Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Croods (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When seeing the trailers for this film it seemed like so many other stories that have come before (Ice Age: Continental Drift for example). I figured that this was just the next shameless animated money grab by studios attempting to cash in on those parents who take their young children to each new animated film no matter what it is. That being said, the trailer for this film does not do it justice. Seriously, 20th Century Fox is doing Dreamworks Animation a disservice by not providing better trailers and promotion for The Croods. While the complete package of this film is not the best animated film, it is more than just a mere money grab.
The film opens with Eep, voiced by Emma Stone who introduces us to her cave family led by her overly protective father Grug (Nicolas Cage) and shares her rebellious desire to follow her curiosity and see more of the world. The scene quickly shifts to the family’s quest to find some food that plays like a fast paced prehistoric game of football that clues us in on each of the characters’ strengths and weaknesses. From this point forward the film does a fantastic job of keeping a steady pace that will keep both parents and young children’s interest. As I am sure most parents know, you can always tell how good a children’s movie is based on how fast the young ones lose interest and start to become fidgety. Right from the start, my girlfriend’s three year-old son was attentively glued to his seat. Also I did not notice any of the other children in the theater talking or making noise which is usually a sign of a good children’s film.
Keeping with the fast paced action we are introduced to Guy voiced by Ryan Reynolds. Guy is traveling to high ground in an effort to escape the end of the world caused by earthquakes and lava. Unlike The Croods who are simple minded cavemen, Guy has a brain and is constantly introducing the family to new ideas like fire, shoes and umbrellas. His adventurous spirit is a foil to Grug’s living in constant fear of the unknown in order to stay alive. And while the family starts to fall for Guy’s spirit, they go on an adventure not only to find safety but to finally live.
The voice acting is solid across the board. Emma Stone really shines as the rebellious teenager and Nicolas Cage gives one of his better performances in years. Ryan Reynolds is accompanied with his sloth sidekick “Belt” who provides some of the most memorable comedic moments in the film. Together, along with the other supporting actors in this film, you have several inspired performances. It is these performances that appeal to the adults in the audience and make the film memorable and fun for all ages.
The film opens with Eep, voiced by Emma Stone who introduces us to her cave family led by her overly protective father Grug (Nicolas Cage) and shares her rebellious desire to follow her curiosity and see more of the world. The scene quickly shifts to the family’s quest to find some food that plays like a fast paced prehistoric game of football that clues us in on each of the characters’ strengths and weaknesses. From this point forward the film does a fantastic job of keeping a steady pace that will keep both parents and young children’s interest. As I am sure most parents know, you can always tell how good a children’s movie is based on how fast the young ones lose interest and start to become fidgety. Right from the start, my girlfriend’s three year-old son was attentively glued to his seat. Also I did not notice any of the other children in the theater talking or making noise which is usually a sign of a good children’s film.
Keeping with the fast paced action we are introduced to Guy voiced by Ryan Reynolds. Guy is traveling to high ground in an effort to escape the end of the world caused by earthquakes and lava. Unlike The Croods who are simple minded cavemen, Guy has a brain and is constantly introducing the family to new ideas like fire, shoes and umbrellas. His adventurous spirit is a foil to Grug’s living in constant fear of the unknown in order to stay alive. And while the family starts to fall for Guy’s spirit, they go on an adventure not only to find safety but to finally live.
The voice acting is solid across the board. Emma Stone really shines as the rebellious teenager and Nicolas Cage gives one of his better performances in years. Ryan Reynolds is accompanied with his sloth sidekick “Belt” who provides some of the most memorable comedic moments in the film. Together, along with the other supporting actors in this film, you have several inspired performances. It is these performances that appeal to the adults in the audience and make the film memorable and fun for all ages.
The DREAM, Kids Story Book & Learning To Read Time
Book and Education
App
The Dream is no ordinary kids story book. It's a magical book app where children can explore a new...
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Ultimate Comics Spider-Man by Brian Michael Bendis, Volume 1 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
So, before I begin my review of ULTIMATE COMICS: SPIDER-MAN Vol. 1, I feel the need to confess something: there was a point in life where I was a lot less liberal, a lot less "forward thinking". I felt heroes like Miles Morales were unnecessary, examples of "lazy writing". I felt that instead of creating a non-white Spider-Man, he should have been a newly created hero, not a copy of one already in existence.
Since that time, I have experienced what I can think of no word to better describe it other than an <I>awakening</I>. Much of it was the ignorance I was raised in - a racist father, a mother who followed his ideals because she was co-dependent, lacking any autonomy. It's like a veil was lifted from my eyes and I can see/think a lot more clearly. Far more acceptance and understanding now in my life, and I quite like me much more.
Now, that said, since my <I>awakening</I>, I went and checked out the first volume, as it was on sale on Comixology. Can't think of a better reason to check out what was previously, for me, a much overlooked tpb!
Man, I just want to say that I share many of the others' feelings: this was a fun series! The 616 Spider-Man hasn't been that much fun in far too long a time! He captured the youthful innocence of the character, but also exhibiting maturity and sense of honor that was not common for his age.
Those who have known me are aware that I am not a fan of Brian Michael Bendis. I felt he excelled more with his own characters (like SCARLETT, which I loved immensely) than taking on the task of writing for existing characters. However, here, I felt that he was top of his game, offering us a Spider-Man that this world truly needs!
I don't really want to do this, as 95% of the book was beyond awesome, but the inclusion of ULTIMATE FALLOUT #4 (of 6) was the only negative thing I can offer about this book. The story is awkward as it shows us Miles already in costume, already testing out his newfound powers and abilities. I felt that it made reading Miles' story after it confusing at first. It really brought nothing to the story.
Other than that, the book was solid! Bendis' writing was hot as heck, fun yet not as overly wordy as he can be known for. And assigning Sara Pichelli the task of illustrating Miles' adventures was gold! Her pencils are always tight, giving each character their own distinct visual persona! All across the board, this book was so much win!
Don't be like I used to be: read this book, because you, too, will believe in Heroes again!
Since that time, I have experienced what I can think of no word to better describe it other than an <I>awakening</I>. Much of it was the ignorance I was raised in - a racist father, a mother who followed his ideals because she was co-dependent, lacking any autonomy. It's like a veil was lifted from my eyes and I can see/think a lot more clearly. Far more acceptance and understanding now in my life, and I quite like me much more.
Now, that said, since my <I>awakening</I>, I went and checked out the first volume, as it was on sale on Comixology. Can't think of a better reason to check out what was previously, for me, a much overlooked tpb!
Man, I just want to say that I share many of the others' feelings: this was a fun series! The 616 Spider-Man hasn't been that much fun in far too long a time! He captured the youthful innocence of the character, but also exhibiting maturity and sense of honor that was not common for his age.
Those who have known me are aware that I am not a fan of Brian Michael Bendis. I felt he excelled more with his own characters (like SCARLETT, which I loved immensely) than taking on the task of writing for existing characters. However, here, I felt that he was top of his game, offering us a Spider-Man that this world truly needs!
I don't really want to do this, as 95% of the book was beyond awesome, but the inclusion of ULTIMATE FALLOUT #4 (of 6) was the only negative thing I can offer about this book. The story is awkward as it shows us Miles already in costume, already testing out his newfound powers and abilities. I felt that it made reading Miles' story after it confusing at first. It really brought nothing to the story.
Other than that, the book was solid! Bendis' writing was hot as heck, fun yet not as overly wordy as he can be known for. And assigning Sara Pichelli the task of illustrating Miles' adventures was gold! Her pencils are always tight, giving each character their own distinct visual persona! All across the board, this book was so much win!
Don't be like I used to be: read this book, because you, too, will believe in Heroes again!
Hello Kitty Lunchbox
Games and Entertainment
App
Budge Studios™ presents Hello Kitty Lunchbox! Join Hello Kitty in the school cafeteria to choose...
In the Garden of Dandelions
Games and Book
App
Do you sometimes get that feeling of wanting to escape everyday life for a bit? “In the Garden of...
Tournament App
Sports and Utilities
App
Tournament Maker is a tournament creation and management tool. It is ideal for anyone who is...
Hegemony: Lead Your Class to Victory
Tabletop Game
The Nation is in disarray and a war is waging between the classes. The working class faces a...
Learn Chinese-Hello HSK 5
Education and Business
App
Learn mandarin Chinese-Hello HSK level 5 provides HSK words, listening, reading,exercises and mock...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) in Movies
Nov 16, 2020
The first 10 or so minutes of Resident Evil: Apocalypse are quite good. Raccoon City in panic, Jill Valentine and Carlos Oliveira, a few mentions of this movies big bad - an adaption of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis is something I am keen for. The whole set up isn't too bad, and then we get to a scene set in a church, Jill Valentine surrounded by Lickers, completely out of ammo, and then...
Like a drunken gym bro shouting and flexing his way through a bar of people just trying to have a nice evening, Alice (Milla Jovovich) comes crashing through the churches paned glass window on a motorcycle, sub machine gun in each hand, whilst shitty rock music starts blasting out of the screen, and I am once again abruptly reminded why I hate these films.
I just about prefer Apocalypse over the first movie, but only because of the Resi 3 vibe. I also think Nemesis looks pretty badass when he finally appears, and the whole thing just feels closer to the source material than before, but other than that I find it hard to get on board with.
For starters, the editing is all over the place, and director Alexander Witt seems hellbent on adding a weird choppy slow motion effect to any scenes involving mass zombies. Later on in the film, Alice and Nemesis engage in hand to hand combat (ridiculous) where there are so many edits, it's genuinely hard to make out what the fuck is happening, and results in a stupidly underwhelming climax. (Some googling revealed to me that Witt's only other directing credits are Land Rover commercials, so this kind of all makes sense).
On the subject of Nemesis, yeah he looks the part, but I remember playing Resi 3 as a kid and it scared the shit out of me, and that was all because of Nemesis. A big, lumbering, unstoppable beast who just wants nothing more than to kill you dead. In this movie, he's more inclined to take the side of the good guys, and is sometime known to be called by his real name, Matt. I know they had to follow through on the "stinger" from the first film but come on, I don't want to hear Nemesis refered to as Matt.
Other than that, everything else is just a bit predictable and meh. It's way more action orientated than horror, and all the set pieces are uninspired and ripped off from other movies. None of the side characters are particularly memorable (and not even surprise Iain Glen can fix that) and in terms of plot, nothing really happens until the last 5 minutes. I will give props to Sienna Guillory who plays Jill Valentine. She honestly feels like she's straight out of the game series, which would usually feel a bit silly, but when she's the best thing Apocalypse has going for it, then I welcome her inclusion with open arms.
In conclusion, Apocalypse is a forgettable film that has fleeting moments of entertainment value. Maybe worth a watch just the once if you're a fan of Resi 3...
Like a drunken gym bro shouting and flexing his way through a bar of people just trying to have a nice evening, Alice (Milla Jovovich) comes crashing through the churches paned glass window on a motorcycle, sub machine gun in each hand, whilst shitty rock music starts blasting out of the screen, and I am once again abruptly reminded why I hate these films.
I just about prefer Apocalypse over the first movie, but only because of the Resi 3 vibe. I also think Nemesis looks pretty badass when he finally appears, and the whole thing just feels closer to the source material than before, but other than that I find it hard to get on board with.
For starters, the editing is all over the place, and director Alexander Witt seems hellbent on adding a weird choppy slow motion effect to any scenes involving mass zombies. Later on in the film, Alice and Nemesis engage in hand to hand combat (ridiculous) where there are so many edits, it's genuinely hard to make out what the fuck is happening, and results in a stupidly underwhelming climax. (Some googling revealed to me that Witt's only other directing credits are Land Rover commercials, so this kind of all makes sense).
On the subject of Nemesis, yeah he looks the part, but I remember playing Resi 3 as a kid and it scared the shit out of me, and that was all because of Nemesis. A big, lumbering, unstoppable beast who just wants nothing more than to kill you dead. In this movie, he's more inclined to take the side of the good guys, and is sometime known to be called by his real name, Matt. I know they had to follow through on the "stinger" from the first film but come on, I don't want to hear Nemesis refered to as Matt.
Other than that, everything else is just a bit predictable and meh. It's way more action orientated than horror, and all the set pieces are uninspired and ripped off from other movies. None of the side characters are particularly memorable (and not even surprise Iain Glen can fix that) and in terms of plot, nothing really happens until the last 5 minutes. I will give props to Sienna Guillory who plays Jill Valentine. She honestly feels like she's straight out of the game series, which would usually feel a bit silly, but when she's the best thing Apocalypse has going for it, then I welcome her inclusion with open arms.
In conclusion, Apocalypse is a forgettable film that has fleeting moments of entertainment value. Maybe worth a watch just the once if you're a fan of Resi 3...