Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Giver (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Striking visual translation
Over the last decade, cinema-going audiences have had the treat of numerous adaptations of popular young adult novels. Some of them have been particularly great – the Harry Potter series the highlight – whilst others have been less than stellar – Twilight, I’m looking at you.
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
Amy (7 KP) rated Goddess of Troy in Books
Jan 17, 2018 (Updated Jan 17, 2018)
Terrible. Total destruction.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The premise is one that P.C. Cast recycles throughout her work which is of taking modern women and dropping them into the worlds of myth and magic.
A brilliant idea, occasionally well done in her other novels...not unfortunately for this one.
The problem begins with the plot the goddesses send the women back to end the war...okay, but why not do it themselves? The flimsy excuses just don't hold up. The plot is weakly manipulated and transparently executed to make the neccessity of the modern women going back possible.
Problem 2-is the blatant racism of making the indipendant modern black woman into a white slave girl.
Problem 3- problematic sex scenes which read as thinly disguised rape scenes. A male character is hypnotises and the main female character has sex with him....this is made okay by him giving her consent afterwards. Which is not how consent works. This book being intended for young women just becoming sexual is at best concerning and at most incredibly damaging whilst promoting male rape under the guise of female empowerment.
The dialogue when more old fashioned from the warriors is charming and engaging...from the modern women we are forced to deal with censored cringy curse words, way too much teenage level gossip, and not a smidge of maturity in sight...from grown ass women.
For thirty plus successful women the character profiles should have engaged and fascinated, unfortunately those profiles were ignored during in-story application and replaced with twittering, childish teens who giggle over the word penis and lose their minds over the most vacuous and senseless things.
The plot centres around a boring, romance, and changes the original relationship of Achilles and Patroclus from its canonical implied romance to one of cousins...this at best is a misguided deviation from the canonical Iliad relationship they had.
It could easily be read as a blatant attack and hideous misuse of the original content, that could given the sheer overwhelming heteronormaty we are forced to endure be at its worst an erasure of rare LGBT representation from historical content.
The relationships are forced, and their happy endings so saccharine it hurts to read.
The siege of Troy is horrifically rewritten to make the main female lead the deciding factor that ensured victory and removed nearly all canonical battle events.
Throughout the novel not much happens, and by time something does you just want the novel over with.
It doesn't read as mythology inspired, the myths and characters are used as cheap prop and staging whilst removing the deep themes, and messages that ensured their endurance throughout time.
The vocabulary is below pre-teen level, the grammar is sub-par, and the pacing and plotting absolutely abysmal.
How this book ever made it to print in this state is a large and curious mystery for me.
I cannot urge you to skip this book enough, Margaret George's 'Helen of Troy' is a far more valuable use of your time if you are in want of mythology inspired fantasy...and does so without annihilating the entire original stories.
A brilliant idea, occasionally well done in her other novels...not unfortunately for this one.
The problem begins with the plot the goddesses send the women back to end the war...okay, but why not do it themselves? The flimsy excuses just don't hold up. The plot is weakly manipulated and transparently executed to make the neccessity of the modern women going back possible.
Problem 2-is the blatant racism of making the indipendant modern black woman into a white slave girl.
Problem 3- problematic sex scenes which read as thinly disguised rape scenes. A male character is hypnotises and the main female character has sex with him....this is made okay by him giving her consent afterwards. Which is not how consent works. This book being intended for young women just becoming sexual is at best concerning and at most incredibly damaging whilst promoting male rape under the guise of female empowerment.
The dialogue when more old fashioned from the warriors is charming and engaging...from the modern women we are forced to deal with censored cringy curse words, way too much teenage level gossip, and not a smidge of maturity in sight...from grown ass women.
For thirty plus successful women the character profiles should have engaged and fascinated, unfortunately those profiles were ignored during in-story application and replaced with twittering, childish teens who giggle over the word penis and lose their minds over the most vacuous and senseless things.
The plot centres around a boring, romance, and changes the original relationship of Achilles and Patroclus from its canonical implied romance to one of cousins...this at best is a misguided deviation from the canonical Iliad relationship they had.
It could easily be read as a blatant attack and hideous misuse of the original content, that could given the sheer overwhelming heteronormaty we are forced to endure be at its worst an erasure of rare LGBT representation from historical content.
The relationships are forced, and their happy endings so saccharine it hurts to read.
The siege of Troy is horrifically rewritten to make the main female lead the deciding factor that ensured victory and removed nearly all canonical battle events.
Throughout the novel not much happens, and by time something does you just want the novel over with.
It doesn't read as mythology inspired, the myths and characters are used as cheap prop and staging whilst removing the deep themes, and messages that ensured their endurance throughout time.
The vocabulary is below pre-teen level, the grammar is sub-par, and the pacing and plotting absolutely abysmal.
How this book ever made it to print in this state is a large and curious mystery for me.
I cannot urge you to skip this book enough, Margaret George's 'Helen of Troy' is a far more valuable use of your time if you are in want of mythology inspired fantasy...and does so without annihilating the entire original stories.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Magicians' Guild (Black Magician Trilogy, #1) in Books
Nov 20, 2019
Trudi Canavan has been on my 'to read' list for a long time (far too long really). I finally found the time to read The Magicians' Guild - book one of the Black Magician trilogy.
The story revolves around Sonea, a girl living amongst the poor and near-poor of Imardin. The city is home to the titular guild, where the greatest magicians in the world learn and teach.
Those showing magical talent only come from the ruling classes. But Sonea has magical talent so the guild need to either break tradition and train her or block her powers as unless she is trained they will unleash themselves and kill her. The problem is that Sonea (along with the rest of the less privileged city dwellers) distrusts and fears the guild.
The book is in two parts - the first involves Sonea hiding from the guild and their attempts to find her. This is quite a clever strategy from a story telling point of view since the world and characters can be gradually introduced. We meet Sonea and her friends, and also the Thieves that control the slums. On the magicians' side we find some are sympathetic towards Sonea while others are outraged at the thought of training a slum girl - some for more personal reasons than others.
The second half involves Sonea's initial training at the guild. I do try not to give away major plot direction in these reviews, but I don't think it's much of a spoiler that she does end up in the guild, given the name of the book. In this part we find out more about magic and the guild, plus the plot that forms the core of this book moves forward and is resolved in a satisfactory - and dramatic - style.
Canavan's writing is focused firmly on character, although the world around them is fully realised, with the slums suitably dingy and grubby and the guild grand and opulent. The characters are allowed to develop through the pages. I found the start a little slow going, but I think that was mostly because the previous book I read was for more action based. There is also very little dramatic tension about Sonea ending up in the guild, but I don't think that is the purpose of the first half of the book anyway.
This story is clearly there to set up the characters for the trilogy as a whole - and as the plot progresses Sonea discovers some things that are clearly going to be important in her future. The way the ending is left is therefore very finely balanced between the resolution of the main plot and leaving the threads for the next book, and Canavan is spot on in delivering this.
Overall I really liked this book and will read the other installments as time allows without hesitation. If you are looking for some brutal anti-hero cutting a swathe of destruction through his enemies this is not the book for you. If you want some careful characterisation and a personality driven and human-scale plot, pick up this book. It is also refreshing to have a female main protagonist in the traditionally macho world of fantasy. Recommended.
The story revolves around Sonea, a girl living amongst the poor and near-poor of Imardin. The city is home to the titular guild, where the greatest magicians in the world learn and teach.
Those showing magical talent only come from the ruling classes. But Sonea has magical talent so the guild need to either break tradition and train her or block her powers as unless she is trained they will unleash themselves and kill her. The problem is that Sonea (along with the rest of the less privileged city dwellers) distrusts and fears the guild.
The book is in two parts - the first involves Sonea hiding from the guild and their attempts to find her. This is quite a clever strategy from a story telling point of view since the world and characters can be gradually introduced. We meet Sonea and her friends, and also the Thieves that control the slums. On the magicians' side we find some are sympathetic towards Sonea while others are outraged at the thought of training a slum girl - some for more personal reasons than others.
The second half involves Sonea's initial training at the guild. I do try not to give away major plot direction in these reviews, but I don't think it's much of a spoiler that she does end up in the guild, given the name of the book. In this part we find out more about magic and the guild, plus the plot that forms the core of this book moves forward and is resolved in a satisfactory - and dramatic - style.
Canavan's writing is focused firmly on character, although the world around them is fully realised, with the slums suitably dingy and grubby and the guild grand and opulent. The characters are allowed to develop through the pages. I found the start a little slow going, but I think that was mostly because the previous book I read was for more action based. There is also very little dramatic tension about Sonea ending up in the guild, but I don't think that is the purpose of the first half of the book anyway.
This story is clearly there to set up the characters for the trilogy as a whole - and as the plot progresses Sonea discovers some things that are clearly going to be important in her future. The way the ending is left is therefore very finely balanced between the resolution of the main plot and leaving the threads for the next book, and Canavan is spot on in delivering this.
Overall I really liked this book and will read the other installments as time allows without hesitation. If you are looking for some brutal anti-hero cutting a swathe of destruction through his enemies this is not the book for you. If you want some careful characterisation and a personality driven and human-scale plot, pick up this book. It is also refreshing to have a female main protagonist in the traditionally macho world of fantasy. Recommended.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Beautiful Visuals
A part of being a critic means being able to separate the art from the creator. In my recent review of Swing Time, I came to the conclusion that the movie as a whole was still enjoyable despite their use of blackface in one scene. While I don’t agree with everything JK Rowling is saying at this point in time, I can’t deny the magical world that she has created and the stories that lie within. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the sixth installment in the franchise, is no exception. In this darker film, Harry is finding himself in preparation of facing off against the evil Lord Voldemort.
Acting: 10
This is my first review of a Harry Potter film. I must say, it has been a pleasure to watch these young actors grow into stars. Daniel Radcliffe was made for the role of Harry Potter and it appears he has matured at the same time his character has. Gone is the young innocence of the first film, replaced by teenage angst and anger. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing the role just as it is hard to imagine anyone but Alan Rickman playing the role of the hard-faced, dark Professor Snape.
Beginning: 10
The mayhem starts almost instantly and wastes no time in getting you sucked into the movie. You know right away what the heroes are up against and it ain’t looking good for the heroes. I appreciated that immediate intensity.
Characters: 10
The gang is all here from the previous five films, the characters we have grown to know and love. I respect the fact that every character continues to grow and mature in their own way, particularly Harry. Thrust into this world of magic and wizardry, becoming an adult becomes ten times more challenging with all the Hogwarts-related biz thrown into the mix.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
At some point in the movie, there is a scene shot in black and white involving Albus Dumbledore that’s super cool to watch unfold. Visually this film is just as strong as the previous ones, if not stronger as it is working with darker tones throughout. With beautiful camerawork, director David Yates makes you feel the tension of each scene as you are taken on this journey.
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Even if you aren’t a die-hard Harry Potter fan, the film takes you on an extremely intense journey. You experience a rollercoaster of emotions, many unexpected if you haven’t read the books. It is a wonderful setup for the film’s final act.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
While the ending was necessary, it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. it also didn’t quite feel complete as it was an obvious setup for things to come. The last ten minutes were mediocre at best for me.
Overall: 87
I could think of worse ways to spend your time than watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The series continues to improve upon itself and this was a worthy installment. It has just the right level of creepiness factor to pique one’s interest.
Acting: 10
This is my first review of a Harry Potter film. I must say, it has been a pleasure to watch these young actors grow into stars. Daniel Radcliffe was made for the role of Harry Potter and it appears he has matured at the same time his character has. Gone is the young innocence of the first film, replaced by teenage angst and anger. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing the role just as it is hard to imagine anyone but Alan Rickman playing the role of the hard-faced, dark Professor Snape.
Beginning: 10
The mayhem starts almost instantly and wastes no time in getting you sucked into the movie. You know right away what the heroes are up against and it ain’t looking good for the heroes. I appreciated that immediate intensity.
Characters: 10
The gang is all here from the previous five films, the characters we have grown to know and love. I respect the fact that every character continues to grow and mature in their own way, particularly Harry. Thrust into this world of magic and wizardry, becoming an adult becomes ten times more challenging with all the Hogwarts-related biz thrown into the mix.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
At some point in the movie, there is a scene shot in black and white involving Albus Dumbledore that’s super cool to watch unfold. Visually this film is just as strong as the previous ones, if not stronger as it is working with darker tones throughout. With beautiful camerawork, director David Yates makes you feel the tension of each scene as you are taken on this journey.
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Even if you aren’t a die-hard Harry Potter fan, the film takes you on an extremely intense journey. You experience a rollercoaster of emotions, many unexpected if you haven’t read the books. It is a wonderful setup for the film’s final act.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
While the ending was necessary, it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. it also didn’t quite feel complete as it was an obvious setup for things to come. The last ten minutes were mediocre at best for me.
Overall: 87
I could think of worse ways to spend your time than watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The series continues to improve upon itself and this was a worthy installment. It has just the right level of creepiness factor to pique one’s interest.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
80 minutes of magic!
Two men, the charismatic and charming Phillip, and the cowardly and sheepish Brandon have just strangled their mutual friend, David, and are holding him in their arms. To dispose of the body, they decide on the bold move a placing it in a large trunk in the middle of the living room of their high rise apartment building. They don't have much time to discuss their situation before guests start arriving for their dinner party which had been planned beforehand.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
The Halloween Oracle
Lifestyle and Reference
App
Harness the eerie power of Halloween every night of year with this stunning, accurate Oracle deck. ...
Morpholio Trace - Sketch CAD
Utilities and Productivity
App
SKETCH, DESIGN, CREATE Trace is THE architecture and design app for EVERYONE. It’s a truly...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Park (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, this is going to be awash with spoilers because I was absolutely amazed by the reaction I had to it. It's not unheard of for movies to turn out differently to how the trailer portrays them but in this case it felt like a rather low blow. I think there should have been some clues to what lay ahead without having to read reviews.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) in Movies
May 31, 2017
Blackbeard (Ian McShane) (2 more)
New cast members relieve us of the same old faces
It's not the usual PotC film, but still recognizable
New lore and a Great cast
This is actually one of my favourite installments of the franchise. I loved the first film for its humour and charm, the second was awesome with good action and a sense of fantasy, the third had great action but not enough charm in my opinion, and this fourth installment is able to mix all three of those films, but not quite to the full extent as I'd hoped.
When I heard Blackbeard was coming into the franchise I was happy but cautious. Then when I heard that Ian McShane was to portray the role, I was happier because he is a great actor! He did not disappoint either. His portrayal of Blackbeard was menacing, with the looks alone, you could believe that this was Blackbeard, the most feared pirate during his time. Then there was the fantasy element of his power to control ships with his sword, or his dabbling in voodoo magic as well as being able to capture ships and place them into bottles, which includes Jack's beloved Black Pearl.
Whilst Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) do not make an appearance in this film (due to not being paid enough I believe) the film does not lack in replacing them with other great actors and characters. The character of Angelica replaces Elizabeth and honestly, I prefer Angelica. She's strong, keeps Jack on his toes, and is as fearsome as Blackbeard herself when she needs to be. It would have been nice to have seen her in Salazar's Revenge after what happens in this film's finale, which I won't spoil here.
Philip (Sam Claflin) seems to replace Will in this film, but as a more innocent character who falls in love with a mermaid.....did I mention this film has mermaids? This film has mermaids!
I should warn you though, these mermaid don't wish to sing jolly songs for pleasure, they sing to lure sailors to their death. These are the mermaids of legend, also known as sirens, who sing beautiful songs and lure sailors over the side of the ship, before dragging them to the depths for reasons often debated. Some say to mate with before eating them, others just say to eat them, but either way, being dragged to the bottom of the sea is not something you'd want either way. I loved this aspect as we had never seen mermaids in this franchise until now and it was great to see more and more historical lore being brought into the franchise with the fantasy aspect of the film.
The film doesn't quite make it to the top of my favourite films lists, but it's certainly in my top favourite pirate media lists. (I've not seen enough films to just make it a film list so I include film, TV, books and games). I would recommend this to any Pirate fan, and to anyone who has not yet seen it due to it's lesser reviews by critics.
Here's a tip for any film....don't listen to critics. If their is a film you want to see, but it's got a low rating by critics on Rotten Tomatoes or in the film magazines, then by all means read them, but do it after you see the film, because if you read it before, you're going to pick the film apart and it ruins the experience in my opinion.
When I heard Blackbeard was coming into the franchise I was happy but cautious. Then when I heard that Ian McShane was to portray the role, I was happier because he is a great actor! He did not disappoint either. His portrayal of Blackbeard was menacing, with the looks alone, you could believe that this was Blackbeard, the most feared pirate during his time. Then there was the fantasy element of his power to control ships with his sword, or his dabbling in voodoo magic as well as being able to capture ships and place them into bottles, which includes Jack's beloved Black Pearl.
Whilst Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) do not make an appearance in this film (due to not being paid enough I believe) the film does not lack in replacing them with other great actors and characters. The character of Angelica replaces Elizabeth and honestly, I prefer Angelica. She's strong, keeps Jack on his toes, and is as fearsome as Blackbeard herself when she needs to be. It would have been nice to have seen her in Salazar's Revenge after what happens in this film's finale, which I won't spoil here.
Philip (Sam Claflin) seems to replace Will in this film, but as a more innocent character who falls in love with a mermaid.....did I mention this film has mermaids? This film has mermaids!
I should warn you though, these mermaid don't wish to sing jolly songs for pleasure, they sing to lure sailors to their death. These are the mermaids of legend, also known as sirens, who sing beautiful songs and lure sailors over the side of the ship, before dragging them to the depths for reasons often debated. Some say to mate with before eating them, others just say to eat them, but either way, being dragged to the bottom of the sea is not something you'd want either way. I loved this aspect as we had never seen mermaids in this franchise until now and it was great to see more and more historical lore being brought into the franchise with the fantasy aspect of the film.
The film doesn't quite make it to the top of my favourite films lists, but it's certainly in my top favourite pirate media lists. (I've not seen enough films to just make it a film list so I include film, TV, books and games). I would recommend this to any Pirate fan, and to anyone who has not yet seen it due to it's lesser reviews by critics.
Here's a tip for any film....don't listen to critics. If their is a film you want to see, but it's got a low rating by critics on Rotten Tomatoes or in the film magazines, then by all means read them, but do it after you see the film, because if you read it before, you're going to pick the film apart and it ruins the experience in my opinion.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
What ya gonna do
this time?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.