Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
Nolte steals the movie
It's always interesting to me that when I leave a film and realize that the best part of the movie I just saw was the extra scene during the credits. What were the folks that made this movie thinking? Did they save the best for last? Most of the time it is - unfortunately - that this scene shines BECAUSE it really has nothing to do with the rest of the film, in both style and substance.
Such is the case with ANGEL HAS FALLEN the 3rd film in the "Fallen" series (following OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and LONDON HAS FALLEN) that follows the trials and tribulations of White House Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) as he tries, once again, to save the President (a game, stern - yet sincere - Morgan Freeman) from an assassination attempt. But this time...the twist is...that Mike is framed for the attempt, so he has to go on the lamb "The Fugitive" style to clear his name and to find out who really dunnit.
I figured out who dunnit - and who was behind it - in about the first 3 minutes those characters/performers were on the screen - but it's the destination, not the journey, that counts in these types of films and this journey is..."so-so".
The plot contrivances, action sequences and chase scenes are all pretty middle-of-the-road with Director Ric Roman Waugh (SNITCH, FELON) resorting to the quick-cut, jittery camera "cinema verite" style of action shooting that, to me, shows laziness in choreography and originality and ends up giving me a bit of a headache.
So...failing a good plot and good action sequences, a film like this must have good, interesting characters and good, interesting actors inhabiting them. And...for the most part...that part of this film generates some interest as the previously mentioned Morgan Freeman, the always dependable Lance Reddick, the oily Danny Huston and the quirky Tim Blake Nelson all share the screen to good effect. Piper Perabo also joins the fray as Mike's wife and she elevates that side of the proceedings.
In the end, it comes down to the screen presence and charisma of star Gerard Butler as Mike and - unfortunately - he just doesn't have enough of that to keep things interesting. Especially when he spends a large part of the film playing against an actor who plays Butler's father - the one and only Nick Nolte.
And he...just about...steals the movie. Here is an actor that has screen presence and charisma to spare, even under long hair, a beard and a voice that has seen many, many cigarettes and booze.
And this takes us back to the beginning (or should I say, the end) of the film...Nolte and Butler share the end credits scene and it's, by far, the best darn thing in this mediocre film.
If you're going to sit through this, make sure you stay for the end credits scene.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with ANGEL HAS FALLEN the 3rd film in the "Fallen" series (following OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and LONDON HAS FALLEN) that follows the trials and tribulations of White House Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) as he tries, once again, to save the President (a game, stern - yet sincere - Morgan Freeman) from an assassination attempt. But this time...the twist is...that Mike is framed for the attempt, so he has to go on the lamb "The Fugitive" style to clear his name and to find out who really dunnit.
I figured out who dunnit - and who was behind it - in about the first 3 minutes those characters/performers were on the screen - but it's the destination, not the journey, that counts in these types of films and this journey is..."so-so".
The plot contrivances, action sequences and chase scenes are all pretty middle-of-the-road with Director Ric Roman Waugh (SNITCH, FELON) resorting to the quick-cut, jittery camera "cinema verite" style of action shooting that, to me, shows laziness in choreography and originality and ends up giving me a bit of a headache.
So...failing a good plot and good action sequences, a film like this must have good, interesting characters and good, interesting actors inhabiting them. And...for the most part...that part of this film generates some interest as the previously mentioned Morgan Freeman, the always dependable Lance Reddick, the oily Danny Huston and the quirky Tim Blake Nelson all share the screen to good effect. Piper Perabo also joins the fray as Mike's wife and she elevates that side of the proceedings.
In the end, it comes down to the screen presence and charisma of star Gerard Butler as Mike and - unfortunately - he just doesn't have enough of that to keep things interesting. Especially when he spends a large part of the film playing against an actor who plays Butler's father - the one and only Nick Nolte.
And he...just about...steals the movie. Here is an actor that has screen presence and charisma to spare, even under long hair, a beard and a voice that has seen many, many cigarettes and booze.
And this takes us back to the beginning (or should I say, the end) of the film...Nolte and Butler share the end credits scene and it's, by far, the best darn thing in this mediocre film.
If you're going to sit through this, make sure you stay for the end credits scene.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Codename Villanelle (Killing Eve #1) in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3346735674">Codename Villanelle</a> - ★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3350743338">No Tomorrow</a> - To Be Read
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Book-Review-Banner-62.png"/>;
<b><i>Codename Villanelle is a book I listened to. I don’t often listen to audiobooks, but I wanted to read this book, and I didn’t own a physical copy.</i></b>
The reason I wanted to read this book is because I heard there is a TV series coming, featuring Sandra Oh from Grey’s Anatomy. I loved Sandra as Christina, and I knew I was going to love her as Eve. The TV Series is a hit, and I love it, but this is not why we’re here. We are here to talk about the books. On this occasion, the first book in the series.
<b><i>Villanelle is one of the world’s best assassins.</i></b>
She is a psychopath who loves her luxurious lifestyle and loves playing mind games. She is hired by a powerful group called the Twelve, and she is tasked to murder rich and influential people.
<b><i>Eve Polastri is a former MI6 operative.</i></b>
She is hired to find and capture or kill this assassin. Eve, who has a quiet life with her husband Nico and enjoys the peace, accepts the mission. However, little does she know, everything is about to change.
The chase is an exciting one and we never know what will happen next.
Honestly, I had troubles with the audiobook. The pronunciation of everything in Russian, French and Italian was a complete miss, and it annoyed me. Names, food, places, cities - it was all said incorrectly. I know for some people this is a minor issue. However, for me, it took away the joy throughout the whole book.
Apart from this, the first book of the series is a great introduction to both Eve and Villanelle. We find out more about their personalities and characters. We follow Villanelle in a few of her assassinations, and we follow Eve in some of her investigations. I think this book focused more on VIllanelle, featuring her childhood and training days as well. The presentation of their feelings and insights was immaculate. I loved their relationship forming, even without them meeting each other. There is tension, there are clues, and there is the play of destiny to always end up chasing each other.
<b><i>The writing was good and the pace was fast, which led to a very fast adventure. Also, the ending was intriguing, and it definitely leaves space for the second book to come in and explain a few things.</i></b>
I am looking forward to continuing this series and reading the second book - No Tomorrow. I recommend Codename Villanelle to everyone that loves action, assassination, murder, spy themes and psychological thrillers.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3346735674">Codename Villanelle</a> - ★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3350743338">No Tomorrow</a> - To Be Read
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Book-Review-Banner-62.png"/>;
<b><i>Codename Villanelle is a book I listened to. I don’t often listen to audiobooks, but I wanted to read this book, and I didn’t own a physical copy.</i></b>
The reason I wanted to read this book is because I heard there is a TV series coming, featuring Sandra Oh from Grey’s Anatomy. I loved Sandra as Christina, and I knew I was going to love her as Eve. The TV Series is a hit, and I love it, but this is not why we’re here. We are here to talk about the books. On this occasion, the first book in the series.
<b><i>Villanelle is one of the world’s best assassins.</i></b>
She is a psychopath who loves her luxurious lifestyle and loves playing mind games. She is hired by a powerful group called the Twelve, and she is tasked to murder rich and influential people.
<b><i>Eve Polastri is a former MI6 operative.</i></b>
She is hired to find and capture or kill this assassin. Eve, who has a quiet life with her husband Nico and enjoys the peace, accepts the mission. However, little does she know, everything is about to change.
The chase is an exciting one and we never know what will happen next.
Honestly, I had troubles with the audiobook. The pronunciation of everything in Russian, French and Italian was a complete miss, and it annoyed me. Names, food, places, cities - it was all said incorrectly. I know for some people this is a minor issue. However, for me, it took away the joy throughout the whole book.
Apart from this, the first book of the series is a great introduction to both Eve and Villanelle. We find out more about their personalities and characters. We follow Villanelle in a few of her assassinations, and we follow Eve in some of her investigations. I think this book focused more on VIllanelle, featuring her childhood and training days as well. The presentation of their feelings and insights was immaculate. I loved their relationship forming, even without them meeting each other. There is tension, there are clues, and there is the play of destiny to always end up chasing each other.
<b><i>The writing was good and the pace was fast, which led to a very fast adventure. Also, the ending was intriguing, and it definitely leaves space for the second book to come in and explain a few things.</i></b>
I am looking forward to continuing this series and reading the second book - No Tomorrow. I recommend Codename Villanelle to everyone that loves action, assassination, murder, spy themes and psychological thrillers.
F-Sim Space Shuttle
Games and Education
App
Have you ever wondered what it’s like to land the Space Shuttle? Now you can find out. F-Sim Space...
Time Trainer Metronome
Music and Education
App
Way more than a metronome, the Time Trainer adds five training tools to help you develop your own...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You can’t take it with you.
The big talking point of this Ridley Scott film is not of course the film itself but the fact that the disgraced Kevin Spacey (“Baby Driver“) was ‘airbrushed’ out of the movie, replaced by the legend that is Christopher Plummer. With that background, and the fact that the re-shoot only took 9 days (NINE DAYS!!!!), I must admit to having been a tad scornful when Plummer was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. “Oh” I thought “…it’s Judi Dench’s minimalistic performance in ‘Shakespeare In Love’ all over again”.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I’m a big fan of Tom Cruise. He is a real old-fashioned film star, generous with his fans on the red carpet and with real star power at the box office. And I can happily sit down in front of just about any one of his DVD’s time and time again and still enjoy it. Unlike many critics, I even enjoyed his last outing as Jack Reacher.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Avatar (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is your typical jarhead from the military other than the fact that he doesn't have the use of his legs, but him being in a wheelchair doesn't seem to slow him down at all. Jake is the type of soldier to shoot first and ask questions later while his twin brother was more of the scientific type, but Jake's life takes an unexpected turn when his brother is killed. Jake is asked to step into his brother's shoes, so to speak, and take his spot in the Avatar project. The project requires him to travel to Pandora, a planet that takes nearly six years to get to, and to try to learn the ways of the natives there, the Na'vi.
Incredible technology has been developed that enables users to transfer their human essence into the body of a Na'vi avatar that they've raised from a DNA injected fetus and transfer back again. Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) runs the project currently taking place on Pandora, who is after a resource known as unobtanium that could be the answer to the energy crisis back on Earth. A sacred tree that acts as the Na'vi's central base rests on top of the largest unobtanium deposits in Pandora. When Jake begins being trusted by the Na'vi race, a deal is made that he'll get his legs back if he can somehow convince the Na'vi people to leave. However, Jake begins to realize how spectacular their world really is, that the Na'vi people are more than just "blue monkeys," and begins to feel like his time in the avatar body is more genuine than when he wakes up. He begins to wonder if he's fighting for the wrong side.
The first feature film from director James Cameron (director of the first two Terminator films, Aliens, and Titanic) in 12 years that promised some of the most groundbreaking special effects to ever hit the screen is finally here. This film's ad campaign has been insane with clips and behind the scenes featurettes showing up online left and right while TV spots were nearly on every major channel. Is there any way a film could live up this kind of hype? The short answer is yes.
Avatar starts off rather slowly with the main human characters and the world of Pandora being introduced to us. Then there's the technology on the human side that needs its fair amount of screen time. Needless to say, it takes a good while for things to really get rolling. Character development is never a bad thing to accomplish early on. It makes it that much easier to establish an emotional connection when things get rough later on, which is exactly what this film does. Plus, when the war finally does happen, it's well worth the wait. Although, the emotional connection didn't seem as strong as it should have been or as strong as previous Cameron films. Once things took a turn for the worst, the emotions were there but it just seemed like it should have had a stronger connection given the duration of the film along with the time, effort, and money put into making this film as great as it is.
The special effects are pretty mind blowing. James Cameron has practically given life to this extravagant world and the marvelous creatures that inhabit it. The majority of the film looks realistic even though nearly every scene relies heavily on CGI. A feat not many CGI-heavy films have been able to pull off and none to the extent that this film has. There's a scene where Jake is attacked by a group of viperwolves and another scene where Jake learns to ride a direhorse that look incredibly genuine. To make something like people with blue skin or a horse that has an anteater head with six legs look real is an accomplishment worth being proud of. The technology used in the film by the humans is pulled off so flawlessly that it seems like it could come to fruition in the real world tomorrow.
Sam Worthington continues his trend of exceptional performances, as well. While Zoey Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, and Joel David Moore all have their shining moments, Worthington steals the spotlight and rightfully so since he's the lead. His dry humor and struggle to do what's right are one of the most enjoyable factors in watching the film (other than the special effects, of course). Worthington was really the only redeeming factor of Terminator: Salvation and looks to put in another strong performance in next year's Clash of the Titans.
While the film has superb action sequences (the thanator chase and leonopteryx chase were amazing in IMAX), nearly flawless CGI, and strong performances from the cast, the film still had its flaws. The story is probably the weakest aspect of the film. It's pretty thin and predictable, but that is probably the last thing on the minds of most of the moviegoing audience. With South Park mocking the film last month by calling the film, "Dances With Smurfs," and the film being called, "Dances With Wolves in space," nearly all across the net, the similarities of those two comparisons are certainly there. While the Smurf one is a bit of a stretch, Dances With Wolves in space seems almost accurate as a nutshell review. The nearly three hour duration may also be a factor for some while 3D and IMAX versions of the film may be a problem for those who had problems with a film like Cloverfield. Seeing the film in IMAX, going back for future viewings of the film in 3D and 2D seems like a good idea just to compare since the IMAX version didn't feel like the definitive version. Would it have the same effect in digital 3D showings? What about regular showings? Shelling out $15 when you could spend half of that is something to take into consideration when seeing a film that was sold out nearly its entire opening weekend.
James Cameron's Avatar was well worth the wait and certainly lives up to the hype. Its special effects are certainly the best to be featured in any film to date as these vibrant creatures nearly jump to life because of the effects alone. The performances are top notch and the action sequences certainly live up to James Cameron's reputation. Despite all this, the emotional connection between the audience and the characters didn't seem quite as strong as some of the other films this year. Up, Where the Wild Things Are, and even Moon were able to establish a stronger connection. So while the film is exceptional, it isn’t the best film of 2009 which is probably a shock to some.
Incredible technology has been developed that enables users to transfer their human essence into the body of a Na'vi avatar that they've raised from a DNA injected fetus and transfer back again. Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) runs the project currently taking place on Pandora, who is after a resource known as unobtanium that could be the answer to the energy crisis back on Earth. A sacred tree that acts as the Na'vi's central base rests on top of the largest unobtanium deposits in Pandora. When Jake begins being trusted by the Na'vi race, a deal is made that he'll get his legs back if he can somehow convince the Na'vi people to leave. However, Jake begins to realize how spectacular their world really is, that the Na'vi people are more than just "blue monkeys," and begins to feel like his time in the avatar body is more genuine than when he wakes up. He begins to wonder if he's fighting for the wrong side.
The first feature film from director James Cameron (director of the first two Terminator films, Aliens, and Titanic) in 12 years that promised some of the most groundbreaking special effects to ever hit the screen is finally here. This film's ad campaign has been insane with clips and behind the scenes featurettes showing up online left and right while TV spots were nearly on every major channel. Is there any way a film could live up this kind of hype? The short answer is yes.
Avatar starts off rather slowly with the main human characters and the world of Pandora being introduced to us. Then there's the technology on the human side that needs its fair amount of screen time. Needless to say, it takes a good while for things to really get rolling. Character development is never a bad thing to accomplish early on. It makes it that much easier to establish an emotional connection when things get rough later on, which is exactly what this film does. Plus, when the war finally does happen, it's well worth the wait. Although, the emotional connection didn't seem as strong as it should have been or as strong as previous Cameron films. Once things took a turn for the worst, the emotions were there but it just seemed like it should have had a stronger connection given the duration of the film along with the time, effort, and money put into making this film as great as it is.
The special effects are pretty mind blowing. James Cameron has practically given life to this extravagant world and the marvelous creatures that inhabit it. The majority of the film looks realistic even though nearly every scene relies heavily on CGI. A feat not many CGI-heavy films have been able to pull off and none to the extent that this film has. There's a scene where Jake is attacked by a group of viperwolves and another scene where Jake learns to ride a direhorse that look incredibly genuine. To make something like people with blue skin or a horse that has an anteater head with six legs look real is an accomplishment worth being proud of. The technology used in the film by the humans is pulled off so flawlessly that it seems like it could come to fruition in the real world tomorrow.
Sam Worthington continues his trend of exceptional performances, as well. While Zoey Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, and Joel David Moore all have their shining moments, Worthington steals the spotlight and rightfully so since he's the lead. His dry humor and struggle to do what's right are one of the most enjoyable factors in watching the film (other than the special effects, of course). Worthington was really the only redeeming factor of Terminator: Salvation and looks to put in another strong performance in next year's Clash of the Titans.
While the film has superb action sequences (the thanator chase and leonopteryx chase were amazing in IMAX), nearly flawless CGI, and strong performances from the cast, the film still had its flaws. The story is probably the weakest aspect of the film. It's pretty thin and predictable, but that is probably the last thing on the minds of most of the moviegoing audience. With South Park mocking the film last month by calling the film, "Dances With Smurfs," and the film being called, "Dances With Wolves in space," nearly all across the net, the similarities of those two comparisons are certainly there. While the Smurf one is a bit of a stretch, Dances With Wolves in space seems almost accurate as a nutshell review. The nearly three hour duration may also be a factor for some while 3D and IMAX versions of the film may be a problem for those who had problems with a film like Cloverfield. Seeing the film in IMAX, going back for future viewings of the film in 3D and 2D seems like a good idea just to compare since the IMAX version didn't feel like the definitive version. Would it have the same effect in digital 3D showings? What about regular showings? Shelling out $15 when you could spend half of that is something to take into consideration when seeing a film that was sold out nearly its entire opening weekend.
James Cameron's Avatar was well worth the wait and certainly lives up to the hype. Its special effects are certainly the best to be featured in any film to date as these vibrant creatures nearly jump to life because of the effects alone. The performances are top notch and the action sequences certainly live up to James Cameron's reputation. Despite all this, the emotional connection between the audience and the characters didn't seem quite as strong as some of the other films this year. Up, Where the Wild Things Are, and even Moon were able to establish a stronger connection. So while the film is exceptional, it isn’t the best film of 2009 which is probably a shock to some.
Harshini (25 KP) rated Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (2013) in Movies
Jan 4, 2018 (Updated Jan 13, 2018)
Annabeth's hair and eye colour matched the books (1 more)
"Stop walking on my roof"
Some scenes that should have been in were cut (4 more)
Some scenes were in that shouldn't have been
Some scenes were in that weren't even a part of the book they were producing
The author of the books hates the movies
The initial scene is of something that is never mentioned in the books - and I'm still kind of confused as to what the actors' characters are meant to be doing
Big Fan of the Books, Not So Much of the Movies
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had a huge issue with the first movie as is, so this may end up being a rant.
I have been a massive fan of the books for about 9 years now and can say with a fair amount of certainty that this movie does not echo its book source. Yes, they had the same characters (for the most part), but the characters being from the book does not mean that it is the movie of the book. It means that the book gave inspiration. Sure, some events that were in the book were in the movie - such as Tyson's slip with the winds, or Tyson's story at all - but some fairly important scenes were not to be seen in the movie - such as (what should have been the initial scene) the dodgeball game that reveals Tyson's immunity to fire, Siren Bay, or Circe. Not to mention the events that were changed in the movie - such as the fact that Polyphemus' island became a fairground instead of a lush paradisal island with man-eating sheep, or that the ship Clarisse is commandeering doesn't end up in Charybdis' stomach and that they avoid the two monsters all together. I'm not even counting the scenes that the director placed in this movie that should have come much later - like Percy's fight with Kronos, which shouldn't have taken place until the absolute last movie. When I saw the first movie, I said something about the way it was made, and I'll say it again: it's like the director hired someone to read the book and tell him what happened, the person read all the books and then decided to pick and choose their favourite parts and create an absolute mess of the books. I mean, it's a sign if the author of said books is the person who hates the movies the most.
That being said, I can attest to there being some good things about the movie. Alexandra Daddario (who plays Annabeth Chase, daughter of Athena) did end up changing her hair and eye colour in the movie to the described blonde hair and grey eyes (though the eyes do look very fake). I am not sure whether or not this was just because so many fans were offended by her brown hair and eyes in the first movie (which was also terrible), but I am glad that it got changed to be more in-tune with the source material. Above all, I can say that there are about five seconds of this movie that I love - and that I will stomach the surrounding minute for - and that is when Luke Castellan tells Percy to 'stop walking on [his] roof'. It is by far the funniest part of the entire movie. However, I won't lie and say I'm not glad that the series isn't going to continue to be shown on the silver screen.
I have been a massive fan of the books for about 9 years now and can say with a fair amount of certainty that this movie does not echo its book source. Yes, they had the same characters (for the most part), but the characters being from the book does not mean that it is the movie of the book. It means that the book gave inspiration. Sure, some events that were in the book were in the movie - such as Tyson's slip with the winds, or Tyson's story at all - but some fairly important scenes were not to be seen in the movie - such as (what should have been the initial scene) the dodgeball game that reveals Tyson's immunity to fire, Siren Bay, or Circe. Not to mention the events that were changed in the movie - such as the fact that Polyphemus' island became a fairground instead of a lush paradisal island with man-eating sheep, or that the ship Clarisse is commandeering doesn't end up in Charybdis' stomach and that they avoid the two monsters all together. I'm not even counting the scenes that the director placed in this movie that should have come much later - like Percy's fight with Kronos, which shouldn't have taken place until the absolute last movie. When I saw the first movie, I said something about the way it was made, and I'll say it again: it's like the director hired someone to read the book and tell him what happened, the person read all the books and then decided to pick and choose their favourite parts and create an absolute mess of the books. I mean, it's a sign if the author of said books is the person who hates the movies the most.
That being said, I can attest to there being some good things about the movie. Alexandra Daddario (who plays Annabeth Chase, daughter of Athena) did end up changing her hair and eye colour in the movie to the described blonde hair and grey eyes (though the eyes do look very fake). I am not sure whether or not this was just because so many fans were offended by her brown hair and eyes in the first movie (which was also terrible), but I am glad that it got changed to be more in-tune with the source material. Above all, I can say that there are about five seconds of this movie that I love - and that I will stomach the surrounding minute for - and that is when Luke Castellan tells Percy to 'stop walking on [his] roof'. It is by far the funniest part of the entire movie. However, I won't lie and say I'm not glad that the series isn't going to continue to be shown on the silver screen.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
What ya gonna do
this time?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Spectacularly Dumb
With box office takings of over $1.5billion, it was obvious that Universal Pictures would never let Furious 7 be the end of a multi-billion dollar franchise, no matter what many fans truly wanted.
The previous instalment was also, surprisingly, warmly received by critics who were impressed with how sensitively the naturally bombastic series handled the death of lead star Paul Walker. Two years on, the crew are back with Fast and Furious 8; does it do enough to keep the franchise on a high?
Now that Dom (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their honeymoon, Brian and Mia have retired from the game, and the rest of the crew have been exonerated, the plucky team of globetrotters has found a normal life of sorts. But when a mysterious woman (Charlize Theron) seduces Dom back into a world of crime that he can’t seem to escape from, the rest of the gang will face things that will test them like never before.
Newcomer to the franchise, director F. Gary Gray (Law Abiding Citizen, The Italian Job) manages to craft what is perhaps the most ridiculous entry in the series to date, plagued with tonal imbalances and plot holes so big you could fit the QE2 into them with ease. But you know what? It’s probably the most fun you’ll have in the cinema all year.
The cast are all reunited, barring Paul Walker’s Brian and those publicised rifts between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere to be seen as everyone on screen appears to be having the time of their lives. New recruit Charlize Theron adds a level of class to proceedings as steely supervillain, Cipher. She’s a cracking addition to the series and her acting prowess oozes from every pore, despite the often clunky dialogue.
Of course, successful predecessors command bigger budgets for their follow-ups and Furious 8 is no exception. $250million was spent on creating this film and it shows. It’s a feast for the eyes with explosions, shiny cars, stunning locations and breath-taking special effects. The result is frankly exceptional. From Cuba to NYC and from Berlin to Russia (actually filmed in Iceland), the vistas are nicely filmed and beautifully executed.
The action sequences are also choreographed very well, but from a franchise built on these foundations, I’d expect nothing less. In particular, a street chase through New York City is edge of your seat stuff as literally hundreds of vehicles worm their way through its congested streets.
Negatives? Well, the story is awkward despite some decent twists, the aforementioned plot holes cause a few headaches for a series that prides itself on continuity and some of the comedic elements are poorly placed, but in this eighth outing, much of that can be forgiven. After all, what other franchise could survive eight films and still prove as exciting as its first?
Overall, Fast and Furious 8 is unashamedly ridiculous but who cares? With exceptional special effects and a great new adversary in Charlize Theron, the series once again manages to surpass expectation. Each film tries its best to outdo its predecessor and before long, we’ll no doubt be heading to Mars with the gang. I’m up for that. Are you?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/13/spectacularly-dumb-fast-furious-8-review/
The previous instalment was also, surprisingly, warmly received by critics who were impressed with how sensitively the naturally bombastic series handled the death of lead star Paul Walker. Two years on, the crew are back with Fast and Furious 8; does it do enough to keep the franchise on a high?
Now that Dom (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their honeymoon, Brian and Mia have retired from the game, and the rest of the crew have been exonerated, the plucky team of globetrotters has found a normal life of sorts. But when a mysterious woman (Charlize Theron) seduces Dom back into a world of crime that he can’t seem to escape from, the rest of the gang will face things that will test them like never before.
Newcomer to the franchise, director F. Gary Gray (Law Abiding Citizen, The Italian Job) manages to craft what is perhaps the most ridiculous entry in the series to date, plagued with tonal imbalances and plot holes so big you could fit the QE2 into them with ease. But you know what? It’s probably the most fun you’ll have in the cinema all year.
The cast are all reunited, barring Paul Walker’s Brian and those publicised rifts between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere to be seen as everyone on screen appears to be having the time of their lives. New recruit Charlize Theron adds a level of class to proceedings as steely supervillain, Cipher. She’s a cracking addition to the series and her acting prowess oozes from every pore, despite the often clunky dialogue.
Of course, successful predecessors command bigger budgets for their follow-ups and Furious 8 is no exception. $250million was spent on creating this film and it shows. It’s a feast for the eyes with explosions, shiny cars, stunning locations and breath-taking special effects. The result is frankly exceptional. From Cuba to NYC and from Berlin to Russia (actually filmed in Iceland), the vistas are nicely filmed and beautifully executed.
The action sequences are also choreographed very well, but from a franchise built on these foundations, I’d expect nothing less. In particular, a street chase through New York City is edge of your seat stuff as literally hundreds of vehicles worm their way through its congested streets.
Negatives? Well, the story is awkward despite some decent twists, the aforementioned plot holes cause a few headaches for a series that prides itself on continuity and some of the comedic elements are poorly placed, but in this eighth outing, much of that can be forgiven. After all, what other franchise could survive eight films and still prove as exciting as its first?
Overall, Fast and Furious 8 is unashamedly ridiculous but who cares? With exceptional special effects and a great new adversary in Charlize Theron, the series once again manages to surpass expectation. Each film tries its best to outdo its predecessor and before long, we’ll no doubt be heading to Mars with the gang. I’m up for that. Are you?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/13/spectacularly-dumb-fast-furious-8-review/