Search
Search results
Shadows and Reflections by Marc Almond
Album Watch
‘Shadows And Reflections’ features sumptuous arrangements of iconic torch songs and 60’s...
pop
Connie math educational game 2nd grade
Education and Games
App
Connie Fun Learning: Everything for second grade: Math. Developed with pedagogical support. ...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Sep 25, 2021
One of the many long time coming films from before the pandemonium finally made its way to our screens. The sequel to the film that made us uncomfortable to eat snacks while we were at the cinema... A Quiet Place Part II came out to an excited crowd going back to the movies.
The Abbots have survived the attack on their family and found a way to get the upper hand in the fight against the monsters. They need to move on, beyond the boundaries they're set up for themselves. But what is out there blocking their way? Friend or foe? There's no way of knowing.
I was sceptical about a second film, there was a perfectly good intriguing ending to the first, and sequels aren't always the follow-ups we hope for. Would there be enough to stretch out into a decent story?
Emily Blunt was Emily Blunt. The expected powerful performance, but it was nice to see her taking a slight back seat to allow other characters to take the lead... whether I enjoyed that or not.
The biggest change on that front was giving Regan a bigger piece of the action, and the chance to show the leadership that is now missing since the death of her father. And we get an interesting pairing with her and Cillian Murphy, there's a bond made that leads them to learn about each other and it was nice, while a little sad, to see her with a new father figure in her life for a while.
Murphy's character of Emmett seems far more at home with his life as a "lone survivor" than he did as a family man. He's bunkered down outside their radius and got himself a nice little set up... but... there's one very large point that is not addressed during the films, and it's quick frankly too odd (and slightly sinister) for them to have avoided. Apart from that, Emmett does unfold nicely through the film, and he really adjusts well to being reconnected with the Abbotts.
As much as I like Noah Jupe, I found Marcus to be entirely too frustrating in this film. I don't like to wish ill upon people, but, he deserved to be eaten by a monster, or at least lightly maimed. Reckless and idiotic, he quite frankly didn't deserve any kind of redemption.
Even more so than the first, this film gave me heavy Lost vibes. If you broke some of the scenes down into their vaguest detail and asked people to guess what you were talking about, I'd certainly forgive people for guessing wrong. But yet again it's a suspenseful offering, and I found it hilarious when I fell for the jump scares. Coming out to an almost instant announcement of a third film left me wondering though. What could it do from here? It really felt like it had come to a natural ending.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-quiet-place-part-ii-movie-review.html
The Abbots have survived the attack on their family and found a way to get the upper hand in the fight against the monsters. They need to move on, beyond the boundaries they're set up for themselves. But what is out there blocking their way? Friend or foe? There's no way of knowing.
I was sceptical about a second film, there was a perfectly good intriguing ending to the first, and sequels aren't always the follow-ups we hope for. Would there be enough to stretch out into a decent story?
Emily Blunt was Emily Blunt. The expected powerful performance, but it was nice to see her taking a slight back seat to allow other characters to take the lead... whether I enjoyed that or not.
The biggest change on that front was giving Regan a bigger piece of the action, and the chance to show the leadership that is now missing since the death of her father. And we get an interesting pairing with her and Cillian Murphy, there's a bond made that leads them to learn about each other and it was nice, while a little sad, to see her with a new father figure in her life for a while.
Murphy's character of Emmett seems far more at home with his life as a "lone survivor" than he did as a family man. He's bunkered down outside their radius and got himself a nice little set up... but... there's one very large point that is not addressed during the films, and it's quick frankly too odd (and slightly sinister) for them to have avoided. Apart from that, Emmett does unfold nicely through the film, and he really adjusts well to being reconnected with the Abbotts.
As much as I like Noah Jupe, I found Marcus to be entirely too frustrating in this film. I don't like to wish ill upon people, but, he deserved to be eaten by a monster, or at least lightly maimed. Reckless and idiotic, he quite frankly didn't deserve any kind of redemption.
Even more so than the first, this film gave me heavy Lost vibes. If you broke some of the scenes down into their vaguest detail and asked people to guess what you were talking about, I'd certainly forgive people for guessing wrong. But yet again it's a suspenseful offering, and I found it hilarious when I fell for the jump scares. Coming out to an almost instant announcement of a third film left me wondering though. What could it do from here? It really felt like it had come to a natural ending.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-quiet-place-part-ii-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spiderhead (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Weak Script Sinks This Flick
The history of cinema is littered with tales of the Mad Scientist who gets too caught up in their own experiments to the detriment of all. Once the human cost of the experiment is revealed to this seemingly sane inventor, he (it usually is a he) turns with a wild-eyed look and justifies the human expense in the name of science.
Such is the case with the Netflix Original movie SPIDERHEAD with Chris Hemsworth as the mad scientist in this scenario and Miles Teller and Jurnee Smollett as 2 of the prisoners who trade in their life sentences to be used as guinea pigs in his experiment.
It’s an interesting enough premise - one that is not new - so it is always the execution of this concept that makes (or breaks) this type of film.
Unfortunately for SPIDERHEAD, Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are unable to elevate the premise (based on a short story by George Saunders) into anything new, unique or interesting.
Director Joseph Kosinski (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) does a yeoman’s job trying to elevate this material to something better than it is. But…kind of like trying to get me to be a Prima Ballerina…Kosinski just cannot make something out of raw material that is fundamentally flawed. He uses a few interesting camera moves and draws out suspense in enough areas to catch the audience’s interests…but not much else.
He is helped by the casting of some top notch talent. Chris Hemsworth is engaging and charismatic (initially) as the Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-esque new age inventor who is trying out some new medical serums on prisoner/volunteers. The problem with Hemsworth - who I think is a pretty good actor - is that once you start seeing the cracks in his character’s façade (and those cracks appear early on), Hemsworth’s performance turns fairly one-dimensional and he becomes a caricature of the “crazed scientist”.
The surprises to me here are the performances of Miles Teller (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) and Jurnee Smollett (LOVECRAFT COUNTRY). These are 2 performers who I’ve always felt were good but not great, but they are intriguing to watch in this. They have strong chemistry with each other and they are 2 protagonists that are easy to root for against crazed antagonist Hemsworth.
In look and feel and tone, this film reminded my of the 2014 Alex Garland marvel EX MACHINA, but where that film easily was lifted by a tremendously strong script and ideas by Garland (check it out if you haven’t seen it - it is well worth your time), SPIDERHEAD, ultimately, sinks into the chasm of a weak script with no real strong ideas/themes behind it.
Letter Grade B+ (for the Direction of Kosinksi and the performances of Teller and Smollett)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the Netflix Original movie SPIDERHEAD with Chris Hemsworth as the mad scientist in this scenario and Miles Teller and Jurnee Smollett as 2 of the prisoners who trade in their life sentences to be used as guinea pigs in his experiment.
It’s an interesting enough premise - one that is not new - so it is always the execution of this concept that makes (or breaks) this type of film.
Unfortunately for SPIDERHEAD, Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are unable to elevate the premise (based on a short story by George Saunders) into anything new, unique or interesting.
Director Joseph Kosinski (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) does a yeoman’s job trying to elevate this material to something better than it is. But…kind of like trying to get me to be a Prima Ballerina…Kosinski just cannot make something out of raw material that is fundamentally flawed. He uses a few interesting camera moves and draws out suspense in enough areas to catch the audience’s interests…but not much else.
He is helped by the casting of some top notch talent. Chris Hemsworth is engaging and charismatic (initially) as the Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-esque new age inventor who is trying out some new medical serums on prisoner/volunteers. The problem with Hemsworth - who I think is a pretty good actor - is that once you start seeing the cracks in his character’s façade (and those cracks appear early on), Hemsworth’s performance turns fairly one-dimensional and he becomes a caricature of the “crazed scientist”.
The surprises to me here are the performances of Miles Teller (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) and Jurnee Smollett (LOVECRAFT COUNTRY). These are 2 performers who I’ve always felt were good but not great, but they are intriguing to watch in this. They have strong chemistry with each other and they are 2 protagonists that are easy to root for against crazed antagonist Hemsworth.
In look and feel and tone, this film reminded my of the 2014 Alex Garland marvel EX MACHINA, but where that film easily was lifted by a tremendously strong script and ideas by Garland (check it out if you haven’t seen it - it is well worth your time), SPIDERHEAD, ultimately, sinks into the chasm of a weak script with no real strong ideas/themes behind it.
Letter Grade B+ (for the Direction of Kosinksi and the performances of Teller and Smollett)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Troy Aker (6 KP) rated Super 8 (2011) in Movies
Dec 13, 2017
Much fun from JJ Abrams
With Super 8, JJ Abrams did something I feel is rare in cinema. It was a monster movie in which you actually care about the people involved. Way too often in movies it becomes easy to cheer on the monster because the people involved just aren't likable, or that not enough time is spent on them to create a connection with the characters. A character driven monster-disaster movie is rare. This movie is the anti-Michael Bay movie. Which is part of the reason why I love it so much.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Eye In The Sky (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An exceptional look at warfare
Warfare is incredibly hard to depict well on screen. The brutality of conflict as well as the accuracy of technologies used is something very rarely achieved in the cinema due to the constant need to turn a profit and please audiences.
After American Sniper rocked the early part of 2015, there were numerous films in the genre greenlit soon after. Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky is one. But is it as good as American Sniper? And, more importantly, does it show an accurate depiction of modern conflict?
Eye in the Sky follows the tough choices that have to be made by politicians and military personnel in the fight against modern-day terrorism. Starring an arresting Helen Mirren as Colonel Powell, who leads a group of soldiers in their efforts to thwart a terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya.
Alongside her for the journey is the late Alan Rickman, in one of his final screen roles, as General Benson – the man who has to please the more political side of the divide. The film also stars Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul as a US drone pilot, tasked with delivering a fatal strike on a terrorist cell.
Eye in the Sky, despite its ridiculous name, is one of the freshest and most involving war films in recent times. This is even more astounding considering director Gavin Hood’s recent CV includes the lambasted X-Men Origins: Wolverine and commercial failure Ender’s Game.
This is a taut and well-shot action thriller with an unusually emotional heart at its centre. Our characters continuously grapple with the inevitable “collateral damage” that comes with firing a missile from 22,000ft in the air and we, as the audience share in each of their difficult decisions.
Helen Mirren provides one of her best performances in years and the wonderful Alan Rickman gives us yet more proof of what made him such an exceptional actor – you simply cannot take your eyes of the screen when he is on it. Aaron Paul is also brilliant, with the heart-breaking decisions he is forced to make reflected in his facial expressions. His tears speak louder than any script could ever rustle up.
It’s true that the action is kept to a minimum; this is no Michael Bay picture, but the boardroom setting and confines of the drone pilot room are more than a match for needless explosions as it all feels grounded in reality – despite the fact that some of the intelligence equipment isn’t in the field yet.
Overall, Eye in the Sky is an exceptional piece of film-making with real emotional punch. This is something normally reserved for other genres but it pays of well in this highly intelligent and fantastically acted thriller. Unfortunately, as is the case with many movies in between release schedules of bigger features, it will no doubt slip under the radar slightly.
That’s a shame, as there’s something truly special here and there’s no doubt it is one of the best films released in the last twelve months.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/23/an-exceptional-look-at-warfare-eye-in-the-sky-review/
After American Sniper rocked the early part of 2015, there were numerous films in the genre greenlit soon after. Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky is one. But is it as good as American Sniper? And, more importantly, does it show an accurate depiction of modern conflict?
Eye in the Sky follows the tough choices that have to be made by politicians and military personnel in the fight against modern-day terrorism. Starring an arresting Helen Mirren as Colonel Powell, who leads a group of soldiers in their efforts to thwart a terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya.
Alongside her for the journey is the late Alan Rickman, in one of his final screen roles, as General Benson – the man who has to please the more political side of the divide. The film also stars Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul as a US drone pilot, tasked with delivering a fatal strike on a terrorist cell.
Eye in the Sky, despite its ridiculous name, is one of the freshest and most involving war films in recent times. This is even more astounding considering director Gavin Hood’s recent CV includes the lambasted X-Men Origins: Wolverine and commercial failure Ender’s Game.
This is a taut and well-shot action thriller with an unusually emotional heart at its centre. Our characters continuously grapple with the inevitable “collateral damage” that comes with firing a missile from 22,000ft in the air and we, as the audience share in each of their difficult decisions.
Helen Mirren provides one of her best performances in years and the wonderful Alan Rickman gives us yet more proof of what made him such an exceptional actor – you simply cannot take your eyes of the screen when he is on it. Aaron Paul is also brilliant, with the heart-breaking decisions he is forced to make reflected in his facial expressions. His tears speak louder than any script could ever rustle up.
It’s true that the action is kept to a minimum; this is no Michael Bay picture, but the boardroom setting and confines of the drone pilot room are more than a match for needless explosions as it all feels grounded in reality – despite the fact that some of the intelligence equipment isn’t in the field yet.
Overall, Eye in the Sky is an exceptional piece of film-making with real emotional punch. This is something normally reserved for other genres but it pays of well in this highly intelligent and fantastically acted thriller. Unfortunately, as is the case with many movies in between release schedules of bigger features, it will no doubt slip under the radar slightly.
That’s a shame, as there’s something truly special here and there’s no doubt it is one of the best films released in the last twelve months.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/23/an-exceptional-look-at-warfare-eye-in-the-sky-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Vast Improvement
The Young Adult genre has, for the last few years, been dominated by Jennifer Lawrence and her imposing Katniss Everdeen, and as fans prepare for the conclusion of Mockingjay in November, they can whet their appetites for the conclusion of another YA trilogy.
The Maze Runner was a decent, albeit muddled attempt at getting the coveted young adult audience interested in another series and its sequel, The Scorch Trials promises more of the mind-blowing storytelling of its predecessor, but is it a success?
The plot of Scorch Trials takes place immediately after the events of the previous instalment as a group of teenagers battle against the sinister W.C.K.D, an organisation intent on finding a cure for a virus that has ravished Earth.
Amongst them is leader Thomas (Teen Wolf’s Dylan O’Brien), the Katniss Everdeen of this particular series, Theresa (Skins’ Kaya Scodelario) and Newt (Love Actually’s Thomas Brodie-Sangster). There are numerous other characters in the group but they aren’t fleshed out enough to make an impact on screen.
Unfortunately, character development is a serious problem throughout, with only a handful of the large cast having enough of a backstory to make the memorable. O’Brien is particularly likeable as the confused Thomas and his more reserved persona is a pleasant change to the majority of lead characters in the genre.
Of the adult cast, Aidan Gillen does a sterling effort as the mysterious Janson and Giancarlo Esposito is perhaps the best character in the entire film with his portrayal of Jorge – a bargain hunter and ally of the group.
A much larger budget has done wonders for the series’ set-pieces. This is a particularly striking movie with numerous heart-racing action sequences filmed with a mixture of stunning CGI and breath-taking practical effects, a desert thunderstorm is beautifully filmed and a particular highlight.
The desolate landscapes and ruined cities give the film more than a whiff of Mad Max and I Am Legend with the latter being very similar.
These pulse-raising scenes do not do Scorch Trials’ dialogue any good however. The characters don’t get much to say apart from “Run” and “Look out” and the series lacks the powerful communication that The Hunger Games has become known for.
Nevertheless, those coming to the series without reading the books will find much to enjoy here as the plot is impossible to guess – there’s simply no way of knowing what is going to happen from one moment to the next.
It’s worth noting that this is a very dark film with a tone unlike anything else seen in the genre. The 12A certification given to it seems a little too lenient and in parts The Scorch Trials is deeply unnerving.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials is, on the whole, a fantastically enjoyable romp in spite of its excessive length and flat characters. It’s not quite up to the standards of The Hunger Games series but surpasses its Divergent franchise counterparts by some margin and is well worth a trip to the cinema.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/13/a-vast-improvement-maze-runner-the-scorch-trials-review/
The Maze Runner was a decent, albeit muddled attempt at getting the coveted young adult audience interested in another series and its sequel, The Scorch Trials promises more of the mind-blowing storytelling of its predecessor, but is it a success?
The plot of Scorch Trials takes place immediately after the events of the previous instalment as a group of teenagers battle against the sinister W.C.K.D, an organisation intent on finding a cure for a virus that has ravished Earth.
Amongst them is leader Thomas (Teen Wolf’s Dylan O’Brien), the Katniss Everdeen of this particular series, Theresa (Skins’ Kaya Scodelario) and Newt (Love Actually’s Thomas Brodie-Sangster). There are numerous other characters in the group but they aren’t fleshed out enough to make an impact on screen.
Unfortunately, character development is a serious problem throughout, with only a handful of the large cast having enough of a backstory to make the memorable. O’Brien is particularly likeable as the confused Thomas and his more reserved persona is a pleasant change to the majority of lead characters in the genre.
Of the adult cast, Aidan Gillen does a sterling effort as the mysterious Janson and Giancarlo Esposito is perhaps the best character in the entire film with his portrayal of Jorge – a bargain hunter and ally of the group.
A much larger budget has done wonders for the series’ set-pieces. This is a particularly striking movie with numerous heart-racing action sequences filmed with a mixture of stunning CGI and breath-taking practical effects, a desert thunderstorm is beautifully filmed and a particular highlight.
The desolate landscapes and ruined cities give the film more than a whiff of Mad Max and I Am Legend with the latter being very similar.
These pulse-raising scenes do not do Scorch Trials’ dialogue any good however. The characters don’t get much to say apart from “Run” and “Look out” and the series lacks the powerful communication that The Hunger Games has become known for.
Nevertheless, those coming to the series without reading the books will find much to enjoy here as the plot is impossible to guess – there’s simply no way of knowing what is going to happen from one moment to the next.
It’s worth noting that this is a very dark film with a tone unlike anything else seen in the genre. The 12A certification given to it seems a little too lenient and in parts The Scorch Trials is deeply unnerving.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials is, on the whole, a fantastically enjoyable romp in spite of its excessive length and flat characters. It’s not quite up to the standards of The Hunger Games series but surpasses its Divergent franchise counterparts by some margin and is well worth a trip to the cinema.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/13/a-vast-improvement-maze-runner-the-scorch-trials-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Masterpiece
J.A. Bayona is one of the most exciting rising stars behind the camera lens. His knack for creating superbly shot, engaging films like The Orphanage and The Impossible has meant many in Hollywood have been keeping an intrigued eye on him.
His hard work paid off last year when it was announced he would be taking over directorial duties on the as yet unnamed Jurassic World sequel. In the meantime, Bayona has been busy working on A Monster Calls, based on the book of the same name by Patrick Ness, but does it continue the director’s brilliant work?
12-year-old Conor (Lewis MacDougall), dealing with his mother’s (Felicity Jones) illness, a less-than-sympathetic grandmother (Sigourney Weaver), and bullying classmates, finds a most unlikely ally when a Monster (Liam Neeson) appears at his bedroom window. Ancient, wild, and relentless, the Monster guides Conor on a journey of courage, faith, and truth through three dramatic tales.
The first thing to say is that the film is visually stunning with detail seeping from every frame. Every shot is breath-taking in its own way and the tall tales in which Liam Neeson’s booming voice narrate are beautiful. Bayona yet again demonstrates his flair for cinematography, but this time his creativeness is set free in Conor’s imagination, where he literally paints pictures with superb animations.
Acting wise, A Monster Calls is sublime. With talent like Liam Neeson, Sigourney Weaver and Felicity Jones making up the bulk of the cast, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’d be easy for newcomer Lewis MacDougall to get lost in the fray, but he doesn’t. His performance throughout the film is exceptional and the chemistry he shares with on-screen mum Felicity is entirely believable, making his plight all the more heart-breaking.
But the real winners here are the special effects. Liam Neeson’s gravelly tone lends itself perfectly to creating ‘the Monster’ in all its woody glory. The incredible CGI used to bring him to life is some of the best I’ve ever seen, all the more remarkable given the film’s relatively modest $43million budget. The effects are better than those in some blockbusters costing three times this.
Then there’s the plot. Essentially a coming of age story as one young man tries desperately to hang on to his youth and escape the tragedies of life; A Monster Calls is one of the most heartfelt and emotionally resonant films in the genre. It is a testament to author and screenwriter Patrick Ness that his novel’s gut-wrenching themes are carried across perfectly to the silver screen; that is by no means an easy thing to accomplish.
Overall, A Monster Calls is a mesmerising 115 minutes that stays with you long after the end credits roll. Everything from the acting to the direction is spot on, with the story being relatable to every single one of us. This time last year I was sat in the cinema watching Daddy’s Home; what a difference 12 months makes.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/07/a-masterpiece-a-monster-calls-review/
His hard work paid off last year when it was announced he would be taking over directorial duties on the as yet unnamed Jurassic World sequel. In the meantime, Bayona has been busy working on A Monster Calls, based on the book of the same name by Patrick Ness, but does it continue the director’s brilliant work?
12-year-old Conor (Lewis MacDougall), dealing with his mother’s (Felicity Jones) illness, a less-than-sympathetic grandmother (Sigourney Weaver), and bullying classmates, finds a most unlikely ally when a Monster (Liam Neeson) appears at his bedroom window. Ancient, wild, and relentless, the Monster guides Conor on a journey of courage, faith, and truth through three dramatic tales.
The first thing to say is that the film is visually stunning with detail seeping from every frame. Every shot is breath-taking in its own way and the tall tales in which Liam Neeson’s booming voice narrate are beautiful. Bayona yet again demonstrates his flair for cinematography, but this time his creativeness is set free in Conor’s imagination, where he literally paints pictures with superb animations.
Acting wise, A Monster Calls is sublime. With talent like Liam Neeson, Sigourney Weaver and Felicity Jones making up the bulk of the cast, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’d be easy for newcomer Lewis MacDougall to get lost in the fray, but he doesn’t. His performance throughout the film is exceptional and the chemistry he shares with on-screen mum Felicity is entirely believable, making his plight all the more heart-breaking.
But the real winners here are the special effects. Liam Neeson’s gravelly tone lends itself perfectly to creating ‘the Monster’ in all its woody glory. The incredible CGI used to bring him to life is some of the best I’ve ever seen, all the more remarkable given the film’s relatively modest $43million budget. The effects are better than those in some blockbusters costing three times this.
Then there’s the plot. Essentially a coming of age story as one young man tries desperately to hang on to his youth and escape the tragedies of life; A Monster Calls is one of the most heartfelt and emotionally resonant films in the genre. It is a testament to author and screenwriter Patrick Ness that his novel’s gut-wrenching themes are carried across perfectly to the silver screen; that is by no means an easy thing to accomplish.
Overall, A Monster Calls is a mesmerising 115 minutes that stays with you long after the end credits roll. Everything from the acting to the direction is spot on, with the story being relatable to every single one of us. This time last year I was sat in the cinema watching Daddy’s Home; what a difference 12 months makes.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/07/a-masterpiece-a-monster-calls-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Giver (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Striking visual translation
Over the last decade, cinema-going audiences have had the treat of numerous adaptations of popular young adult novels. Some of them have been particularly great – the Harry Potter series the highlight – whilst others have been less than stellar – Twilight, I’m looking at you.
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/