Search
Search results
Sue Beynon (7 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
May 9, 2019
All Action Formulaic Filler
Contains spoilers, click to show
This passed a relatively boring Sunday afternoon, but I am still confused. What purpose did it serve to have Dwayne Johnson with one leg? Or did they need something for the (already overworked) CGI Department to do? This was your average good guy with a family trapped in a burning building scenario, it was trying to be eco-friendly (the inside of said burning building was a rainforest) but rather failed. You could see the ending coming even before the movie started!!
Deano Arnott (28 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Jan 18, 2018
Awesome remake of a horror classic
There isn't really anything bad to say about this film despite a lot of critisism of the CGI effects of Pennywise the dancing clown. I, however disagree and believe that this version was far more chilling than the first version. Pennywise was back on form with his creepy and outright terrifying behaviour. The plotline rarely strayed from the original script and the cast did well to keep you engrossed in the movie. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and was quite excited when I picked up the dvd yesterday.
Dean (6927 KP) rated Live Free or Die Hard (2007) in Movies
Feb 17, 2018
A great, stand out action film that delivers all the good stuff from the other Die Hard films....and even a few ideas from some other top action films. We get a cool relevant story for the present day about hackers getting in to control just about everything in the country, lots of great action scenes not overly reliant on CGI, great fights and some humour as well of course. John McClane is definitely one hard to kill guy, kicking bad guy ass just as well as ever. This is all out action you can't fail to like!!
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated The Mummy (1999) in Movies
Aug 13, 2019
Brendan Fraser (4 more)
Rachel Weiss
John Hannah
Arnold Vosloo
The effects are pretty good for 1999.... though twenty years on they look pretty dated in parts.
Good pulpy fun
For good, pulpy, over-the-top fun, you can't beat Brendan Fraser's first Mummy film. The graphics are pretty great for being twenty years old, though at times its age becomes apparent. Don't expect too much in the way of horror, as this is solidly PG-13 fare, but if you want a good family thriller, this is the film for you.
Cori June (3033 KP) rated Rampage (2018) in Movies
Jan 17, 2019
The Rock (1 more)
CGI
Considering this moster movie was based on an 80s arcade game (that I barely remember playing on the Nintendo) it was surprisingly good. Sure it is a bit campy at some points its not over the top like some other 80s video game movie adaptations I could name. There's a well rounded cast of characters, my biggest issue is the villainous brother and sister the acting at times seemed staged (not wooden but like read lines?) they were ok but more meh.
Good movie for a few cheap jump scares, wonton destruction and some good laughs.
Good movie for a few cheap jump scares, wonton destruction and some good laughs.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The One (2001) in Movies
Nov 14, 2019
The Chosen One
What was this film, like honestly? It makes no sense at all. Its confusing, the action/cgi effects are hilariously bad and a waste of early 2000's metal music. Overall it is a weird but fun movie to watch. Jet Li and Jason Statham do a good job in this film. This film is a mix of like six different genres from sci-fi to action to martial arts to whatever else. By the end of the movie, i was overall confused but entertained. Thanks early 2000's for coming up with this movie.
David McK (3557 KP) rated The Great Wall (2016) in Movies
Aug 23, 2020
Ah, right, so that's the real reason for the Great Wall of China.
It's to keep out those pesky Tao Tei monsters that attack every 60 years or so.
Staring Matt Damon, this is a somewhat so-so film that, despite an intriguing premise and some solid visuals (the colour-coded Chinese army), just never really connects at all. Personally, I don't think it helps that the CGI is also somewhat dodgy, while Mr Damon seems to be putting on some sort of weird Irish accent and has little to no spark with either a pre-Mandalorian Pedro Pascal or with Willem Dafoe.
It's to keep out those pesky Tao Tei monsters that attack every 60 years or so.
Staring Matt Damon, this is a somewhat so-so film that, despite an intriguing premise and some solid visuals (the colour-coded Chinese army), just never really connects at all. Personally, I don't think it helps that the CGI is also somewhat dodgy, while Mr Damon seems to be putting on some sort of weird Irish accent and has little to no spark with either a pre-Mandalorian Pedro Pascal or with Willem Dafoe.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Good but overly long
The negative reviews of this film really got me worried that I wouldn't like it, especially as I loved the first part despite it straying in parts from the book. However despite a few negatives, this is still a pretty good film.
This part seemed to keep a long closer and truer to the book than the first part. Yes there were a few odd differences and scares but for me nothing major, other than the tokens idea which just seemed a bit stupid. As silly as it sounds, when a film sticks closely to a book it makes me all happy and warm inside. So I spent a lot of this film feeling quite satisfied, at least from a plot point of view. The adult cast too are fantastic, they've done so well to find a group of actors that fit perfectly with their younger counterparts from the first film.
But sadly there are negatives. The CGI is pretty poor in parts and vastly overused. By the end I got sick to death of seeing horrendous looking CGI creeps and scares. Bring back physical effects! Pennywise too also suffered from being overly CGI, which is a shame as I think he was brilliant the rest of the time and rather creepy, especially with his voice.
And then there's the length. This film is far too long, and the reason for it is because they've stuck in a ridiculous amount of flashbacks. Dont get me wrong, it was nice to see the younger cast again especially as they provided a lot of nostalgic heartwarming moments. But it was just too much. They could've left out a lot of the flashbacks, cut a good half hour off the run time and still had a pretty decent film without impacting the plot.
Despite it's negatives, I still rather enjoyed this film. It's nothing new after having seen the first part and definitely more of the same, but mostly a rather fitting end to IT.
This part seemed to keep a long closer and truer to the book than the first part. Yes there were a few odd differences and scares but for me nothing major, other than the tokens idea which just seemed a bit stupid. As silly as it sounds, when a film sticks closely to a book it makes me all happy and warm inside. So I spent a lot of this film feeling quite satisfied, at least from a plot point of view. The adult cast too are fantastic, they've done so well to find a group of actors that fit perfectly with their younger counterparts from the first film.
But sadly there are negatives. The CGI is pretty poor in parts and vastly overused. By the end I got sick to death of seeing horrendous looking CGI creeps and scares. Bring back physical effects! Pennywise too also suffered from being overly CGI, which is a shame as I think he was brilliant the rest of the time and rather creepy, especially with his voice.
And then there's the length. This film is far too long, and the reason for it is because they've stuck in a ridiculous amount of flashbacks. Dont get me wrong, it was nice to see the younger cast again especially as they provided a lot of nostalgic heartwarming moments. But it was just too much. They could've left out a lot of the flashbacks, cut a good half hour off the run time and still had a pretty decent film without impacting the plot.
Despite it's negatives, I still rather enjoyed this film. It's nothing new after having seen the first part and definitely more of the same, but mostly a rather fitting end to IT.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Don't let us down Guy Ritchie
Along with Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King, Aladdin is one of Disney’s most-loved animated films. With Disney’s penchant for remaking their classic cartoons over the last few years, it was always going to be the case that Aladdin was going to be on the cards.
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Good visuals, not much else to recommend it
A few of my loyal readers recommended that I check out ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL in the biggest screen I could find, and in 3D. And...I'm glad I did for this film is a visual feast for the eyes, filled with eye-popping CGI and an interesting futuristic world on which the events of the film take place.
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sue Beynon (7 KP) May 12, 2019