Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020 (Updated Aug 28, 2020)
Confusingly brilliant
When it comes to Christopher Nolan, I may be a little biased. I’ve loved every film he’s ever made, and most of his films feature in my list of favourite films of all time. So unsurprisingly, I loved Tenet even if it did completely mess up my head.
This film is a complete mind f**k. Excuse the language, but there’s no better way to describe it. Right from the opening scene, you can appreciate the sheer brilliance of this whilst being totally confused at the same time. And I’ll admit I spent the majority of this film wondering what on earth was going on, but that doesn’t make it any less of an enjoyable thrill ride. As with all of Nolan’s films, the cinematography is top notch and you really can’t fault it. The action scenes are epic and hugely impressive, especially when you consider that they’ve been done without CGI. I wish other filmmakers would take not when it comes to their over reliance on CGI! The score and soundtrack are fantastic too, so dramatic and really help with the increasing the suspense and tension.
Cast-wise, I had been concerned about John David Washington mainly because I haven’t seen him in much, but my concerns were unwarranted. He makes for a likeable lead and action hero and can definitely hold the weight of this film. Robert Pattinson, who I’ve never really liked thanks to Twilight, is also rather good and I actually wish his character had been in this more. And I spent the last part of the film debating if Aaron Taylor-Johnson was Ives (he was) who also should’ve been in this a lot more.
Despite my gushing, this film isn’t perfect, I found Elizabeth Debicki’s character Kat rather irritating at times and felt like her character could have been made into someone better. I also felt when there were dips in the action and the film ran into some quieter moments, my mind tended to wander to try and dissect and understand everything I’d already seen so far which probably made me miss more! The science behind the inversion is pretty deep and confusing, especially if you try and overthink it like I did.
That said, how this film unfolds and it’s ending are brilliantly done. There are a lot of lightbulb moments in this towards the end that made me go “ohhh” when I realised it explained or referred to an earlier moment in the film. And the ending itself was both unpredicted, genius, and also tugged on the old heartstrings a little. I loved this film a lot, but I definitely need to watch it again to really appreciate it fully.
This film is a complete mind f**k. Excuse the language, but there’s no better way to describe it. Right from the opening scene, you can appreciate the sheer brilliance of this whilst being totally confused at the same time. And I’ll admit I spent the majority of this film wondering what on earth was going on, but that doesn’t make it any less of an enjoyable thrill ride. As with all of Nolan’s films, the cinematography is top notch and you really can’t fault it. The action scenes are epic and hugely impressive, especially when you consider that they’ve been done without CGI. I wish other filmmakers would take not when it comes to their over reliance on CGI! The score and soundtrack are fantastic too, so dramatic and really help with the increasing the suspense and tension.
Cast-wise, I had been concerned about John David Washington mainly because I haven’t seen him in much, but my concerns were unwarranted. He makes for a likeable lead and action hero and can definitely hold the weight of this film. Robert Pattinson, who I’ve never really liked thanks to Twilight, is also rather good and I actually wish his character had been in this more. And I spent the last part of the film debating if Aaron Taylor-Johnson was Ives (he was) who also should’ve been in this a lot more.
Despite my gushing, this film isn’t perfect, I found Elizabeth Debicki’s character Kat rather irritating at times and felt like her character could have been made into someone better. I also felt when there were dips in the action and the film ran into some quieter moments, my mind tended to wander to try and dissect and understand everything I’d already seen so far which probably made me miss more! The science behind the inversion is pretty deep and confusing, especially if you try and overthink it like I did.
That said, how this film unfolds and it’s ending are brilliantly done. There are a lot of lightbulb moments in this towards the end that made me go “ohhh” when I realised it explained or referred to an earlier moment in the film. And the ending itself was both unpredicted, genius, and also tugged on the old heartstrings a little. I loved this film a lot, but I definitely need to watch it again to really appreciate it fully.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jul 25, 2017
Michael Fassbender (1 more)
Better than Prometheus
Well at least it's better than Prometheus...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'll be honest, I hated Prometheus. It had potential, but was completely ruined by nonsense and plot holes. Alien: Covenant is the film Prometheus should've been, but it still isn't anything to shout about.
There are still plot holes, although nowhere near as many as Prometheus, and some very dodgy action choices from supposedly expert characters. For example, going out onto an unknown planet without any sort of protective suit?! Advise anyone to hit up YouTube for more plot holes and stupidity if you didn't spot these yourself.
Character development was lacking. The CGI was surprisingly bad in parts. The first and last parts of the films were very similar to Alien and Aliens, which may not necessarily be bad. However there's a fine line between being an homage and being a carbon copy, and I don't think this film quite pulls it off.
Finally, the whole nonsense about David being the creator of the Xenomorphs? Utter nonsense. Personally I hate the idea of a homicidal android having created the Xenomorphs and I hate that Ridley Scott has gone down this route.
I also can't stand that Ridley has said there will be 2 more prequels before the events of these films link up to the events of Alien - is that really necessary?
There are still plot holes, although nowhere near as many as Prometheus, and some very dodgy action choices from supposedly expert characters. For example, going out onto an unknown planet without any sort of protective suit?! Advise anyone to hit up YouTube for more plot holes and stupidity if you didn't spot these yourself.
Character development was lacking. The CGI was surprisingly bad in parts. The first and last parts of the films were very similar to Alien and Aliens, which may not necessarily be bad. However there's a fine line between being an homage and being a carbon copy, and I don't think this film quite pulls it off.
Finally, the whole nonsense about David being the creator of the Xenomorphs? Utter nonsense. Personally I hate the idea of a homicidal android having created the Xenomorphs and I hate that Ridley Scott has gone down this route.
I also can't stand that Ridley has said there will be 2 more prequels before the events of these films link up to the events of Alien - is that really necessary?
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Aug 1, 2017
Brilliant & Very Intense
I have to start off by admitting that Nolan is my favourite director, and although this film is quite different to his previous ones, I'm pleased to say I still loved it.
Visually spectacular, it was so nice to see real effects for a change as opposed to cgi. Story wise it was also refreshing to see a war film not bogged down with erroneous subplots and romantic side stories. Nolan just jumps straight in to the action & carries on throughout, with an impressive run time of less than 2 hours. Some great casting here, although I feel like Tom Hardy could've been given more to do. Even Harry Styles was well cast & I was expecting him to be awful! Hans Zimmer does his usual great job on the score, building up a lot of tension. Nolan also does a fantastic job making the film quite harrowing without feeling the need to go ridiculously violent and gory. And there are also a few typical Nolan plot movements thrown in which made it slightly more than your average war film.
My only negative would be that a little bit of backstory might have been nice, as I personally don't know a lot about the lead up to Dunkirk, and that could've helped the ignorant like me!
Visually spectacular, it was so nice to see real effects for a change as opposed to cgi. Story wise it was also refreshing to see a war film not bogged down with erroneous subplots and romantic side stories. Nolan just jumps straight in to the action & carries on throughout, with an impressive run time of less than 2 hours. Some great casting here, although I feel like Tom Hardy could've been given more to do. Even Harry Styles was well cast & I was expecting him to be awful! Hans Zimmer does his usual great job on the score, building up a lot of tension. Nolan also does a fantastic job making the film quite harrowing without feeling the need to go ridiculously violent and gory. And there are also a few typical Nolan plot movements thrown in which made it slightly more than your average war film.
My only negative would be that a little bit of backstory might have been nice, as I personally don't know a lot about the lead up to Dunkirk, and that could've helped the ignorant like me!
A pleasant surprise
This was always going to be up against it, as Stephen King's book is an epic and there's no way the entire book can be put into 2 films. However as a part 1, this film actually does a pretty good job.
Yes there are things missing from the book, this isn't really a surprise. And they have changed some parts of the story too, and although I don't necessarily agree with these changes, the majority of them don't really have a detrimental effect to the story. And a lot of these changes still hint and nod to the book (e.g. Eddie's broken arm, "beep-beep Richie" etc). The kids themselves I mainly loved and they were well cast, the humour was great. Although I do think Beverly looked a little too old? I also liked some of the exposition and explanatory scenes which happened differently in the book, yet still worked in this.
Despite the old school type scares, I actually found myself quite scared and creeped out at times, which I wasn't expecting. My only issue is I didn't like Pennywise's front teeth, I found them really off putting and didn't look very good. And I think some of the CGI was a little over the top.
So all in, a surprisingly good adaptation. Actually can't wait to see the next chapter.
Yes there are things missing from the book, this isn't really a surprise. And they have changed some parts of the story too, and although I don't necessarily agree with these changes, the majority of them don't really have a detrimental effect to the story. And a lot of these changes still hint and nod to the book (e.g. Eddie's broken arm, "beep-beep Richie" etc). The kids themselves I mainly loved and they were well cast, the humour was great. Although I do think Beverly looked a little too old? I also liked some of the exposition and explanatory scenes which happened differently in the book, yet still worked in this.
Despite the old school type scares, I actually found myself quite scared and creeped out at times, which I wasn't expecting. My only issue is I didn't like Pennywise's front teeth, I found them really off putting and didn't look very good. And I think some of the CGI was a little over the top.
So all in, a surprisingly good adaptation. Actually can't wait to see the next chapter.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
May 1, 2018
Hopefully the last ever Transformers film
Let's be honest, the Transformers films seem to have a Marmite-like love/hate appeal. With the exception of the first film which was actually quite good, the rest of the sequels have been pretty dire. Age of Extinction wasn't too bad as at least it rebooted the franchise with a mostly new cast. But sadly the same cant be said of The Last Knight.
Firstly, the plot. This is just bat s*** crazy nonsense, like they've dredged the depths for something to link Transformers to and somehow have come up with the legend of Merlin and King Arthur. Seriously? This starts off pretty silly and by the end of the film descends into complete ridiculousness. The script is so cheesy, they've thrown far too many pointless characters in and the CGI in places actually looks quite poor. This gets a few points by being able to hold my attention for the overly long running time, mainly on the basis that I wanted to see how bad it was going to get.
Considering the ending its looking doubtful that this will be the last Transformers film ever, but I really hope it is. I'm not counting the prequel type Bumblebee film but I don't hold out much hope for that either...
Firstly, the plot. This is just bat s*** crazy nonsense, like they've dredged the depths for something to link Transformers to and somehow have come up with the legend of Merlin and King Arthur. Seriously? This starts off pretty silly and by the end of the film descends into complete ridiculousness. The script is so cheesy, they've thrown far too many pointless characters in and the CGI in places actually looks quite poor. This gets a few points by being able to hold my attention for the overly long running time, mainly on the basis that I wanted to see how bad it was going to get.
Considering the ending its looking doubtful that this will be the last Transformers film ever, but I really hope it is. I'm not counting the prequel type Bumblebee film but I don't hold out much hope for that either...
Andy K (10821 KP) rated San Andreas (2015) in Movies
Feb 9, 2019
A thrill ride of a good time!
Ok, normally I rip on these CGI puke fests with no apparent plot in sight, but this one was a lot of fun. You obviously can't take it seriously, but if you go along for the ride, I think you will enjoy it.
When a rescue worker and his estranged wife find each other amidst the great California earthquakes we all fear, their only goal is to find and rescue their daughter after already losing a child together.
I've sat through a lot of disaster films in my life and seem to have a soft spot for them I guess. Maybe because of the dooming sound in my home theatre or my 75" TV showing all the cool effects larger than life. Somehow The Rock always seems to find projects that suit his talents well. In the modern age of movie stars generally not being the box office draws they once were, he seems to have carved out a fine career for himself in doing these types of movies.
Liked it quite a bit more than I thought I would.
One thing about the movies that makes me the happiest is being pleasantly surprised since it doesn't happen much any more.
Highly recommended.
When a rescue worker and his estranged wife find each other amidst the great California earthquakes we all fear, their only goal is to find and rescue their daughter after already losing a child together.
I've sat through a lot of disaster films in my life and seem to have a soft spot for them I guess. Maybe because of the dooming sound in my home theatre or my 75" TV showing all the cool effects larger than life. Somehow The Rock always seems to find projects that suit his talents well. In the modern age of movie stars generally not being the box office draws they once were, he seems to have carved out a fine career for himself in doing these types of movies.
Liked it quite a bit more than I thought I would.
One thing about the movies that makes me the happiest is being pleasantly surprised since it doesn't happen much any more.
Highly recommended.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Feb 11, 2018 (Updated Feb 11, 2018)
Oh, Mummy.
Laborious attempt by Universal to grab a slice of Marvel's meta-franchise pie by launching a series of fantasy blockbusters based on their stable of famous monster characters. Tom Cruise plays an annoying mercenary who catches the eye of an ancient and evil supernatural creature unearthed in Iraq.
There's a good reason why sensible studios don't try to make horror blockbusters, and especially horror blockbusters starring Tom Cruise - every time the film starts to be effectively creepy or atmospheric, along comes a CGI-enhanced chase sequence, or Tom Cruise doing that smirk, or some other manifestation of corporate blandness. Isn't Tom Cruise too old for this sort of thing? Watching him flirting with a considerably younger actress is by far the creepiest thing in the movie, and he seems quite incapable of the moral ambiguity the part probably requires - Russell Crowe, in the Samuel L Jackson plot-device-character role, acts him off the screen.
You scratch your head wondering how this thing is supposed to work - are all the monsters going to team up together? And do what, exactly? No-one seems to have thought this through. It's much more of a zombie movie than one about an actual mummy, anyway. The depiction of the one-way system in Oxford City Centre is also very misleading; I nearly knocked off a point because of it.
There's a good reason why sensible studios don't try to make horror blockbusters, and especially horror blockbusters starring Tom Cruise - every time the film starts to be effectively creepy or atmospheric, along comes a CGI-enhanced chase sequence, or Tom Cruise doing that smirk, or some other manifestation of corporate blandness. Isn't Tom Cruise too old for this sort of thing? Watching him flirting with a considerably younger actress is by far the creepiest thing in the movie, and he seems quite incapable of the moral ambiguity the part probably requires - Russell Crowe, in the Samuel L Jackson plot-device-character role, acts him off the screen.
You scratch your head wondering how this thing is supposed to work - are all the monsters going to team up together? And do what, exactly? No-one seems to have thought this through. It's much more of a zombie movie than one about an actual mummy, anyway. The depiction of the one-way system in Oxford City Centre is also very misleading; I nearly knocked off a point because of it.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Outlaw King (2018) in Movies
Nov 11, 2018 (Updated Nov 11, 2018)
Most of the early notices for this film appear to have focused on Chris Pine's full-frontal nude scene, rather than the fact it's clearly the work of people who loved Braveheart so much they decided to make their own version. Early 14th century Scotland suffers under the yoke of English oppression; nobleman Robert the Bruce decides to stand up and do the right thing, even if it does mean breaking his word and murdering his rivals. Much shouting and many mud-spattered battle scenes ensue; the CGI button marked 'arterial spray' gets pressed a lot.
All right if you like this sort of thing, I suppose: some interesting mediaeval detail sneaks in, but most of the characterisation deals in stock types and the film-makers never quite persuaded me of why I should genuinely care about this story. Bruce spends much of the film brooding, which is not really Pine's strong suit, but there are some solid supporting performances (Florence Pugh is predictably good in a very thin part). The battles are well mounted and the scenery is nice; I imagine many people will enjoy this much more than I did. For the record: Chris Pine's winky is barely visible, far less so than Florence Pugh's boobies, which have attracted much less critical attention (now that's what I call a double standard).
All right if you like this sort of thing, I suppose: some interesting mediaeval detail sneaks in, but most of the characterisation deals in stock types and the film-makers never quite persuaded me of why I should genuinely care about this story. Bruce spends much of the film brooding, which is not really Pine's strong suit, but there are some solid supporting performances (Florence Pugh is predictably good in a very thin part). The battles are well mounted and the scenery is nice; I imagine many people will enjoy this much more than I did. For the record: Chris Pine's winky is barely visible, far less so than Florence Pugh's boobies, which have attracted much less critical attention (now that's what I call a double standard).
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Nov 25, 2018
A truly remarkable original modern musical classic!
I'm sure by now I am the only person in the world who hadn't seen The Greatest Showman until tonight. It was very much worth the wait.
The songs, look, art direction, make up, costumes, sets and cinematography were the true stars along with fantastic, mesmerizing performances by the entire cast. I was worried about Zac Efron, but he really held his own and I forgot about his High School Musical days. It was also surprising to see Michelle Williams in this type of role since I am used to seeing her in heavy dramas where she nearly never smiles. That was a pleasant surprise also.
Have to mention Hugh Jackman, a role he was born to play. He has to be the only actor who can command such a presence in gritty action films and charismatic characters like this one.
I could've done without the CGI lions and elephants since they did not look realistic and kind of took you out of those moments but a minor complaint.
The plot is certainly one from a musical meaning non super complicated or in-depth, maybe a little cheesy; however, it didn't bother me in this case.
I'm sure I'll be humming these songs for some time to come and watching it again with my daughter soon.
The songs, look, art direction, make up, costumes, sets and cinematography were the true stars along with fantastic, mesmerizing performances by the entire cast. I was worried about Zac Efron, but he really held his own and I forgot about his High School Musical days. It was also surprising to see Michelle Williams in this type of role since I am used to seeing her in heavy dramas where she nearly never smiles. That was a pleasant surprise also.
Have to mention Hugh Jackman, a role he was born to play. He has to be the only actor who can command such a presence in gritty action films and charismatic characters like this one.
I could've done without the CGI lions and elephants since they did not look realistic and kind of took you out of those moments but a minor complaint.
The plot is certainly one from a musical meaning non super complicated or in-depth, maybe a little cheesy; however, it didn't bother me in this case.
I'm sure I'll be humming these songs for some time to come and watching it again with my daughter soon.
David McK (3425 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2021)
Like, I'm sure, many others, if you'd mentioned the words 'Wonder Woman' to me prior to 2016 Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice I probably would have thought of the 1970s(?) Linda Carter starring TV series.
That was a role that Gal Gadot took in in the 2016 movie, portraying a different take on the character: one who has largely remained in the background throughout history, only revealing herself (and her powers) towards the end of that movie.
This film takes place at an earlier period in her life (albeit 'bookended' by a modern day setting, with Diana receiving a vintage photo of her in costume): during the First World War, to be precise, when Diana first leaves the Amazonian island paradise of Thermiscyra and enters the world, discovering her powers and heritage in the process.
While there may be an element of truth in the criticism that the plot of this movie is - largely - a role-reversed Captain America (World War setting? Sacrificial ending?) and that it probably could have done without the CGI battle at the end (which, IMO, lessened the impact the movie would have had without it) this is still a very enjoyable movie indeed!
As an aside: the stand-out scene where Diana crosses No-Mans land on her own? That was nearly cut from the movie.
That was a role that Gal Gadot took in in the 2016 movie, portraying a different take on the character: one who has largely remained in the background throughout history, only revealing herself (and her powers) towards the end of that movie.
This film takes place at an earlier period in her life (albeit 'bookended' by a modern day setting, with Diana receiving a vintage photo of her in costume): during the First World War, to be precise, when Diana first leaves the Amazonian island paradise of Thermiscyra and enters the world, discovering her powers and heritage in the process.
While there may be an element of truth in the criticism that the plot of this movie is - largely - a role-reversed Captain America (World War setting? Sacrificial ending?) and that it probably could have done without the CGI battle at the end (which, IMO, lessened the impact the movie would have had without it) this is still a very enjoyable movie indeed!
As an aside: the stand-out scene where Diana crosses No-Mans land on her own? That was nearly cut from the movie.
Kevin Phillipson (10021 KP) Aug 28, 2020
Erika (17788 KP) Sep 16, 2020