Search
Search results
Technology and Law Enforcement: From Gumshoe to Gamma Rays
Book
Although for much of the mid-20th century police departments across the U.S. had been reluctant to...
Santa Sidekick - Christmas Budgets, Lists, Letters, Behaviors & Countdown
Productivity and Utilities
App
Meet your personal assistant for the entire holiday season. Santa Sidekick is a multi-faceted app...
Goodnight L.A.: The Rise and Fall of Classic Rock — The Untold Story from inside the Legendary Recording Studios
Book
A behind-the-scenes journey through the rise and demise of the '70s and '80s classic rock era ...
music
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allied (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
There's a great film in here somewhere
Director Robert Zemeckis has some impressive film credits to his name. From cult classics like Back to the Future to last year’s nausea inducing The Walk, there hasn’t been a genre his skills haven’t graced over the last four decades.
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
Dana (24 KP) rated Queen of Shadows in Books
Mar 23, 2018
Warning, if you have not read this book or any of the other ones before this, this review will have some minor spoilers, so if you don't want to find out stuff, do not read this review!!
I think this may have become my favorite of this series! After being somewhat disappointed with Heir of Fire (in relation to the other books in the series), Queen of Shadows had me jumping for joy.
I have loved how much the relationships between the characters have grown and have continuously evolved in the four books (plus The Assassin's Blade). In Heir of Fire, I couldn't really get into the story with Manon and her thirteen, but in this book, their story brought a lot more to the table. Her relationship with Eldie made me feel like she was more than she was in Heir of Fire. The fact that characters from the other books got such big parts in this novel. (Lysanna for the win!) Kaltain (from the first novel) and Lysanna (from The Assassin's Blade) became so important to this story line. It was great to see Aelin interacting with another female again in a way that wasn't just violence and heartache. I even love Rowan from this book. In the last book, he was kind if distant and unapproachable, but in Queen of Shadows, we got to see more of who he really was.
Chaol's development in this story was very good to see as well. From being a whiny little brat in Heir of Fire to being a decent human being in this book was fun to witness.
Abraxos is the freaking cutest little dragon I have ever read. I love him and I want my own!!!
It was cool to get to see Aelin slip on her Celaena mask again. The contrasts between the two is amazing to witness. Without those scenes, we wouldn't have been able to see how much she had actually grown--from being the bitchy assassin to being a badass queen, that was amazing. I think it was also very important to be able to see everyone's reactions to her slipping on the mask as well.
The changing of the narrators in this novel felt a lot more natural in the story than it did in Heir of Fire. It was as if they had all developed to a point where they cold tell their own stories in a way that made sense.
It is definitely important to read The Assassin's Blade before this book because without it, you won't get the weight of the actions that play out as much. You get more of the history behind Aelin, Lysanna, and Arobynn that make everything that happens make sense.
The action scenes were very well done. I enjoyed how the frenzied actions that were happening in the battles were equal to the frenzied writing on the page.
I think this may have become my favorite of this series! After being somewhat disappointed with Heir of Fire (in relation to the other books in the series), Queen of Shadows had me jumping for joy.
I have loved how much the relationships between the characters have grown and have continuously evolved in the four books (plus The Assassin's Blade). In Heir of Fire, I couldn't really get into the story with Manon and her thirteen, but in this book, their story brought a lot more to the table. Her relationship with Eldie made me feel like she was more than she was in Heir of Fire. The fact that characters from the other books got such big parts in this novel. (Lysanna for the win!) Kaltain (from the first novel) and Lysanna (from The Assassin's Blade) became so important to this story line. It was great to see Aelin interacting with another female again in a way that wasn't just violence and heartache. I even love Rowan from this book. In the last book, he was kind if distant and unapproachable, but in Queen of Shadows, we got to see more of who he really was.
Chaol's development in this story was very good to see as well. From being a whiny little brat in Heir of Fire to being a decent human being in this book was fun to witness.
Abraxos is the freaking cutest little dragon I have ever read. I love him and I want my own!!!
It was cool to get to see Aelin slip on her Celaena mask again. The contrasts between the two is amazing to witness. Without those scenes, we wouldn't have been able to see how much she had actually grown--from being the bitchy assassin to being a badass queen, that was amazing. I think it was also very important to be able to see everyone's reactions to her slipping on the mask as well.
The changing of the narrators in this novel felt a lot more natural in the story than it did in Heir of Fire. It was as if they had all developed to a point where they cold tell their own stories in a way that made sense.
It is definitely important to read The Assassin's Blade before this book because without it, you won't get the weight of the actions that play out as much. You get more of the history behind Aelin, Lysanna, and Arobynn that make everything that happens make sense.
The action scenes were very well done. I enjoyed how the frenzied actions that were happening in the battles were equal to the frenzied writing on the page.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
All good things must come to an end and with the fourth and final film based on Suzanne Collin’s widely popular Hunger Games series, audience get a chance to say goodbye to their favorite characters.
Literally picking up mid-scene, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2” features Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), dealing with the vicious attack from Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), after having his mind scrambled by the evil minions of President Snow (Donald Sutherland).
Despite the desires of District 13 President Coin (Julianne Moore), for Katniss to stay behind the lines following a harrowing incident during a visit to the Districts, Katniss is determined to kill Snow, and sets off with a dream team who is actually working behind the lines to film propaganda videos.
Naturally things are not as safe as they seem and before long, Katniss and her team are not only dealing with the dangers of the Capitol, but with an unknown element in the form of Peeta who was assigned to accompany them mid mission.
Politics soon appear to be as big a danger to Katniss to the traps and deadly creations that Snow has devised for her, but undaunted, Katniss and her crew must face the dangers to restore freedom to the people.
The film follows the book well in the second half of the film but it does suffer from pacing and editing issues. The film takes a while to get to the action and then takes a rest and conversation route for the characters. This is followed later in the film which undermines a sense of urgency for the characters. What made the earlier films such a success was the social commentary and horrific fascination of great splendor while those around them suffer and starve to toil away to provide creature comforts to the elite class. There was also the fact that the children of the oppressed were forced to battle to the death for the entertainment of the wealthy as well.
This element is lacking from this film, as it is in many ways a road trip of sorts with a couple of action scenes tossed in. Lawrence does well with what she has but she is essentially like most of the cast forced to play out the string save for some powerful but all too fleeting moments. Hutcherson shines as Peeta as you can see his torment as he strives to recover the personality and memories that are his and not fabrications, as well as his constant turmoil.
In the end the film unfolds not In a grand spectacle but rather pedestrian which while in keeping with the book, does seem disappointing compared to how good the series has been to date.
The film will satisfy fans but it does not hold your attention and fill you with suspense the way the first two films did, and despite its best efforts, is slightly below part 1. That being said, it is entertaining and does make for a satisfying end to the series, despite missing on the potential to do more with the material and characters.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/19/the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2/
Literally picking up mid-scene, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2” features Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), dealing with the vicious attack from Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), after having his mind scrambled by the evil minions of President Snow (Donald Sutherland).
Despite the desires of District 13 President Coin (Julianne Moore), for Katniss to stay behind the lines following a harrowing incident during a visit to the Districts, Katniss is determined to kill Snow, and sets off with a dream team who is actually working behind the lines to film propaganda videos.
Naturally things are not as safe as they seem and before long, Katniss and her team are not only dealing with the dangers of the Capitol, but with an unknown element in the form of Peeta who was assigned to accompany them mid mission.
Politics soon appear to be as big a danger to Katniss to the traps and deadly creations that Snow has devised for her, but undaunted, Katniss and her crew must face the dangers to restore freedom to the people.
The film follows the book well in the second half of the film but it does suffer from pacing and editing issues. The film takes a while to get to the action and then takes a rest and conversation route for the characters. This is followed later in the film which undermines a sense of urgency for the characters. What made the earlier films such a success was the social commentary and horrific fascination of great splendor while those around them suffer and starve to toil away to provide creature comforts to the elite class. There was also the fact that the children of the oppressed were forced to battle to the death for the entertainment of the wealthy as well.
This element is lacking from this film, as it is in many ways a road trip of sorts with a couple of action scenes tossed in. Lawrence does well with what she has but she is essentially like most of the cast forced to play out the string save for some powerful but all too fleeting moments. Hutcherson shines as Peeta as you can see his torment as he strives to recover the personality and memories that are his and not fabrications, as well as his constant turmoil.
In the end the film unfolds not In a grand spectacle but rather pedestrian which while in keeping with the book, does seem disappointing compared to how good the series has been to date.
The film will satisfy fans but it does not hold your attention and fill you with suspense the way the first two films did, and despite its best efforts, is slightly below part 1. That being said, it is entertaining and does make for a satisfying end to the series, despite missing on the potential to do more with the material and characters.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/19/the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2/
Nick doonan (0 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Apr 4, 2018
A movie you only watch once.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay so i was sceptical about watching this movie and have put off watching it for quite some time but, as it is Christopher Nolan and the IMDb ratings seem to show above average on it, i thought i'd give it a chance seen as i loved all his previous movies.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.
Boy was i disappointed. .
I don't quite know where Nolan was planning to go with this movie or what it was even for but it is completely out of sync with all his other creations. I wanted to actually turn off the movie half way through it but my liking for Nolan kept me watching until it's pitiful and yet quite anticipated ending.
So the movie starts off with soldiers walking through the streets. Looking at the mess left behind from the still engaging warfare of the french. Then we cut to a young lad, separated from his group, avoiding gunfire, running away to stay alive. It's fast paced and it looks like a great start. THEN...
The young lad ends up at the beach where all the soldiers are waiting to be picked up and taken back home to England. A lot of long staring goes on and a very dramatic run by two soldiers taking an injured soldier to one of the boats prevails, but what was the dramatic music for? We then cut to our only 2 fighter pilots, protecting the skies. They seem to have a good friendship but we don't see any of it materialise until the end where one goes ''come on Farrier''. It is hard at this point to actually get on board with any of the characters, whether to like them or dislike them. The majority of the movie is spent watching a young lad trying to get on a board to get back home but keeps meeting obstacles on his way. Eventually, in particular fashion at the end, boats arrive and everyone safely returns home after what felt like eternity.
Conclusion?
I watched this movie purely because it was by Christopher Nolan. If it hadn't been, i wouldn't recommend this to anyone or even watched it myself. It's a movie you would only watch once and this suprises me. I expected so much better from such a great director. It was sloppy, messy and rushed and more importantly... it was just absolutely dull all the way through.
Cillian Murphy had a great part but felt watered down. I really struggled to get on board with anything that was going on.
I wanted to really enjoy this movie, i really did. but i struggled to actually get into anything that was going on. There was no character depth or explanation behind anything that was going on.
*SPOILER HERE....but it's not major so don't worry.* What was the deal with the young lad that died? Why did he mean so much to the old man and his son? Why was the dramatic music used so much for when ziltch was happening? I mean, literally, dramatic music getting faster and faster and then cuts to silence and nothing?
This movie started off quite promising. Walking the streets in the aftermath of battle, avoiding gunfire and then 3 minutes later, nothing. I feel like it was going to go back and explain why certain things was happening but it never did. I honestly don't understand this movie at all. The majority of the movie felt like a filler. The spitfire scenes were tedious and boring, despite the fact they were probably the only best scenes from the movie. This movie is a ''watch once, never again'' type movie. It had absolutely nothing make you want to come back. You can't like any of the characters because of the character depth being missing and it just felt messy.
I'm genuinely dissapointed that this movie wasn't as good or enjoyable.
There's Been a Life! My Autobiography
Book
Since his first tentative steps on stage, Alex Norton's career has been both highly colourful and...
