly find out the reason behind some of the shocking scenes. The film feels much more like we've been plonked down into his life rather than learning about it.
It's difficult to sum up how I feel about the characters.
Sunny Suljic is fine in the main role but there wasn't anything that wowed me from the role. That's no slur on the acting, I just didn't feel that the dialogue or story gave us more than a glance at his life.
Ray came across as the strongest out of all the skaters, we see a few different aspects of him and he gets a proper chance to open up. Had all the characters had this opportunity then I think we'd have had something much more interesting... but then teenage boys aren't notoriously fans of opening up emotionally on screen unless we're in a romantic film.
Those of you who read my reviews will know how I feel about Lucas Hedges, that is to say, I don't really get it. This role offers little backstory apart from the fact that he clearly has a long passion for beating the crap out of his brother, Stevie. Despite my growing indifference for him I feel like Hedges wasn't given enough time in the movie. I can see why he wasn't, Ian is hyper-aggressive and a very threatening presence so having more of him would have changed the dynamic a lot. Having more of him though might have allowed us to understand him a little bit more and take away some of the unanswered questions at the end of the film.
There are a lot of scenes with drug use and alcohol, and I can see those being relevant to the story, but the "sex" scene was uncomfortable and really didn't feel like it fit in at all. From the moment you see it coming to the point where the boys are prying out details of the encounter I sat there wondering why. Why it needed to be there and why the script was just so bad through it.
The ending was the only part of the film that actually made me feel anything for the characters and the events. That in itself is quite an achievement being that you can tell exactly what is coming. The way the final event is handled was visually striking and leads us into a moment where all the characters get to show something that finally feels like genuine emotion. I think it says a lot that the most effective bits of the film had no dialogue in them. The events at the end of this film saved Mid90s from getting one of the lowest ratings in my reviewing history.
I'd say that had they given over an extra 20 minutes to better character development then this would have been better, but I worry that an extra 20 minutes would just have made the event even more excruciating.
What you should do
I'm sure this has it's audience somewhere, after all, people seem to be raving about it. Sadly I am not that audience and I really can't recommend this to anyone.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I love the idea of making customer skateboards.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wounds (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Will's life isn't that complicated, he does his shifts at the bar, comes home to his girlfriend Carrie and in between he flirts with one of the regulars, Alicia.
Life in the bar is pretty predictable, everyone drinks too much and there's the occasional fight. On this particular evening things get even stranger. When Eric and his friends arrive already drunk Will leaves them be, he's more intrigued by the group of college kids who arrive looking quite out of place. Everything is turned upside down when Eric and his friends start fighting and bring the night to a quick end.
Clearing up the debris Will finds a phone belonging to one of the kids, he takes it home intending to put it in lost property the next day but before that happens he discovers some shocking images that lead him and Carrie down a terrifying rabbit hole.
Wounds has a nice idea behind it but once I came out of the film and started thinking about it I began realising that somehow it's all just a little vague. One of the things I like about films with sci-fi and supernatural leanings is finding out about where the "things" have come from, in Wounds they give you a hint about it but nothing solid to go on. Will and Carrie are only given the vaguest of clues about what is happening and it's surprisingly frustrating. It felt very much like we'd been handed film two in a series and somewhere along the line we'd be handed the first film as a prequel and watch it end as they drop the phone in the bar.
We're also probably subjected to a little too much drama. The beginning takes a while to get to the horror aspect of things. By the time it came out I was genuinely surprised. I'd assumed the horror tag was added at a stretch as it was coming across as a thriller more than everything else. Certainly the drama portion seemed to be unnecessary to most of what was going on by the end of the film.
Armie Hammer plays Will in the main role of the movie. Will's journey goes through a lot of stages, potentially too many. It does at least work in a sensible progression rather than jumping around. Hammer is convincing in all stages even if they do seem a little far fetched but I would personally have axed some of it.
Here's what I would have done... Zazie Beetz was great and I love her in everything I've seen, in my opinion she was underused in this film. I'd have given her the role of Carrie and expanded it slightly while cutting Alicia and her boyfriend out completely. Beetz's performance was great but there wasn't really anything to get her teeth into when it came to the horror side of everything. She had great chemistry with Hammer onscreen which I didn't get from his performances with Johnson. Johnson's performance in general felt underwhelming, Carrie wasn't going to be a likeable character but she could have been so much more.
Sound plays a very big part in the film. As I mentioned at the beginning creepy crawlies play a big part in Wounds, and even when they're not there you know they're there. It's incredibly well done because more than once I found myself getting twitchy that I could hear them in the background of scenes. The other noticeable sound related issue was around the phone, at one point Will answers the mobile and we're subjected to a loud piercing tone that cuts right through you. Again, fantastic use of sound, but in this instance while it makes you feel the unease of Will as it happens it is also painfully loud for anyone who is even slightly sensitive to things like that.
The film uses effects to create the swarms of bugs... although saying that, if they didn't then it's a very impressive bunch of cockroach wranglers they have on staff. The effects themselves aren't fantastic but when they happen it's so fast that it kind of works in the moment.
It might not be the best horror film but it certainly wasn't a bad watch. It comes out on Netflix tomorrow, I won't be seeing it again right away but it's definitely going onto the Watchlist for the future.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/wounds-movie-review.html
Life in the bar is pretty predictable, everyone drinks too much and there's the occasional fight. On this particular evening things get even stranger. When Eric and his friends arrive already drunk Will leaves them be, he's more intrigued by the group of college kids who arrive looking quite out of place. Everything is turned upside down when Eric and his friends start fighting and bring the night to a quick end.
Clearing up the debris Will finds a phone belonging to one of the kids, he takes it home intending to put it in lost property the next day but before that happens he discovers some shocking images that lead him and Carrie down a terrifying rabbit hole.
Wounds has a nice idea behind it but once I came out of the film and started thinking about it I began realising that somehow it's all just a little vague. One of the things I like about films with sci-fi and supernatural leanings is finding out about where the "things" have come from, in Wounds they give you a hint about it but nothing solid to go on. Will and Carrie are only given the vaguest of clues about what is happening and it's surprisingly frustrating. It felt very much like we'd been handed film two in a series and somewhere along the line we'd be handed the first film as a prequel and watch it end as they drop the phone in the bar.
We're also probably subjected to a little too much drama. The beginning takes a while to get to the horror aspect of things. By the time it came out I was genuinely surprised. I'd assumed the horror tag was added at a stretch as it was coming across as a thriller more than everything else. Certainly the drama portion seemed to be unnecessary to most of what was going on by the end of the film.
Armie Hammer plays Will in the main role of the movie. Will's journey goes through a lot of stages, potentially too many. It does at least work in a sensible progression rather than jumping around. Hammer is convincing in all stages even if they do seem a little far fetched but I would personally have axed some of it.
Here's what I would have done... Zazie Beetz was great and I love her in everything I've seen, in my opinion she was underused in this film. I'd have given her the role of Carrie and expanded it slightly while cutting Alicia and her boyfriend out completely. Beetz's performance was great but there wasn't really anything to get her teeth into when it came to the horror side of everything. She had great chemistry with Hammer onscreen which I didn't get from his performances with Johnson. Johnson's performance in general felt underwhelming, Carrie wasn't going to be a likeable character but she could have been so much more.
Sound plays a very big part in the film. As I mentioned at the beginning creepy crawlies play a big part in Wounds, and even when they're not there you know they're there. It's incredibly well done because more than once I found myself getting twitchy that I could hear them in the background of scenes. The other noticeable sound related issue was around the phone, at one point Will answers the mobile and we're subjected to a loud piercing tone that cuts right through you. Again, fantastic use of sound, but in this instance while it makes you feel the unease of Will as it happens it is also painfully loud for anyone who is even slightly sensitive to things like that.
The film uses effects to create the swarms of bugs... although saying that, if they didn't then it's a very impressive bunch of cockroach wranglers they have on staff. The effects themselves aren't fantastic but when they happen it's so fast that it kind of works in the moment.
It might not be the best horror film but it certainly wasn't a bad watch. It comes out on Netflix tomorrow, I won't be seeing it again right away but it's definitely going onto the Watchlist for the future.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/wounds-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
