Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Sep 29, 2020
What is there to say about Halloween that hasn't already been said? Not quite the first slasher, but arguably the film to throw this particular sub genre and all its tropes into the spotlight, and it's pretty much the perfect horror.
Halloween is iconic in several ways. A big part of that is it's characters. Laurie Strode is considered by many to be the quintessential scream queen/final girl and that is completely down to Jamie Lee Curtis. Her character is down to earth and relatable, realistic but shows resolve by the time the credits role. This has resulted in her return many times throughout the franchise and is still beloved now.
Donald Pleasance as Dr Loomis is another main stay of the franchise. His character arc is more tempestuous than Laurie's and as a result is less impactful overall, but is an important part nonetheless, especially in the original.
But what would Halloween be if it wasn't for Michael Myers, and indisputable behemoth of horror. His first outing is easily his best, with just enough back story to intrigue, and a quiet determination in the way he mercilessly and calmly stalks his victims. His souless, white mask (a mask infamously modelled after William Shatner) and dark jumpsuit is a simple yet effective aesthetic.
Some of the shots in Halloween are genuinely chilling - they got me when I was a kid, and they still get me now. One shot that always sticks in my head is when Laurie clocks Michael a little way down the street staring at her from behind a bush in broad daylight. The whole film is creepy, something that has seldom been imitated in the huge number of Slashers that followed in its wake.
This is all topped off by the instantly recognisable music score, composed by director John Carpenter (the talented bastard). I'm an unashamed Carpenter fan, and my love for his work started right here, as it did for many others.
Halloween is a film that is rightly still talked about today. It will never fade away, and it's simply down to how good it is, even all these years later. It's a must see piece of cinema, and it stands shoulder to shoulder with The Thing as my personal favourite horror of all time.
Halloween is iconic in several ways. A big part of that is it's characters. Laurie Strode is considered by many to be the quintessential scream queen/final girl and that is completely down to Jamie Lee Curtis. Her character is down to earth and relatable, realistic but shows resolve by the time the credits role. This has resulted in her return many times throughout the franchise and is still beloved now.
Donald Pleasance as Dr Loomis is another main stay of the franchise. His character arc is more tempestuous than Laurie's and as a result is less impactful overall, but is an important part nonetheless, especially in the original.
But what would Halloween be if it wasn't for Michael Myers, and indisputable behemoth of horror. His first outing is easily his best, with just enough back story to intrigue, and a quiet determination in the way he mercilessly and calmly stalks his victims. His souless, white mask (a mask infamously modelled after William Shatner) and dark jumpsuit is a simple yet effective aesthetic.
Some of the shots in Halloween are genuinely chilling - they got me when I was a kid, and they still get me now. One shot that always sticks in my head is when Laurie clocks Michael a little way down the street staring at her from behind a bush in broad daylight. The whole film is creepy, something that has seldom been imitated in the huge number of Slashers that followed in its wake.
This is all topped off by the instantly recognisable music score, composed by director John Carpenter (the talented bastard). I'm an unashamed Carpenter fan, and my love for his work started right here, as it did for many others.
Halloween is a film that is rightly still talked about today. It will never fade away, and it's simply down to how good it is, even all these years later. It's a must see piece of cinema, and it stands shoulder to shoulder with The Thing as my personal favourite horror of all time.
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated the Nintendo Switch version of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in Video Games
Dec 28, 2019
Exploration is epic (2 more)
Incredible open-world.
Mechanics and gameplay is Nintendo's greatest achievement.
Breath of fresh gaming.
On December 25th 2018, I finally got a Nintendo Switch, after years of hinting to my other half. There was only ever going to be one game to start with; Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Within the space of a week, I accounted 85 hours of gameplay and exploration around Hyrule. And I was disappointed with what I had experienced. The experience felt hollow, empty even. The story was bare boned, set amongst cut scenes of Link's memories from 100 years ago. I immediately sold the game and bought Super Smash Bros. Ultimate.
I was a fool.
Zelda: BotW is a mesmerising behemoth of a game, full of so much to discover and encounter through the breathtaking world of Hyrule. My stubbornness through my first playthrough was largely down to wanting a more linear, story based experience, like past Zelda games. What Nintendo crafted is something else entirely. Rather than focus of Link defeating Ganon, and saving Princess Zelda, your focus is to explore this vast open world and traverse its landscapes through whatever means you desire. And that is why this game is so special. The serene music and light melodies that play as you circumnavigate from land to land could often be quite dull and boring with other open world games, but in BotW its absolutely the right move. It gives you time to breath absolutely everything in, and stare in awe of the beautiful world you've inhabited.
The emphasis on going your own way and exploring is simply remarkable. The world is quite literally in your hands. Then comes the 120 separate challenges called Shrines, put in place so you can gain extra Health and Stamina bars as you progress. The puzzle solving is another great addition to a game already jam packed with content. I could mention and write all day long about its weather system, various amounts of enemies which require different approaches to combat, the side missions and extra content in regards to weapons and clothing, the list could quite literally go on, but I will finish this here with a few final observations:
BotW is a stunning achievement, and I am sticking to my gripe that the game is lacking quite significantly with its narrative, but it's a game that was never built around a long linear story. The simplicity that you are Link, and the world is yours just happens to be everything Nintendo needed to create a damn near Masterpiece of gaming.
I was a fool.
Zelda: BotW is a mesmerising behemoth of a game, full of so much to discover and encounter through the breathtaking world of Hyrule. My stubbornness through my first playthrough was largely down to wanting a more linear, story based experience, like past Zelda games. What Nintendo crafted is something else entirely. Rather than focus of Link defeating Ganon, and saving Princess Zelda, your focus is to explore this vast open world and traverse its landscapes through whatever means you desire. And that is why this game is so special. The serene music and light melodies that play as you circumnavigate from land to land could often be quite dull and boring with other open world games, but in BotW its absolutely the right move. It gives you time to breath absolutely everything in, and stare in awe of the beautiful world you've inhabited.
The emphasis on going your own way and exploring is simply remarkable. The world is quite literally in your hands. Then comes the 120 separate challenges called Shrines, put in place so you can gain extra Health and Stamina bars as you progress. The puzzle solving is another great addition to a game already jam packed with content. I could mention and write all day long about its weather system, various amounts of enemies which require different approaches to combat, the side missions and extra content in regards to weapons and clothing, the list could quite literally go on, but I will finish this here with a few final observations:
BotW is a stunning achievement, and I am sticking to my gripe that the game is lacking quite significantly with its narrative, but it's a game that was never built around a long linear story. The simplicity that you are Link, and the world is yours just happens to be everything Nintendo needed to create a damn near Masterpiece of gaming.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Nov 13, 2020
2014 was a damn fine year for Marvel Studios in terms of quality, their two outputs being The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. They're just a big double-whammy example of how comic book movies can get things right.
GOTG was a very niche property before hand. A bunch of little know Marvel characters galavanting around space, with revolving line ups involving inconsistent degrees of absurdity. The fact that batshit crazy characters such as Groot and Rocket Raccoon are now household names is an indication of just how effective this movie was.
James Gunn proves that he is the man for the job by melding together his own signature style (alongside his regular collaborator Michael Rooker of course) with the tried and tested Marvel formula of big action, and frequent humour. It's a toss up between this and Thor Ragnarok for funniest MCU movie for sure. Nearly every joke lands well, and unlike the sequel, the humour is never overdone. The balance is near perfect.
The cast are mainly to thank for that of course. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, and the voice talents of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel make up the titular Guardians, and they are all unique and have intriguing back stories. They are well developed as the film plays out, and together make for an irreplaceable band of misfits.
The supporting cast include the aformentioned Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, John C. Reilly, Lee Pace, Glenn Close, Peter Serafinowicz, Sean Gunn, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro, and a first appearance by Josh Brolin as Thanos... It's another undeniably impressive ensemble cast for the MCU.
The special effects on display here are incredible. The whole film looks amazing and the big set pieces are hugely entertaining, and emotionally charged...These characters make a quick impression!
The only real criticism I have is that Ronan the Accuser, this films main antagonist, feels a little wasted. He looks great, and Lee Pace does the best with what he's given, but by the time the credits roll, he unfortunately joins the big pile of disposable MCU villains.
It's a small gripe when compared to all the good in this movie - that includes it's fantastic soundtrack by the way.
Guardians of the Galaxy is wonderful. It's proof that studios no longer have to rely on the big A-list names to make a great film, and as a result, this opened the doors for even more weird and wonderful characters to make their way into this behemoth of a series. One of my personal favourite MCU entries.
GOTG was a very niche property before hand. A bunch of little know Marvel characters galavanting around space, with revolving line ups involving inconsistent degrees of absurdity. The fact that batshit crazy characters such as Groot and Rocket Raccoon are now household names is an indication of just how effective this movie was.
James Gunn proves that he is the man for the job by melding together his own signature style (alongside his regular collaborator Michael Rooker of course) with the tried and tested Marvel formula of big action, and frequent humour. It's a toss up between this and Thor Ragnarok for funniest MCU movie for sure. Nearly every joke lands well, and unlike the sequel, the humour is never overdone. The balance is near perfect.
The cast are mainly to thank for that of course. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, and the voice talents of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel make up the titular Guardians, and they are all unique and have intriguing back stories. They are well developed as the film plays out, and together make for an irreplaceable band of misfits.
The supporting cast include the aformentioned Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, John C. Reilly, Lee Pace, Glenn Close, Peter Serafinowicz, Sean Gunn, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro, and a first appearance by Josh Brolin as Thanos... It's another undeniably impressive ensemble cast for the MCU.
The special effects on display here are incredible. The whole film looks amazing and the big set pieces are hugely entertaining, and emotionally charged...These characters make a quick impression!
The only real criticism I have is that Ronan the Accuser, this films main antagonist, feels a little wasted. He looks great, and Lee Pace does the best with what he's given, but by the time the credits roll, he unfortunately joins the big pile of disposable MCU villains.
It's a small gripe when compared to all the good in this movie - that includes it's fantastic soundtrack by the way.
Guardians of the Galaxy is wonderful. It's proof that studios no longer have to rely on the big A-list names to make a great film, and as a result, this opened the doors for even more weird and wonderful characters to make their way into this behemoth of a series. One of my personal favourite MCU entries.
War Dragons
Games and Entertainment
App
War Dragons is a visually stunning 3D real-time strategy game that puts you in control of the...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Disaster with feeling
“Based on true events”. I can’t think of anything more disconcerting when I sit down to watch a film. When it comes to blockbusters inspired by real-life situations, the outcome can be a poignant movie that captures the heart and emotion of the episode – a la American Sniper.
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Potter goes International
It’s almost unbearable to think that Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone was released…wait for it… 15 years ago this very week. I know, I can’t believe it too, and what’s even more depressing is that the eight film behemoth concluded over five years ago.
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Game Of Thrones - Season 8 in TV
Aug 7, 2019
And now our watch has ended
Contains spoilers, click to show
From the moment Game of Thrones first graced our screens, whenever it was going to come to and end, the last season was going to have to be special to land properly.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
10 years in the making
A film adaptation of Stephen King’s wildly successful Dark Tower novels has been rumoured for over a decade. In 2007, J.J. Abrams was attached to direct the film but dropped out in December 2009.
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Spielberg, where are you?
Roald Dahl’s inspiring novels have had a chequered history when it comes to turning them into films. Danny DeVito’s Matilda is widely regarded as one of the best adaptations, with Tim Burton’s Charlie & the Chocolate Factory rendered a monstrosity by fans of the author and movie critics alike.
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/