Search
Search results
p3anut (62 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Story (2 more)
The jokes
Graphics
Another trek into the jurassic
Contains spoilers, click to show
I would like to start out by saying that Jurassic Park is my favorite movie of all time! I remember being 7 and not having any fascination with dinosaurs and my parents took me and my sister to see it at the movie theater and I was immediately blown away and obsessed.
Flash forward 25 years and I'm still in love with the Jurassic Park series. Are they hollow shells of the original? Sure, but they are alot of fun.
This one starts out right after the events of Jurassic world and I liked the direction the movie was heading in. I thought some of the call backs to Jurassic world were really fun and clever but I thought the overall story arch of getting Claire to the island to rescue dinosaurs before the volcano erupted, was very reminiscent of the Jurassic Park 3 story line and we all know that movie was a straight up brontosaurus turd! Think about it, grant was lied to about taking Mr Kirby on a tour of dinosaurs and they landed to rescue Eric. Claire was lied to about saving dinosaurs so the main villan could get her to the island to save all these sepcies so he could sell them. ??? Trash setup.
The graphics were very well done and they had some pretty good practical effects and some pretty good practical effects with a slight layer of cgi. I loved the blue background story and I love that they are keeping rexy as a main dinosaur in these iterations.
Overall this movie was just a filler "episode" in the Jurassic Park series with some fun little throw backs to the previous films. It didn't really do anything that makes it standout in the series other than setup for the next movie.
I hope the next one delivers on the promise that dinosaurs will be roaming free around us. I honestly hope it goes even more sci-fi and massie turns evil and has a connection to the genetically engineered Dino's. And they try to take over the world! Just kidding on that last part. But if it is going to be the last movie in the new trilogy I hope they really nail the tone and the pace unlike this movie did.
Until next time my friends.
Flash forward 25 years and I'm still in love with the Jurassic Park series. Are they hollow shells of the original? Sure, but they are alot of fun.
This one starts out right after the events of Jurassic world and I liked the direction the movie was heading in. I thought some of the call backs to Jurassic world were really fun and clever but I thought the overall story arch of getting Claire to the island to rescue dinosaurs before the volcano erupted, was very reminiscent of the Jurassic Park 3 story line and we all know that movie was a straight up brontosaurus turd! Think about it, grant was lied to about taking Mr Kirby on a tour of dinosaurs and they landed to rescue Eric. Claire was lied to about saving dinosaurs so the main villan could get her to the island to save all these sepcies so he could sell them. ??? Trash setup.
The graphics were very well done and they had some pretty good practical effects and some pretty good practical effects with a slight layer of cgi. I loved the blue background story and I love that they are keeping rexy as a main dinosaur in these iterations.
Overall this movie was just a filler "episode" in the Jurassic Park series with some fun little throw backs to the previous films. It didn't really do anything that makes it standout in the series other than setup for the next movie.
I hope the next one delivers on the promise that dinosaurs will be roaming free around us. I honestly hope it goes even more sci-fi and massie turns evil and has a connection to the genetically engineered Dino's. And they try to take over the world! Just kidding on that last part. But if it is going to be the last movie in the new trilogy I hope they really nail the tone and the pace unlike this movie did.
Until next time my friends.
Solomon Wendt (30 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
May 5, 2019
Nostalgia (1 more)
Video Games
This movie is based off of the book of the same name and matches it for most of the major plot points. In short, the story follows Wade Wilson, an egg hunter (Gunter for short), on the search for a virtual Easter egg that unlock control over the virtual reality known as The Oasis. In a scavenger hunt fashion, there are clues and trials that Wade must figure out and overcome in his attempt at such a coveted prize.
The film follows the major points of the book, but does change the clues and trials so its not the same exact story, which I feel is the purpose of film adaptations. However, as with many sci-fi films, majority of interest here is of the world that is constructed which is quickly glossed over. To be fair, how much more do we really need to than people are addicted to virtual reality and want to have more power in it? But the issue is the sort of background that is left out that can leave the soley film consumers a bit confused or leave more questions. As for the actual content of the film, it is a real nostalgia trip for those who enjoyed 80's pop culture and tries to include more recent fandoms such as Overwatch and Halo. Sadly, the viewer doesn't really take part in the treasure hunt as mystery and adventure films try to do. The clues are obscure and related to the creator of the hunt, so there isn't much guessing at what a clue means until it is flat out explained.
However, with the audience participation aside, it is a good sci-fi adventure that utilizes a good blend of motion capture technology and cgi work. It explore a good variety of worlds, environments, and character models that make this film noteworthy of that aspect of production. It leaves quite the impression and I know I looked up how much virtual reality cost after I was done.
In short, it was a good overall production in terms of tools utilized, but lacked a little bit of story in an attempt to cram a different world and rule set while trying to make a complete adventure and story arc. I recommend viewing it at least once, but doesn't really need to be viewed more than that.
The film follows the major points of the book, but does change the clues and trials so its not the same exact story, which I feel is the purpose of film adaptations. However, as with many sci-fi films, majority of interest here is of the world that is constructed which is quickly glossed over. To be fair, how much more do we really need to than people are addicted to virtual reality and want to have more power in it? But the issue is the sort of background that is left out that can leave the soley film consumers a bit confused or leave more questions. As for the actual content of the film, it is a real nostalgia trip for those who enjoyed 80's pop culture and tries to include more recent fandoms such as Overwatch and Halo. Sadly, the viewer doesn't really take part in the treasure hunt as mystery and adventure films try to do. The clues are obscure and related to the creator of the hunt, so there isn't much guessing at what a clue means until it is flat out explained.
However, with the audience participation aside, it is a good sci-fi adventure that utilizes a good blend of motion capture technology and cgi work. It explore a good variety of worlds, environments, and character models that make this film noteworthy of that aspect of production. It leaves quite the impression and I know I looked up how much virtual reality cost after I was done.
In short, it was a good overall production in terms of tools utilized, but lacked a little bit of story in an attempt to cram a different world and rule set while trying to make a complete adventure and story arc. I recommend viewing it at least once, but doesn't really need to be viewed more than that.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2019
Put it down
#secretlifeofpets2 like its predecessor offers nothing new to the #animated film genre in a film thats not only overlong (even at just an hour & a half) but extremely souless too. I hated the #original #secretlifeofpets & im actually a big fan of cgi animated movies too so when we decided to go see this with my nephews i wasnt to excited but i figured it might be an improvement on the first, boy was i wrong. First of all my nephews absolutely #loved this film laughing, sitting on the edge of their seats, talking about the characters & feeling #anxious during the action so while my review is a negative one younger kids will dig its #furry characters, loud action & vibrant colour pallet for sure. Heres why i hated it - i find the pets themselves so visually ugly & lazily designed that it offends my eyes looking at them (seriously some of them or hideous). Dialog is so atrocious & basic you could practically guess what flat one liner would be delivered predictably by almost every one. Story for about an hour felt non existent & i questioned myself on whether id missed a part that told us about the end goal or the #journey the film was taking us on. It was like we had just watched a bunch of 10 minute short films all cut together to make a feature length movie with no payoff. Once the film does finally reach the end we do get an in site into what the film was overall trying to say (#parents arnt alone in bringing up kids, theres always other things that aid in the up bringing & although the world is a #dangerous place #failure & getting #hurt is all part of #learning & growing as a person process) but it just seems it got side tracked along the way. Animation is nice & theres some good looking scenes no doubt but its standard stuff. #Soundtrack wise its quite fun & keeps the films pace lively. Pact full of stereotyping, stolen set pieces from the likes of #toystory, storylines that are all over the place & #jokes that fall flat its hard film for #adults to sit through as it offers nothing as a reward. Your kids might #love it but you might not be able to stay #awake to even notice. #pets #dog #cat #illumination #minions #kids #children #kevinheart #pet #silly #funny
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Land Down Under
Men In Black International shoots for the stars but comes up short turning out to be nowhere near as fun or thrilling as all the other instalments but does enough to provide some entertainment at least. I was obsessed with Men In Black when i was a teenager the humour mixed with a quirky ugly scifi edge was refreshing to me as a kid & like nothing I'd ever seen before. So in a world where superhero movies rule i was kind of hoping international would bring back that sense of shock & wonder i felt when i was a kid seeing the original for the first time while at the same time invoking a feeling of nostalgia too. Sadly however Men in black 4 has something missing & i cant quite put my finger on what it is. Theres definitely a lack of thrill & excitement to the entire film (even the action scenes) which doesn't help & the humour feels weird like its jokes stop the film dead feeling flat/bland & badly written or delivered with bad timing. Then theres the acting & again im not sure whats wrong but somethings off with it or the dialog because characters dont seem to react to things well, talk to each other in a realistic manner or have anything interesting to say so from time to time i found myself just staring at the screen with my brain switched of to what was being said after a while. Maybe its the script or the actors not being given much freedom because Chris Hemsworth is a great actor & funny guy but in this he comes across like an average joe. Plot wise is very basic fluff just re jigged & reused from the others & the final act feels awkwardly rushed. World building is given a backseat this time too which is a shame & themes of individuality & finding your purpose arnt particularly great either. Its not all bad however there were set pieces i found really fun & creative, the cgi was great & extremely believable, its visually really nice to look at, sound design is punchy & i really liked the villains that were stalking them too even though they felt under used/developed & their presence on screen ended far to abrupt. Mib4 is definitely watchable even if it is a tad forgettable/lacking but I'd happily watch another instalment in a few years thats for sure.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Host (Gwoemul) (2007) in Movies
Oct 23, 2019
Darn formaldehyde!
Guess what happens when a scientist orders a large amount of formaldehyde dumped down the drain? It makes its way through the sewer system and into the Han River in Korea. Several years later, it is revealed the substance has caused the mutated formation of a large sea monster creature which reveals itself when it emerges and begins an onslaught of carnage.
A local family which runs a food stand near the location of the attack races to get to safety, but, unfortunately a man grabs the hand of the wrong child instead of his daughter by mistake. The creature procures the young child and escapes with her back into the water. Further chaos ensues when it is revealed the creature is not only a menace, but also the source of a horrible infectious disease now rampant among the population.
Somehow, the child survives her journey back in the sewers with the creature who deposits her in a secluded location. Her father now has to get past government quarantine and survive battling the creature in order to try and save his child.
Director Bong Joon-ho, who has also given us the fantastic Snowpiercer and the current critic favorite Parasite, crafts a well made film which has many exciting elements.
For a movie like this it is only as good as its creature and this one does the job. Despite having a modest budget, the sea creature is well developed, has an interesting personality and does not look like bad CGI. As the audience, you are trying to figure out what the creature wants, what it is doing with the children it kidnaps and stores away while also rooting for the title family to not only survive the disease and run ins with the police to eventually attempt a rescue.
There is a good amount of action including a few intense scenes with the creature and also with one of the family members who also happens to be a famed archer. There is some comedy as well which rounds out the action and provides some down time between scenes.
I really enjoyed The Host much more than I thought I would since I hadn't heard much about it beforehand. Please check it out.
A local family which runs a food stand near the location of the attack races to get to safety, but, unfortunately a man grabs the hand of the wrong child instead of his daughter by mistake. The creature procures the young child and escapes with her back into the water. Further chaos ensues when it is revealed the creature is not only a menace, but also the source of a horrible infectious disease now rampant among the population.
Somehow, the child survives her journey back in the sewers with the creature who deposits her in a secluded location. Her father now has to get past government quarantine and survive battling the creature in order to try and save his child.
Director Bong Joon-ho, who has also given us the fantastic Snowpiercer and the current critic favorite Parasite, crafts a well made film which has many exciting elements.
For a movie like this it is only as good as its creature and this one does the job. Despite having a modest budget, the sea creature is well developed, has an interesting personality and does not look like bad CGI. As the audience, you are trying to figure out what the creature wants, what it is doing with the children it kidnaps and stores away while also rooting for the title family to not only survive the disease and run ins with the police to eventually attempt a rescue.
There is a good amount of action including a few intense scenes with the creature and also with one of the family members who also happens to be a famed archer. There is some comedy as well which rounds out the action and provides some down time between scenes.
I really enjoyed The Host much more than I thought I would since I hadn't heard much about it beforehand. Please check it out.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Perfect Creature (2006) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – Silus is the vampire from the brotherhood, he has a connection with his brother Edgar and will not let him take over once he becomes the blood thirty infected version of himself. Lilly is the nonsense cop that has suffered her own share of heartache with the viruses in the world, she doesn’t take any shit from anyone she believes to be guilty. Edgar is the brother of Silus that has become infected while trying to find the next cure for the human and Brotherhood medical problems which makes him the first member of the brotherhood to kill a human.
Performance – Dougray Scott is fine without being that impactful in the leading role and the same could be said for Saffron Burrows, the highlight of the film would be Leo Gregory as the Edgar the bloody thirsty crazy vampire.
Story – The story does feel like it could be another chapter of the Underworld saga, it has the vampires of the world living in peace with the humans but when one goes rogue it becomes personal. This isn’t the most original and strays too far into the middle of the fantasy world we are trying so desperately to head towards. We don’t find enough time to create the fantasy world that could become a franchise let alone a new story because in the end this could have just been a crime thriller.
Action/Fantasy/Horror – The action is fine, it mostly contains fights that try to offer an extra punch where needed but isn’t the most original, while the fantasy world doesn’t click for the story we are experiencing, the horror is tame too with it only being a couple of vampire like moments.
Settings – We have murky settings which is designed to show us the different in class between the two races.
Special Effects – The effects are all fine and at least the film doesn’t turn into a bad CGI moment film.
Scene of the Movie – The special gun that instant sleeps and enemy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It just doesn’t seem to feel fresh in any way.
Final Thoughts – Disappointing movie that doesn’t connect with the audience on the levels it could have because it wants to be a fantasy film but plays out only like a dark crime thriller.
Overall: Disappointing film.
Performance – Dougray Scott is fine without being that impactful in the leading role and the same could be said for Saffron Burrows, the highlight of the film would be Leo Gregory as the Edgar the bloody thirsty crazy vampire.
Story – The story does feel like it could be another chapter of the Underworld saga, it has the vampires of the world living in peace with the humans but when one goes rogue it becomes personal. This isn’t the most original and strays too far into the middle of the fantasy world we are trying so desperately to head towards. We don’t find enough time to create the fantasy world that could become a franchise let alone a new story because in the end this could have just been a crime thriller.
Action/Fantasy/Horror – The action is fine, it mostly contains fights that try to offer an extra punch where needed but isn’t the most original, while the fantasy world doesn’t click for the story we are experiencing, the horror is tame too with it only being a couple of vampire like moments.
Settings – We have murky settings which is designed to show us the different in class between the two races.
Special Effects – The effects are all fine and at least the film doesn’t turn into a bad CGI moment film.
Scene of the Movie – The special gun that instant sleeps and enemy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It just doesn’t seem to feel fresh in any way.
Final Thoughts – Disappointing movie that doesn’t connect with the audience on the levels it could have because it wants to be a fantasy film but plays out only like a dark crime thriller.
Overall: Disappointing film.
Kelly (279 KP) rated Spartacus - Season 1 in TV
Dec 21, 2018
Gladiators (1 more)
Great fighting scenes
Much better than the 1960 film
Who would have thought that the story of Spartacus could have been made raunchy for a modern audience, but Starz did this really well. The general facts around the slave rebellion against the Romans, led by the former gladiator Spartacus are limited, however Starz used what information there was and filled in the rest to create a believable version of the tale.
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mowgli (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When humans encroach on the jungle they get too close to the animals that call the jungle home. It’s inevitable that they clash. When Shere Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch), a tiger who has no regard for the rules of the jungle, slaughters a group of humans only a child survives. A black panther, Bagheera (Christian Bale), saves the boy, Mowgli (Rohan Chand), and takes him to live with a group of wolves. There he is raised by his mother, Nisha (Naomie Harris), and tried to become part of the pack by Baloo (Andy Serkis), a black bear. Mowgli must train with Baloo to become a member of the pack. As he trains he sees that man expand. With this expansion the man brings back Shere Khan. He kills many of the cows and leaves them for the humans to find. This makes the humans enlist a hunter, Lockwood (Matthew Rhys), to kill the tiger. Also Bagheera believes that sending Mowgli to the humans will keep him safe. Mowgli, just a young boy, must now try and bridge the animal world he knows in the jungle and the human world.
This is a live action retelling of the novel by Rudyard Kipling, The Jungle Book. Actor/Director Andy Serkis creates a beautiful story with really well done CGI. The visuals are really well done and by far the best part of the film. The cast, which also includes Cate Blanchett, Eddie Marsan, Tom Hollander, etc. make the animals they voice come to life. This take on the famous story is familiar but also changed ever so slightly from previous versions that it keeps it interesting. Young actor Rohan Chand does a decent job of carrying most of the live acting portions of the film.
The film really made me feel nostalgic at times. The film does take a little darker look at the old classic and would say it is for a little more mature audiences than the 1967 cartoon or 2016 live action, both The Jungle Book, takes on this story. The visuals are really good but the story does miss at times. I really thought that the climax really had a slow build but then really finished quickly. There was definitely room for improvement there but overall it was a pleasant movie experience. The theater viewing was visually really good and I am sure it would be a decent home experience with the Netflix release.
This is a live action retelling of the novel by Rudyard Kipling, The Jungle Book. Actor/Director Andy Serkis creates a beautiful story with really well done CGI. The visuals are really well done and by far the best part of the film. The cast, which also includes Cate Blanchett, Eddie Marsan, Tom Hollander, etc. make the animals they voice come to life. This take on the famous story is familiar but also changed ever so slightly from previous versions that it keeps it interesting. Young actor Rohan Chand does a decent job of carrying most of the live acting portions of the film.
The film really made me feel nostalgic at times. The film does take a little darker look at the old classic and would say it is for a little more mature audiences than the 1967 cartoon or 2016 live action, both The Jungle Book, takes on this story. The visuals are really good but the story does miss at times. I really thought that the climax really had a slow build but then really finished quickly. There was definitely room for improvement there but overall it was a pleasant movie experience. The theater viewing was visually really good and I am sure it would be a decent home experience with the Netflix release.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Blade (1998) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Blade is undeniably a product of it's time. It's the late 90s, everyone loves leather and shades, everyone loves Wesley Snipes, everyone loves dumb one liners, so the character of Blade is ripe for adaption.
But the importance of this gory action flick should absolutely not be understated. Not only was it the first proper big (ish) budget Marvel film, but it's pre dates Black Panther as the first superhero film with a black lead, and it pre dates The Punisher as the first R-rated Marvel blockbuster.
But in a pre X-Men world, comic book movies weren't a big deal at this point. I actually remember me and my friends sneakily renting and watching it (we were 10 at the time...) and none of them even knowing that Blade was even a comic book!
Here we are all these years later and the Blade trilogy is now remembered fondly (well, at least the first two are!)
Wesley Snipes is of course the star of this particular vehicle, and here, he is the most Wesley Snipes he's ever been. The cheesy one liners still come off well, and lend a nice comedic edge to the buckets of blood on display. The charm that he brings to the Blade character is the main reason why it's been hard to imagine anyone else in the role for so long (although I am here all day long for Mahershala Ali)
The other big character throughout the trilogy is Whistler, played by Kris Kristofferson, just generally being old, grumpy and badass, and is honestly the best character in the whole thing (here's hoping the MCU introduce a Whistler series on Disney+...)
Stephen Dorff plays Deacon Frost, the films villain, and he's really not much more than a generic superhero bad guy (the first of many).
The choreography and the fight scenes are pretty great, and the willingness to go hard R is what set Blade apart before comic book movies became a thing. It's sooooo bloody in parts, that it verges heavily into horror territory.
The CGI effects are utterly horrible by todays standards, but it's not used nearly enough to discredit the film too much.
Blade is a decent enough adaption of the cult Marvel series, and is a fun, gory blockbuster, but as mentioned, it's an important step in comic book cinema. Long live Blade!
But the importance of this gory action flick should absolutely not be understated. Not only was it the first proper big (ish) budget Marvel film, but it's pre dates Black Panther as the first superhero film with a black lead, and it pre dates The Punisher as the first R-rated Marvel blockbuster.
But in a pre X-Men world, comic book movies weren't a big deal at this point. I actually remember me and my friends sneakily renting and watching it (we were 10 at the time...) and none of them even knowing that Blade was even a comic book!
Here we are all these years later and the Blade trilogy is now remembered fondly (well, at least the first two are!)
Wesley Snipes is of course the star of this particular vehicle, and here, he is the most Wesley Snipes he's ever been. The cheesy one liners still come off well, and lend a nice comedic edge to the buckets of blood on display. The charm that he brings to the Blade character is the main reason why it's been hard to imagine anyone else in the role for so long (although I am here all day long for Mahershala Ali)
The other big character throughout the trilogy is Whistler, played by Kris Kristofferson, just generally being old, grumpy and badass, and is honestly the best character in the whole thing (here's hoping the MCU introduce a Whistler series on Disney+...)
Stephen Dorff plays Deacon Frost, the films villain, and he's really not much more than a generic superhero bad guy (the first of many).
The choreography and the fight scenes are pretty great, and the willingness to go hard R is what set Blade apart before comic book movies became a thing. It's sooooo bloody in parts, that it verges heavily into horror territory.
The CGI effects are utterly horrible by todays standards, but it's not used nearly enough to discredit the film too much.
Blade is a decent enough adaption of the cult Marvel series, and is a fun, gory blockbuster, but as mentioned, it's an important step in comic book cinema. Long live Blade!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Witcher - Season 1 in TV
Jan 9, 2020 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
An exceptional start to the show
The Witcher is a show I've been excited about for some time.
I've never read the books, and to be honest, only slightly dabbled in the video games, but the idea of seeing the exploits of Geralt of Rivea on screen was a prospect I was ready for.
Henry Cavill is great as the titular Witcher, I've heard people complain that he's a bit too brooding, doesn't say a whole lot etc, but it's to my understanding that this is his character, and it works well when put alongside the other two leads.
Anya Chalotra as Yennefer is the star of this season for sure. Her story is one of pain, and triumph, and the constant longing for something more. It's frequently emotional, and at times difficult to watch, and the series pulls no punches when it comes to what it wants to show.
Her character transformation both physically and mentally is superb, and well realised.
And then we have Freya Allen playing Ciri, a princess on the run when her home and city is sacked and burned by the main villains Nilfgaard.
Her role is a little more straightforward, as she spends the season hiding and fleeing, all whilst looking for Geralt.
The three separate storylines work very well alongside each other, as they slowly start to come together over the course of the eight episode season.
The stories timeline seems all over the place at first, and for some may be quite jarring, but it does begin to make sense the further in it gets. If you've been put off by this aspect initially, then please stick with it!
The cinematography is frequently gorgeous, and the CGI is mostly passable (there are some dodgy moments here and there, but surely that's to be expected from a first season), and it's nice to see creatures bought to life that even I recognise from my short time spent with the games.
The music score is beautiful - Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli have created a score that sticks with you after watching (a highlight is the music attached to Aretuza and the mages).
Overall, it's an exceptionally strong start to a new ambitious series. I can't wait to see where it goes from here!
I've never read the books, and to be honest, only slightly dabbled in the video games, but the idea of seeing the exploits of Geralt of Rivea on screen was a prospect I was ready for.
Henry Cavill is great as the titular Witcher, I've heard people complain that he's a bit too brooding, doesn't say a whole lot etc, but it's to my understanding that this is his character, and it works well when put alongside the other two leads.
Anya Chalotra as Yennefer is the star of this season for sure. Her story is one of pain, and triumph, and the constant longing for something more. It's frequently emotional, and at times difficult to watch, and the series pulls no punches when it comes to what it wants to show.
Her character transformation both physically and mentally is superb, and well realised.
And then we have Freya Allen playing Ciri, a princess on the run when her home and city is sacked and burned by the main villains Nilfgaard.
Her role is a little more straightforward, as she spends the season hiding and fleeing, all whilst looking for Geralt.
The three separate storylines work very well alongside each other, as they slowly start to come together over the course of the eight episode season.
The stories timeline seems all over the place at first, and for some may be quite jarring, but it does begin to make sense the further in it gets. If you've been put off by this aspect initially, then please stick with it!
The cinematography is frequently gorgeous, and the CGI is mostly passable (there are some dodgy moments here and there, but surely that's to be expected from a first season), and it's nice to see creatures bought to life that even I recognise from my short time spent with the games.
The music score is beautiful - Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli have created a score that sticks with you after watching (a highlight is the music attached to Aretuza and the mages).
Overall, it's an exceptionally strong start to a new ambitious series. I can't wait to see where it goes from here!
