Search
Search results
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
Felicia (44 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm going to try very hard to keep my feelings about the novel out of this review about the movie, often when reading reviews I feel that the feelings of one medium influences the feelings of the other.
Ready Player One is a entertaining ride that follows the main character Wade through the virtual world of the Oasis. The creator of this virtual world is dead but he left a puzzle when he died that if the players figured out it would lead them to a series of keys that would grant them ownership of the world.
But of course nothing can just be simple, so while the players are trying to figure out the puzzle in the Oasis there are people who are trying to take them out of the real world.
The movie goes through many different phases cutting between live action and cgi to demonstrate the difference between the Oasis and the real world. So if you're a fan of CGI this probably won't annoy you too much.
One of my major complaints about the movie is that visually there is too much going on, it is a huge distraction with so much going on in the background to really pay attention to what is going on in the foreground. This could be because they were trying to give the illusion of it being a real world but in a movie setting it was just too much.
The movie is also too long, some of the challenges and scenes just take too much time and drag down the pace of the movie. But one of the Challenges, where the players go into a recreating of The Shining is actually the best part of the whole movie, it is fun, familiar, and entertaining. Moments like that really help to save the movie from the slower moments that seem to drag.
Overall the movie isn't bad but it also isn't good. I doubt it will become a classic like the novel had when it was released. But I can totally see people putting it on when hanging out with a group of friends and want some background noise. It was a really interesting and good concept but they tried to do too much with it and it really hurt the movie in the long run.
Ready Player One is a entertaining ride that follows the main character Wade through the virtual world of the Oasis. The creator of this virtual world is dead but he left a puzzle when he died that if the players figured out it would lead them to a series of keys that would grant them ownership of the world.
But of course nothing can just be simple, so while the players are trying to figure out the puzzle in the Oasis there are people who are trying to take them out of the real world.
The movie goes through many different phases cutting between live action and cgi to demonstrate the difference between the Oasis and the real world. So if you're a fan of CGI this probably won't annoy you too much.
One of my major complaints about the movie is that visually there is too much going on, it is a huge distraction with so much going on in the background to really pay attention to what is going on in the foreground. This could be because they were trying to give the illusion of it being a real world but in a movie setting it was just too much.
The movie is also too long, some of the challenges and scenes just take too much time and drag down the pace of the movie. But one of the Challenges, where the players go into a recreating of The Shining is actually the best part of the whole movie, it is fun, familiar, and entertaining. Moments like that really help to save the movie from the slower moments that seem to drag.
Overall the movie isn't bad but it also isn't good. I doubt it will become a classic like the novel had when it was released. But I can totally see people putting it on when hanging out with a group of friends and want some background noise. It was a really interesting and good concept but they tried to do too much with it and it really hurt the movie in the long run.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Deep Blue Sea 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in 1999 I fondly remember covering “Deep Blue Sea”. The press screening was a pleasant surprise as the film presented a fresh take on the shark on the loose genre and gave what was one of the more enjoyable films in the genre since “Jaws 2”.
I had always wondered why the film had never generated a sequel and talk of a direct to DVD follow up a few years later never materialized.
Now in 2018, we finally get the long-awaited follow up as “Deep Blue Seas 2” has arrived as a direct to DVD from Warner Bros Home Entertainment.
I eagerly awaited the arrival of my review copy as not only do I enjoy Shark movies, but my son is very big on the study of sharks and his insights always add a new dimension to me as he can tell me things like the difference between the species being portrayed, number of offspring they have, and their behavior.
The story centers on Dr. Misty Calhoun (Danielle Savre), who is tasked to give her professional opinions to a facility headed by billionaire Carl Durant (Michael Beach). At an underwater lab in South Africa, Dr. Calhoun arrives with a team and learns that the group is experimenting on Bull Sharks with a method that will increase brain abilities in humans.
Naturally things do not go as planned and before long, there are several very angry and genetically enhanced sharks on the loose with the humans desperately trying to find a way to escape and survive.
The story and characters are not overly complex but the goal is clearly to get the cast into the path of the CGI sharks as soon as possible and letting the carnage begin.
I had expected visuals on par with the SYFY films due to the direct to video nature of the film but what we were given was much better than expected.
The CGI effects are quite good and the cinema photography of the film is quite good as there are many really impressive shots in the film of the aquatic setting.
The film is hampered by the thin plot and characters and a lack of star power but it is worth a watch and is certainly better quality than many of the other creature on the loose films out there.
http://sknr.net/2018/05/07/deep-blue-sea-2/
I had always wondered why the film had never generated a sequel and talk of a direct to DVD follow up a few years later never materialized.
Now in 2018, we finally get the long-awaited follow up as “Deep Blue Seas 2” has arrived as a direct to DVD from Warner Bros Home Entertainment.
I eagerly awaited the arrival of my review copy as not only do I enjoy Shark movies, but my son is very big on the study of sharks and his insights always add a new dimension to me as he can tell me things like the difference between the species being portrayed, number of offspring they have, and their behavior.
The story centers on Dr. Misty Calhoun (Danielle Savre), who is tasked to give her professional opinions to a facility headed by billionaire Carl Durant (Michael Beach). At an underwater lab in South Africa, Dr. Calhoun arrives with a team and learns that the group is experimenting on Bull Sharks with a method that will increase brain abilities in humans.
Naturally things do not go as planned and before long, there are several very angry and genetically enhanced sharks on the loose with the humans desperately trying to find a way to escape and survive.
The story and characters are not overly complex but the goal is clearly to get the cast into the path of the CGI sharks as soon as possible and letting the carnage begin.
I had expected visuals on par with the SYFY films due to the direct to video nature of the film but what we were given was much better than expected.
The CGI effects are quite good and the cinema photography of the film is quite good as there are many really impressive shots in the film of the aquatic setting.
The film is hampered by the thin plot and characters and a lack of star power but it is worth a watch and is certainly better quality than many of the other creature on the loose films out there.
http://sknr.net/2018/05/07/deep-blue-sea-2/
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 23, 2019 (Updated Oct 23, 2019)
Dull Fate
Terminator Dark Fate only isnt the worst film in the Terminator franschise but only because Genisys exists. Dark Fate is basically a reskin of Terminator 2 but minus everything that made that movie one of the greatest films of all time. Dark Fates main problem is its just dull and after the opening nothing intresting, unique, creative or thrilling happenes leaving the movie with almost no redeeming features and nothing that sets it apart from the other terrible sequels. Dark Fate seems to think pure nostalgia alone will make an entertaining movie and while it certainly can do Dark Fate doesnt understand how nostalgia works even coming across like its mocking the very film it ows its existance too. Plot wise its increadibly generic/unintresting, characters are one dimentional/unlikable, acting is stale and lacks drama, dialog is painful and every interaction only serves as exposition explaining every single part of the very basic plot repeatedly just so even the most brain dead of viewer understands whats happened or what is about to happen. Worst of all it doesnt feel like a Terminator film, wheres the grit, the dark atmosphere, the horror, the tension, the realistic humour, the high stakes, the menacing and relentlessly intimidating bad guy, the memorable action set pieces, the complicated story, character depth, quotable dialog and most importantly the soul because this movie has none. Linda Hamilton is back but shes wasted and doesnt even feel like the same person with the film thinking what made her such an iconic character was just her gratuitios swearing. Arnie is great but feels pushed to the side serving to be nothing more than a joke/nostalgia piece. Cgi is bad/texturless and animation is cheap looking, infact there are some cgi moments so bad its almost like they didnt have time to finish them off. Action has a few ok sequences but they lack tension, weight and a high stake plot to fully find them exciting. If you are a Terminator fan to save dissapointment I would just forget everything after T2 exists because this just like the others is souless hollow mess. An utter shambles of a film, I wish I could send myself back to stop the past me from seeing it.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 24, 2019 (Updated Dec 15, 2019)
An amazing looking film that unfortunately lacks soul.
I, like many people, consider The Lion King to be one of finest Disney animations of all time. For me, it ranks alongside Mulan as a favourite, and I immediately fell in love with the characters when it was released in 1994. (I was 5 at the time!)
All these years later, and it still stands as a bonafide classic.
And here we are now, in 2019, and this adaption of The Lion King is the latest in an ever growing line of Disney animations to get the realistic remake treatment.
It aims straight for the nostalgic jugular (and is painfully see through), even if the CGI is pretty damn impressive.
However, impressive CGI means nothing if everything surrounding is empty. It's quite simply missing the heart and soul of the original animation.
In a similar fashion to the recent Jungle Book remake, it's no easy task to convey emotion on these characters when they are photo realistic animals, and the film really suffers as a result.
I feel like that casting was a big contributor as well. A lot of the voice cast are quite simply doing voice over work, and it's painfully obvious is some scenes that the actors were not next to each other whilst performing. The dialogue flows unnaturally on several occasions.
The songs are...ok I guess. Again, they lack a lot of of the heart that made them so enjoyable the first time around.
In particular, "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" is just awful, listening to Beyonce try to out-Beyonce herself, warbling and riffing unessecarily on a pretty straightforward ballad.
Her involvement had me eye rolling actually. As soon as Hakuna Matata is over and Simba is older, it sort of turned into the Beyonce show - I have absolutely nothing against her, I just thought her involvement with The Lion King was a bit overdone and on the nose.
I'm not sure what I really expected but I feel suitably silly for thinking that this was going to be anything more than a blatant cash grab.
The Lion King offers up nothing new, and the argument of "it's bringing the story to a whole new generation" is rendered mute by just watching the easily accessible and miles better original.
All these years later, and it still stands as a bonafide classic.
And here we are now, in 2019, and this adaption of The Lion King is the latest in an ever growing line of Disney animations to get the realistic remake treatment.
It aims straight for the nostalgic jugular (and is painfully see through), even if the CGI is pretty damn impressive.
However, impressive CGI means nothing if everything surrounding is empty. It's quite simply missing the heart and soul of the original animation.
In a similar fashion to the recent Jungle Book remake, it's no easy task to convey emotion on these characters when they are photo realistic animals, and the film really suffers as a result.
I feel like that casting was a big contributor as well. A lot of the voice cast are quite simply doing voice over work, and it's painfully obvious is some scenes that the actors were not next to each other whilst performing. The dialogue flows unnaturally on several occasions.
The songs are...ok I guess. Again, they lack a lot of of the heart that made them so enjoyable the first time around.
In particular, "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" is just awful, listening to Beyonce try to out-Beyonce herself, warbling and riffing unessecarily on a pretty straightforward ballad.
Her involvement had me eye rolling actually. As soon as Hakuna Matata is over and Simba is older, it sort of turned into the Beyonce show - I have absolutely nothing against her, I just thought her involvement with The Lion King was a bit overdone and on the nose.
I'm not sure what I really expected but I feel suitably silly for thinking that this was going to be anything more than a blatant cash grab.
The Lion King offers up nothing new, and the argument of "it's bringing the story to a whole new generation" is rendered mute by just watching the easily accessible and miles better original.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 11, 2019
Not even two Will Smiths can save it.
"Gemini Man (2019)" is a blend of action, drama, crime and sci-fi, and tells the story of Henry Brogan (portrayed by Will Smith), the world's most renowned assassin who is looking to retire from the government agency he's been working for.
When he finds out his last job wasn't all it seemed, he starts asking questions, which quickly prompts the agency to try and retire him themselves. We know from the trailers that a younger clone of himself is sent to kill him, and so begins a typical cat-and-mouse gunfight across the globe.
*sigh*
I was really disappointed with this film. It had so much potential - a strong lead with great support from Clive Owen (in fine antagonistic form), Benedict Wong (playing another Wong-esque character) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (in a commanding, if at times a little bland, outing). But even a good turn from Mr. Smith can't stop it from ultimately becoming a victim of its own ambition.
The plot isn't especially original, but has a nice twist to it that sets it apart. However, it loses itself halfway through, becoming convoluted and indecipherable, seemingly even for the cast. Nothing feels like it has any meaning, and the promising start was soon forgotten in favour of one set piece after another.
And speaking of the set pieces, whilst the action and choreography is really good, the scenes with Will Smith vs. Will Smith (both fighting and talking) are ruined by poor CGI. It's too obviously computer-generated. To me, good CGI looks integrated into the real life scenes, but this stands out like a video game. The action scenes in particular are way too fast and unrealistic. It's like they're trying to recreate the gritty, hard-hitting pace and tone of the Bourne films, but end up with The Matrix being playing on fast forward.
Ang Lee is the kind of director who either wins big (see "Life Of Pi (2012)") or loses big (see "Hulk (2003)"). I don't know where the blame lies here. The script wasn't particularly bad. The direction was... okay. But nothing seemed to gel. It had all the right ingredients and should've been great, yet it fails in every aspect.
This could've been one of the year's best blockbusters... sadly, it's a forgettable tale that Will Smith will likely want wiping from his IMDB profile.
When he finds out his last job wasn't all it seemed, he starts asking questions, which quickly prompts the agency to try and retire him themselves. We know from the trailers that a younger clone of himself is sent to kill him, and so begins a typical cat-and-mouse gunfight across the globe.
*sigh*
I was really disappointed with this film. It had so much potential - a strong lead with great support from Clive Owen (in fine antagonistic form), Benedict Wong (playing another Wong-esque character) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (in a commanding, if at times a little bland, outing). But even a good turn from Mr. Smith can't stop it from ultimately becoming a victim of its own ambition.
The plot isn't especially original, but has a nice twist to it that sets it apart. However, it loses itself halfway through, becoming convoluted and indecipherable, seemingly even for the cast. Nothing feels like it has any meaning, and the promising start was soon forgotten in favour of one set piece after another.
And speaking of the set pieces, whilst the action and choreography is really good, the scenes with Will Smith vs. Will Smith (both fighting and talking) are ruined by poor CGI. It's too obviously computer-generated. To me, good CGI looks integrated into the real life scenes, but this stands out like a video game. The action scenes in particular are way too fast and unrealistic. It's like they're trying to recreate the gritty, hard-hitting pace and tone of the Bourne films, but end up with The Matrix being playing on fast forward.
Ang Lee is the kind of director who either wins big (see "Life Of Pi (2012)") or loses big (see "Hulk (2003)"). I don't know where the blame lies here. The script wasn't particularly bad. The direction was... okay. But nothing seemed to gel. It had all the right ingredients and should've been great, yet it fails in every aspect.
This could've been one of the year's best blockbusters... sadly, it's a forgettable tale that Will Smith will likely want wiping from his IMDB profile.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Jul 27, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Man, I expected this to be absolute gutter trash based on some of the reviews I've seen here and there, but honestly, found this to be a pretty passable dumb comic book origin story.
The cast are mostly good (minus a couple of generic jumped-up-alpha-male-arseholes). Vin Diesel just being Vin Diesel (which I used to hate but these days kind of love-hate), Guy Pearce playing a typically shady villain, Eiza González representing the badass female quota nicely, and Lamorne Morris playing the sometimes amusing comic relief. They all gel well for the most part.
It also doesn't take itself to seriously - I was ready to hate Bloodshot within the first ten minutes due to some really on the nose dumbfuckery to do with Toby Kebbell's character, but later on, the movie references said scene and pokes fun at it, thankfully.
There's one particular great action set piece during the first third of the film (the one that made up a fair amount of the trailer) which earns Bloodshot more points than it otherwise would have, and the semi-Groundhog Day plot keeps the movie interesting for the most part.
However, and it's a big however, although Bloodshot is fairly good for a fair portion of the runtime, it absolutely shits the bed in the final third.
Opting for a big CGI blowout (of course), the big final sequence just looks horrible.
The character models used in the fight sequences reminded me of Neo from The Matrix Reloaded, and that looked bad 17 years ago!
It's a loud, ugly mess that unfortunately de-rails any good that came before.
It also doesn't make a lick of sense, but WHO CARES, EXPLOSIONS AND CGI VIN DIESEL, WOOOOAHHH. It sucks.
I get the feeling that the ending (after the shitty fight scene) was supposed to be deep and left open to interpretation, but it just felt thrown on and confusing, and I also, I didn't really care by this point.
Ultimately, I would like to see Bloodshot get a sequel. This first outing is truly an origin film, and it would be interesting to see how further entries could flesh out the story, and borrow more from the comics.
I just hope this crappy Coronavirus pandemic is taken into account by the suits when looking at the poor box office.
The cast are mostly good (minus a couple of generic jumped-up-alpha-male-arseholes). Vin Diesel just being Vin Diesel (which I used to hate but these days kind of love-hate), Guy Pearce playing a typically shady villain, Eiza González representing the badass female quota nicely, and Lamorne Morris playing the sometimes amusing comic relief. They all gel well for the most part.
It also doesn't take itself to seriously - I was ready to hate Bloodshot within the first ten minutes due to some really on the nose dumbfuckery to do with Toby Kebbell's character, but later on, the movie references said scene and pokes fun at it, thankfully.
There's one particular great action set piece during the first third of the film (the one that made up a fair amount of the trailer) which earns Bloodshot more points than it otherwise would have, and the semi-Groundhog Day plot keeps the movie interesting for the most part.
However, and it's a big however, although Bloodshot is fairly good for a fair portion of the runtime, it absolutely shits the bed in the final third.
Opting for a big CGI blowout (of course), the big final sequence just looks horrible.
The character models used in the fight sequences reminded me of Neo from The Matrix Reloaded, and that looked bad 17 years ago!
It's a loud, ugly mess that unfortunately de-rails any good that came before.
It also doesn't make a lick of sense, but WHO CARES, EXPLOSIONS AND CGI VIN DIESEL, WOOOOAHHH. It sucks.
I get the feeling that the ending (after the shitty fight scene) was supposed to be deep and left open to interpretation, but it just felt thrown on and confusing, and I also, I didn't really care by this point.
Ultimately, I would like to see Bloodshot get a sequel. This first outing is truly an origin film, and it would be interesting to see how further entries could flesh out the story, and borrow more from the comics.
I just hope this crappy Coronavirus pandemic is taken into account by the suits when looking at the poor box office.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Hurricane Heist (2018) in Movies
Apr 9, 2018
Well at least it lived up expectations
You know it's not a good sign when a film is released on Sky Cinema the same day it apparently comes out in actual cinemas (despite the fact it isn't showing anywhere local to me).
Yes this film is bad, but it just about verges on so bad it's vaguely entertaining for an hour or so. It reminds me a little of Sharknado (although Hurricane Heist is nowhere near as ridiculous), with the pretty poor CGI, terrible script and bad acting. Some of the Southern accents are hilarious, even you Toby Kebbell, and Maggie Grace is really not a good actress. And casting Ralph Ineson? He's a good actor but he's got bad guy stamped all over him which makes the first part of this story a tad predictable. I'd have been more surprised if he'd have turned out to be a good guy. The plot is silly although doesn't come across quite as farfetched as the trailer made out.
But despite all of this, it is partly entertaining brainless fodder, just don't go expecting too much.
Yes this film is bad, but it just about verges on so bad it's vaguely entertaining for an hour or so. It reminds me a little of Sharknado (although Hurricane Heist is nowhere near as ridiculous), with the pretty poor CGI, terrible script and bad acting. Some of the Southern accents are hilarious, even you Toby Kebbell, and Maggie Grace is really not a good actress. And casting Ralph Ineson? He's a good actor but he's got bad guy stamped all over him which makes the first part of this story a tad predictable. I'd have been more surprised if he'd have turned out to be a good guy. The plot is silly although doesn't come across quite as farfetched as the trailer made out.
But despite all of this, it is partly entertaining brainless fodder, just don't go expecting too much.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated X-Men (2000) in Movies
Jun 7, 2019 (Updated Jun 8, 2019)
The first X-Men has not aged particularly well, but it's important to recognise it's impact on the movie landscape, especially for comic book films.
Although there has been comic book movies before, X-Men paved the way for everything that has come since, the good and the awful!
At the time it was almost magical, seeing characters I had grown up with flying about the screen (I was 12 when it was released), and the casting was inspired for the most part - Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman and Anna Paquin in particular.
It also started the trend of lacing the theatrics and seriousness with subtle humour thought, and the balance here is pretty good.
Even now, the CGI isn't terrible (certainly better than the later released Origins)
By the same merit, the costumes look goofy these days, some of the scripting is very 2000s, and why on Earth did they cast Tyler Mane as a weirdly mute Sabretooth will always be beyond me.
All in all, there are much better X-Men films out there, and there are a lot worse, and I'll always have a soft spot for it!
Although there has been comic book movies before, X-Men paved the way for everything that has come since, the good and the awful!
At the time it was almost magical, seeing characters I had grown up with flying about the screen (I was 12 when it was released), and the casting was inspired for the most part - Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman and Anna Paquin in particular.
It also started the trend of lacing the theatrics and seriousness with subtle humour thought, and the balance here is pretty good.
Even now, the CGI isn't terrible (certainly better than the later released Origins)
By the same merit, the costumes look goofy these days, some of the scripting is very 2000s, and why on Earth did they cast Tyler Mane as a weirdly mute Sabretooth will always be beyond me.
All in all, there are much better X-Men films out there, and there are a lot worse, and I'll always have a soft spot for it!
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Jan 31, 2018
A worthy follow-up to the original Paddington movie
The original Paddington movie rather unexpectedly charms the pants off of our whole family. So, we were more willing than usual to take our daughter to see the sequel when it hit theatres. We found it to be a lovely experience that - while not quite as good as the original movie - was still rather charming.
You don't necessarily need to see the first movie to enjoy Paddington 2, but I think you'll enjoy it so much more if you do. The relationships between the family and Paddington are one of the reasons you come to like the movies so much.
And, I have to say, Hugh Grant actually cracked me up in this movie. I kind of rolled my eyes at him at first, but by the end of the movie I was definitely snickering.
The CGI is good. The acting is perfect for a kid's movie. The plot and pacing are well done as well. I wouldn't say go watch it even if you don't have kids, but if you have kids, it's one you won't regret going to theatres to see with your little ankle-biters.
You don't necessarily need to see the first movie to enjoy Paddington 2, but I think you'll enjoy it so much more if you do. The relationships between the family and Paddington are one of the reasons you come to like the movies so much.
And, I have to say, Hugh Grant actually cracked me up in this movie. I kind of rolled my eyes at him at first, but by the end of the movie I was definitely snickering.
The CGI is good. The acting is perfect for a kid's movie. The plot and pacing are well done as well. I wouldn't say go watch it even if you don't have kids, but if you have kids, it's one you won't regret going to theatres to see with your little ankle-biters.