Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) in Movies
Oct 15, 2019
In “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil”; Angelina Jolie returns as the title character to the smash Live-Action film based on the classic Fairy Tale and Animated film.
In the years since the last film ended; Aurora (Elle Fanning) has relished in her role as Princess over the Moors and all of the enchanted creatures that live within it. When she accepts a proposal from Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson), this sets off a chain of celebratory events as they all prepare for the big day which will unite the two lands.
Phillip’s parents King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) are eager for the union while Maleficent strongly opposes it and tells Aurora that there will be no wedding. When Aurora persists; Maleficent reluctantly accepts an invitation to dinner at the Castle where things soon go horribly wrong and Maleficent is accused of putting a curse on the King.
Injured while fleeing, Maleficent is wounded and takin in by others of her kind who are preparing for war against the humans as a dark and dangerous plan is underway and the survival of the enchanted creatures is threatened.
The film then becomes a tense adventure with plenty of action, magic, and fantasy which is a nice framework for the great visual effects of the film.
I had been concerned that the film might be too dark for the usual audience for this type of film and there are moments where my concerns are validated. However there is much more charm, fantasy and wonder in the film and if anyone has ever read the original Grimm Fairy Tales; they will know that this is considerably toned down compared to what they offered.
The film has some great visuals to it but they never overshadow the characters in the film as Jolie seems to be taking gleeful delight in playing the title character but allows herself to have some fun with the character at times which helps her emerge as a well-rounded character versus being a staple Fairy Tale Villain.
The film may take a bit of time getting up to the main events but it does so to give more time for the characters to develop which helps them stand out from the usual good/bad monikers given to many fantasy characters.
The supporting cast is solid especially the performances by Pfeiffer and Chiwetel Ejiofor who add much to the complexity of the film and also invoke many themes of discussion that mirrors what is happening in much of society today.
In the end the film delivers a strong performance by Jolie and plenty of magic to make this a modern Fairy Tale Disney classic in the making.
3.5 stars out of 5.
In the years since the last film ended; Aurora (Elle Fanning) has relished in her role as Princess over the Moors and all of the enchanted creatures that live within it. When she accepts a proposal from Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson), this sets off a chain of celebratory events as they all prepare for the big day which will unite the two lands.
Phillip’s parents King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) are eager for the union while Maleficent strongly opposes it and tells Aurora that there will be no wedding. When Aurora persists; Maleficent reluctantly accepts an invitation to dinner at the Castle where things soon go horribly wrong and Maleficent is accused of putting a curse on the King.
Injured while fleeing, Maleficent is wounded and takin in by others of her kind who are preparing for war against the humans as a dark and dangerous plan is underway and the survival of the enchanted creatures is threatened.
The film then becomes a tense adventure with plenty of action, magic, and fantasy which is a nice framework for the great visual effects of the film.
I had been concerned that the film might be too dark for the usual audience for this type of film and there are moments where my concerns are validated. However there is much more charm, fantasy and wonder in the film and if anyone has ever read the original Grimm Fairy Tales; they will know that this is considerably toned down compared to what they offered.
The film has some great visuals to it but they never overshadow the characters in the film as Jolie seems to be taking gleeful delight in playing the title character but allows herself to have some fun with the character at times which helps her emerge as a well-rounded character versus being a staple Fairy Tale Villain.
The film may take a bit of time getting up to the main events but it does so to give more time for the characters to develop which helps them stand out from the usual good/bad monikers given to many fantasy characters.
The supporting cast is solid especially the performances by Pfeiffer and Chiwetel Ejiofor who add much to the complexity of the film and also invoke many themes of discussion that mirrors what is happening in much of society today.
In the end the film delivers a strong performance by Jolie and plenty of magic to make this a modern Fairy Tale Disney classic in the making.
3.5 stars out of 5.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Angelina Jolie, as Agent Evelyn Salt, plays the sexy spy role well, but the charm she displayed in Mr. and Mrs Smith isn’t present here at all. This is unfortunate because her emotional ties to the rest of the cast are integral to the plot. As seen in the trailers, Salt is a CIA agent who is accused by a defector of being a Russian spy. Salt is forced to run and uses her training and skills to evade capture while trying to prove her innocence.
Her years of experience as a covert operative are supposed to make viewers believe that this slight woman can take down ayone, but some of her fight scenes expected too much benefit of the doubt from the audience, and didn’t feel real. It wasn’t very convincing having such a thin woman carry on in a full fight scene with heavier built men. Despite harsh sound effects and fast camera edits, it honestly didn’t look like she was hitting the baddies hard enough to hurt, let alone knock them out.
Salt has some great twists and turns that kept me entertained and guessing, but that wasn’t enough to keep the whole movie afloat. Before long, these twists began to feel forced, and because I was snapped out of the movie several times after realizing how confused I was, it began to be aggravating to wait for the film to give the audience its bearings again. Phillip Noyce, who also directed the 1997 Val Kilmer spy film The Saint could have imbued the movie with subtle foreshadowing, or at least some foreshadowing as it was nonexistent.
Liev Schreiber, playing Salt’s trusted colleague, did a great job. His imposing yet friendly and sly demeanor fit his part very well. Chiwetel Ejiofor did a good job as well, but his role as another fellow agent was too small. It needed to be bigger for him to really shine. After watching him in Talk to Me, I believe him to be a headline star who needs more screen time to show what he’s capable of. In this smaller role, he does the job effectively, but left me wanting to see more of him.
The special effects were effective and not distracting except for one particular “walk away from the camera during an explosion” moment. It’s not that it was cliche, it’s that any explosion (at that distance, in that environment) would knock someone unconscious. There’s pushing the boundaries of realism for artistic effect, and then there’s that step that’s one step too far.
Overall, the film was enjoyable, but I had higher hopes for this movie. If you’re looking for action with twists, this movie has them in spades.
Her years of experience as a covert operative are supposed to make viewers believe that this slight woman can take down ayone, but some of her fight scenes expected too much benefit of the doubt from the audience, and didn’t feel real. It wasn’t very convincing having such a thin woman carry on in a full fight scene with heavier built men. Despite harsh sound effects and fast camera edits, it honestly didn’t look like she was hitting the baddies hard enough to hurt, let alone knock them out.
Salt has some great twists and turns that kept me entertained and guessing, but that wasn’t enough to keep the whole movie afloat. Before long, these twists began to feel forced, and because I was snapped out of the movie several times after realizing how confused I was, it began to be aggravating to wait for the film to give the audience its bearings again. Phillip Noyce, who also directed the 1997 Val Kilmer spy film The Saint could have imbued the movie with subtle foreshadowing, or at least some foreshadowing as it was nonexistent.
Liev Schreiber, playing Salt’s trusted colleague, did a great job. His imposing yet friendly and sly demeanor fit his part very well. Chiwetel Ejiofor did a good job as well, but his role as another fellow agent was too small. It needed to be bigger for him to really shine. After watching him in Talk to Me, I believe him to be a headline star who needs more screen time to show what he’s capable of. In this smaller role, he does the job effectively, but left me wanting to see more of him.
The special effects were effective and not distracting except for one particular “walk away from the camera during an explosion” moment. It’s not that it was cliche, it’s that any explosion (at that distance, in that environment) would knock someone unconscious. There’s pushing the boundaries of realism for artistic effect, and then there’s that step that’s one step too far.
Overall, the film was enjoyable, but I had higher hopes for this movie. If you’re looking for action with twists, this movie has them in spades.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"Try me Beyoncé"
The 14th instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe marks the arrival of yet another avenger into the already crowded Marvel family while also bringing mystic arts & alternate dimensions into its ever-expanding universe. But even though it offers a kaleidoscopic journey through astral realms, infinite realities & spacetime contortions, it isn't entirely different from the norm.
Doctor Strange tells the story of Stephen Strange, a brilliant but arrogant neurosurgeon who loses the use of his hands after a car accident, spends all his money on experimental surgeries to regain his abilities, and travels east for a last resort treatment where he meets a powerful sorcerer who teaches him ways to harness energy & shape realities through the mystic arts.
Co-written & directed by Scott Derrickson (best known for The Exorcism of Emily Rose & Sinister), Doctor Strange marks his first stint with comic book movies and while he succeeds in delivering a sufficiently entertaining blockbuster, his latest suffers from the same issues that marred his earlier works as Derrickson begins this story on a promising note but once again loses his grip in the middle.
The screenplay features a universe that's full of imaginations & possibilities yet beneath its parallel universes, time manipulation & astral projections lies the same generic storyline following the same predictable route that we all have seen many times before. What's interesting, however, is how the arc of the eponymous character is handled, for Stephen Strange remains an intriguing character at all times.
Production Design team chips in with set pieces that brim with mystical qualities while props such as ancient artefacts & antiquated relics provide added details to the desired spiritual environment. Camerawork is fine, Editing gets carried away by letting numerous CGI-infested moments overstay their welcome due to which it feels longer than it should. And Michael Giacchino contributes with a score that's fitting yet not enthralling.
Coming to the acting department, the film features a talented ensemble in Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Mads Mikkelsen & Tilda Swinton. Cumberbatch as Strange is pitch-perfect casting and does total justice to his role by depicting his stubbornness, arrogance & ambition with precision while Swinton steals nearly every scene she's in. But the main highlight of this film is its shape-shifting & eye-popping visual effects.
On an overall scale, Doctor Strange does serve its purpose by delivering an entertaining, amusing & serviceable origin story but it isn't impressive enough to garner a spot amongst Marvel's finest features. Travelling a safe, risk-free route & sugarcoated with trippy, hallucinatory visuals, it is a typical fun-filled extravaganza that we've come to expect from Marvel Studios and is another enjoyable addition to their ever-inflating repertoire. Definitely worth a shot.
Doctor Strange tells the story of Stephen Strange, a brilliant but arrogant neurosurgeon who loses the use of his hands after a car accident, spends all his money on experimental surgeries to regain his abilities, and travels east for a last resort treatment where he meets a powerful sorcerer who teaches him ways to harness energy & shape realities through the mystic arts.
Co-written & directed by Scott Derrickson (best known for The Exorcism of Emily Rose & Sinister), Doctor Strange marks his first stint with comic book movies and while he succeeds in delivering a sufficiently entertaining blockbuster, his latest suffers from the same issues that marred his earlier works as Derrickson begins this story on a promising note but once again loses his grip in the middle.
The screenplay features a universe that's full of imaginations & possibilities yet beneath its parallel universes, time manipulation & astral projections lies the same generic storyline following the same predictable route that we all have seen many times before. What's interesting, however, is how the arc of the eponymous character is handled, for Stephen Strange remains an intriguing character at all times.
Production Design team chips in with set pieces that brim with mystical qualities while props such as ancient artefacts & antiquated relics provide added details to the desired spiritual environment. Camerawork is fine, Editing gets carried away by letting numerous CGI-infested moments overstay their welcome due to which it feels longer than it should. And Michael Giacchino contributes with a score that's fitting yet not enthralling.
Coming to the acting department, the film features a talented ensemble in Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Mads Mikkelsen & Tilda Swinton. Cumberbatch as Strange is pitch-perfect casting and does total justice to his role by depicting his stubbornness, arrogance & ambition with precision while Swinton steals nearly every scene she's in. But the main highlight of this film is its shape-shifting & eye-popping visual effects.
On an overall scale, Doctor Strange does serve its purpose by delivering an entertaining, amusing & serviceable origin story but it isn't impressive enough to garner a spot amongst Marvel's finest features. Travelling a safe, risk-free route & sugarcoated with trippy, hallucinatory visuals, it is a typical fun-filled extravaganza that we've come to expect from Marvel Studios and is another enjoyable addition to their ever-inflating repertoire. Definitely worth a shot.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Based on Mayan superstition this is the end of the world, now how do man survive this?
First off Dr Adrien Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and one of his associates discover the world is overheating from the inside due to solar flares. so he gets a solution to the end of the world started up with governments all around the world. Now in 2012 things start to accelerate and time is running out.
Meanwhile a struggling divorced writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) gets a weekend camping with his two children. He takes them down to Yellowstone only to find out the Lake has nearly all gone and after approaching the army take them back to a base. Here he meets Dr Helmsley a fan and sounding like his only fan of his book. After the chatty chatty big fan speech the family get escorted of the land back tot he camp area. After arriving conspiracy nut Charlie Frost (Woody Harrleson) asks what is there and tells Jackson what he believes to be happening, Jackson just assumes he is crazy and ignores his warnings.
After dropping his kids back home he goes to his day job as a limo driver only to discover that Charlie might be making some sense, he rushes back to the house and get his kids ex wife and boyfriend. now we have one of the most amazing over the top car chase action sequences ever with a limo driving through town avoiding everything possible making it to an airport and fly away to safety for now.
After flying to the Yellowstone abandoned army base to refuel Jackson goes in search of Charlie. After finding him on top of a mountain over looking Yellowstone he learns of the crafts for safety or future of mankind, now for the next chase against nature this time in a camper van with a volcanic cloud after them,
Flying of to the next airport Jackson meets his employer who needs an extra pilot for the trip to China where the vessels are kept, after yet another over the top action sequence they are left to fend for themselves in the middle of the mountains of China, meeting a family who has worked on vessels and created a plan to sneak on a vessel.
Roland Emmerich follows up action blockbuster like Independence day, Godzilla and Day after tomorrow with another action blockbuster and he sure dose like destroying America in his movies.
This is a truly epic survival adventure if not very hard to believe it is full of cliche and cheesy one liners and overall just a good fun movie to watch, he throws up the question ‘what would we do in this situation?’ and puts out how money can buy you safety.
Overall i would give it an 82% as it keeps you holing onto what will happen next.
https://moviesreview101.com/2011/04/29/2012-2009/
First off Dr Adrien Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and one of his associates discover the world is overheating from the inside due to solar flares. so he gets a solution to the end of the world started up with governments all around the world. Now in 2012 things start to accelerate and time is running out.
Meanwhile a struggling divorced writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) gets a weekend camping with his two children. He takes them down to Yellowstone only to find out the Lake has nearly all gone and after approaching the army take them back to a base. Here he meets Dr Helmsley a fan and sounding like his only fan of his book. After the chatty chatty big fan speech the family get escorted of the land back tot he camp area. After arriving conspiracy nut Charlie Frost (Woody Harrleson) asks what is there and tells Jackson what he believes to be happening, Jackson just assumes he is crazy and ignores his warnings.
After dropping his kids back home he goes to his day job as a limo driver only to discover that Charlie might be making some sense, he rushes back to the house and get his kids ex wife and boyfriend. now we have one of the most amazing over the top car chase action sequences ever with a limo driving through town avoiding everything possible making it to an airport and fly away to safety for now.
After flying to the Yellowstone abandoned army base to refuel Jackson goes in search of Charlie. After finding him on top of a mountain over looking Yellowstone he learns of the crafts for safety or future of mankind, now for the next chase against nature this time in a camper van with a volcanic cloud after them,
Flying of to the next airport Jackson meets his employer who needs an extra pilot for the trip to China where the vessels are kept, after yet another over the top action sequence they are left to fend for themselves in the middle of the mountains of China, meeting a family who has worked on vessels and created a plan to sneak on a vessel.
Roland Emmerich follows up action blockbuster like Independence day, Godzilla and Day after tomorrow with another action blockbuster and he sure dose like destroying America in his movies.
This is a truly epic survival adventure if not very hard to believe it is full of cliche and cheesy one liners and overall just a good fun movie to watch, he throws up the question ‘what would we do in this situation?’ and puts out how money can buy you safety.
Overall i would give it an 82% as it keeps you holing onto what will happen next.
https://moviesreview101.com/2011/04/29/2012-2009/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Return of The King
The Lion King is a 2019 computer-animated musical movie directed and produced by Jon Favreau. It was written by Jeff Nathanson, and produced by Fairview Entertainment and Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Beyonce and James Earl Jones.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Marvel Meets Inception
Let’s face it; Marvel rarely gets it wrong when it comes to crafting cracking superhero blockbusters. Sure, Avengers: Age of Ultron was an overstuffed mess but it had ambition and Iron Man 2 was fine when not compared to its predecessor.
Now, one of the biggest film studios in the world takes on its biggest gamble yet – more so than Guardians of the Galaxy was, and that’s saying something! But does Doctor Strange hit all the right notes or are we looking at Marvel’s first true dog’s dinner?
Dr. Stephen Strange’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) life changes after a car accident robs him of the use of his hands. When traditional medicine fails him, he looks for healing, and hope, in a mysterious enclave. He quickly learns that the enclave is at the front line of a battle against unseen dark forces bent on destroying reality. Before long, Strange is forced to choose between his life of fortune and status or leave it all behind to defend the world as the most powerful sorcerer in existence.
Harry Potter meets Inception as director Scott Derrickson’s ambitious vision for the Marvel comic comes to life on screen. It’s one of the best looking films in the studio’s catalogue, and one that’s definitely worth paying the extra dosh for the 3D version.
When it comes to acting, the cast is, on the whole, very good. Tilda Swinton is perhaps the best character in the entire film as the ‘Ancient One’. She’s an incredible actress given the right material and despite being thinly written, she shines in this intriguing role. The rest of the cast, including Benedict Wong, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Rachel McAdams are poorly realised and make no measurable impact on the final cut.
Mads Mikkelsen’s portrayal of Kaecilius, the film’s main antagonist, is good but Marvel continuously struggle to create interesting villains and unfortunately, Mikkelsen falls into that pot, though he’s not quite as bad as Oscar Issac’s Apocalypse from this year’s X-Men entry. Let’s hope Mikkelsen is given more time to shine in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story in December.
Assessing Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as the titular character is a little more difficult. On the one hand, he plays the deeply unlikeable Stephen Strange with the same class he brings to all his other personas; and then on the other, he seems at odds with Marvel’s global universe – the comedic elements almost feeling a little too forced, that is, in comparison to Chris Hemsworth’s mighty Thor or Paul Rudd’s sarcastic Ant-Man.
Luckily, the engaging special effects and magical story ensure Doctor Strange’s negatives are kept few and far between. Superhero films are beginning to grow a little tiresome with at least six being released this year alone, but the unique plot to this one makes certain you won’t have seen anything like it in the genre before.
Overall, Doctor Strange is a pleasing addition to the MCU, though one that isn’t quite as special as Guardians of the Galaxy was in 2014. It’s nice to have yet another character to join the growing list of Avengers but it’ll take another solo outing for Benedict Cumberbatch’s surgeon to make any sort of lasting impact.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/27/marvel-meets-inception-doctor-strange-review/
Now, one of the biggest film studios in the world takes on its biggest gamble yet – more so than Guardians of the Galaxy was, and that’s saying something! But does Doctor Strange hit all the right notes or are we looking at Marvel’s first true dog’s dinner?
Dr. Stephen Strange’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) life changes after a car accident robs him of the use of his hands. When traditional medicine fails him, he looks for healing, and hope, in a mysterious enclave. He quickly learns that the enclave is at the front line of a battle against unseen dark forces bent on destroying reality. Before long, Strange is forced to choose between his life of fortune and status or leave it all behind to defend the world as the most powerful sorcerer in existence.
Harry Potter meets Inception as director Scott Derrickson’s ambitious vision for the Marvel comic comes to life on screen. It’s one of the best looking films in the studio’s catalogue, and one that’s definitely worth paying the extra dosh for the 3D version.
When it comes to acting, the cast is, on the whole, very good. Tilda Swinton is perhaps the best character in the entire film as the ‘Ancient One’. She’s an incredible actress given the right material and despite being thinly written, she shines in this intriguing role. The rest of the cast, including Benedict Wong, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Rachel McAdams are poorly realised and make no measurable impact on the final cut.
Mads Mikkelsen’s portrayal of Kaecilius, the film’s main antagonist, is good but Marvel continuously struggle to create interesting villains and unfortunately, Mikkelsen falls into that pot, though he’s not quite as bad as Oscar Issac’s Apocalypse from this year’s X-Men entry. Let’s hope Mikkelsen is given more time to shine in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story in December.
Assessing Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as the titular character is a little more difficult. On the one hand, he plays the deeply unlikeable Stephen Strange with the same class he brings to all his other personas; and then on the other, he seems at odds with Marvel’s global universe – the comedic elements almost feeling a little too forced, that is, in comparison to Chris Hemsworth’s mighty Thor or Paul Rudd’s sarcastic Ant-Man.
Luckily, the engaging special effects and magical story ensure Doctor Strange’s negatives are kept few and far between. Superhero films are beginning to grow a little tiresome with at least six being released this year alone, but the unique plot to this one makes certain you won’t have seen anything like it in the genre before.
Overall, Doctor Strange is a pleasing addition to the MCU, though one that isn’t quite as special as Guardians of the Galaxy was in 2014. It’s nice to have yet another character to join the growing list of Avengers but it’ll take another solo outing for Benedict Cumberbatch’s surgeon to make any sort of lasting impact.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/27/marvel-meets-inception-doctor-strange-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Triple 9 (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
A crew of bank robbers is strong-armed by the Russian mob to pull off a near impossible heist due the response time of the police. In order to create a larger window, the dirty cops of this crew suggest creating a 999 (police code for “officer down.”) on the other side of town. That is the basic plot of Triple 9. Yet, the tagline for this film is, “The Code on the street is never black and white.” Seems like a different movie which is part of the letdown of Triple 9. It doesn’t know what it wants to be. Is it a heist movie like Heat or The Town? Or is it trying to be a movie about the cops and the rules of the streets like Training Day?
In the beginning, the film sets its self-up to be a smart and stylistic heist film. However shortly after it begins to feel disjointed as it attempts to develop everyone in its ensemble cast to the point where it hurts the story and some excellent performances become forgettable. It’s a shame because somewhere in this film is potentially two excellent separate films. One film about a crew having to complete a heist for the mob to save their lives and loved ones, and another about dirty cops, their partners and the moral ambiguity of the code on the streets. In Triple 9, these two premises never really get developed on one side or the other and thus everything is just left there.
On the heist side, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays ex-mercenary Michael Atwood. Michael is the careful and calculating leader of the crew, but is tied to the Russian mafia through the mother of his son. Michael is constantly being coerced by the Russian Mob Boss, played by Kate Winslet. The two give stellar performances, most notably Winslet who is cold and ruthless in wielding her power, speaking her mind and not caring how the job gets done as long as it gets done.
On the cop side, Anthony Mackie plays dirty police detective Marcus Belmont who becomes partnered with the ex-marine turned rookie detective Chris Allen (Casey Affleck). Belmont feels that the rookie doesn’t respect the streets and his “Do-gooder” “make a difference” attitude is going to get him killed. When Belmont’s heist crewmate Jorge Rodriguez (Clifton Collins Jr.) learns Chris is also the nephew of the Sergeant Detective (Woody Harrelson) investigating the heist crew, Chris becomes the clear candidate to be set up for the Triple 9. (Convenient huh)
Ultimately, as the story plays out it feels we are always arriving at the end of the meeting to plan the coming events. From the planning of the heist, to the set up murder, and to the exit plan, we are just carried through the motions without much motivation of how or why things have to play out the way they do. As a result, I didn’t really care for any of the characters good or bad, unlike other films of this nature. Even Ejiofor’s character Michael, who has his child involved, doesn’t get the opportunity to really show why the rest of the crew respects him and follows him, or why he needs to stay alive for his son, who basically seems better off being taken care of by the Russian mob.
In the end Triple 9 is not a bad movie, it just isn’t really a great one either. It has strong performances by the entire cast and has the makings of something great, but fails to deliver on that opportunity with a disjointed story trying to focus on too many characters. This makes it ultimately forgettable compared to other heist films of similar nature.
In the beginning, the film sets its self-up to be a smart and stylistic heist film. However shortly after it begins to feel disjointed as it attempts to develop everyone in its ensemble cast to the point where it hurts the story and some excellent performances become forgettable. It’s a shame because somewhere in this film is potentially two excellent separate films. One film about a crew having to complete a heist for the mob to save their lives and loved ones, and another about dirty cops, their partners and the moral ambiguity of the code on the streets. In Triple 9, these two premises never really get developed on one side or the other and thus everything is just left there.
On the heist side, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays ex-mercenary Michael Atwood. Michael is the careful and calculating leader of the crew, but is tied to the Russian mafia through the mother of his son. Michael is constantly being coerced by the Russian Mob Boss, played by Kate Winslet. The two give stellar performances, most notably Winslet who is cold and ruthless in wielding her power, speaking her mind and not caring how the job gets done as long as it gets done.
On the cop side, Anthony Mackie plays dirty police detective Marcus Belmont who becomes partnered with the ex-marine turned rookie detective Chris Allen (Casey Affleck). Belmont feels that the rookie doesn’t respect the streets and his “Do-gooder” “make a difference” attitude is going to get him killed. When Belmont’s heist crewmate Jorge Rodriguez (Clifton Collins Jr.) learns Chris is also the nephew of the Sergeant Detective (Woody Harrelson) investigating the heist crew, Chris becomes the clear candidate to be set up for the Triple 9. (Convenient huh)
Ultimately, as the story plays out it feels we are always arriving at the end of the meeting to plan the coming events. From the planning of the heist, to the set up murder, and to the exit plan, we are just carried through the motions without much motivation of how or why things have to play out the way they do. As a result, I didn’t really care for any of the characters good or bad, unlike other films of this nature. Even Ejiofor’s character Michael, who has his child involved, doesn’t get the opportunity to really show why the rest of the crew respects him and follows him, or why he needs to stay alive for his son, who basically seems better off being taken care of by the Russian mob.
In the end Triple 9 is not a bad movie, it just isn’t really a great one either. It has strong performances by the entire cast and has the makings of something great, but fails to deliver on that opportunity with a disjointed story trying to focus on too many characters. This makes it ultimately forgettable compared to other heist films of similar nature.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 9, 2022
Fun...with heart
Doctor Strange is my favorite Marvel character. This comes from my college days when one of my roommates had a stack of Dr. Strange comics and I tore through them - one of the few Marvel comics that I have actually read. So I was thrilled to find out that Sam Raimi was coming back (was he ever gone?) to direct the 2nd solo Dr. Strange film, DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
