Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Part of this post is sponsored by 4DX Cinemas. With poignancy and heart on its side, 2017’s IT managed to avoid its occasional flaws to become an unnerving addition to the horror genre. While the film could never be classed as outright terrifying, the character of Pennywise, portrayed exceptionally by Bill Skarsgard, is an unsettling antagonist and one of the best in film.
Two years later, the town of Derry is back on the big screen in Andy Muschietti’s epic conclusion. But at nearly 3 hours long, is IT: Chapter Two just a bloated mess, or does it float to new heights?
Defeated by members of the Losers’ Club, the evil clown Pennywise returns 27 years later to terrorise the town of Derry, Maine, once again. Now adults, the childhood friends have long since gone their separate ways. But when people start disappearing, Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa) calls the others home for one final stand. Damaged by scars from the past, the united Losers must conquer their deepest fears to destroy the shape-shifting Pennywise – who is now more powerful than ever.
The film follows many of the same tropes as its predecessor, with beautiful cinematography and excellent performances masking some shoddy CGI and an over-reliance on jump scares, and while it does lack the simplicity and tightly-wound script of its predecessor, IT: Chapter Two is even more unsettling.
For director Andy Muschietti, it’s clear that the training wheels are off. After being guided through the process by Warner Bros. first time around, the success of IT (it grossed over $700million worldwide) now means he’s been free to splash his creative vision all over the screen – and it shows. A deeply disconcerting opening involving two of Derry’s LGBT community and some town bigots lets the audience know early on that this is going to be even darker and much more graphic than its predecessor.
From a casting point of view, they couldn’t have done better. Each adult version of the Loser’s Club nicely embodies their child counterpart, even if we spend more time with some than others. James McAvoy is as reliable as ever and Jessica Chastain plays Beverly nicely but it’s in Bill Hader and James Ransome that we find the perfect embodiments of their juvenile characters.
Hader and Ransome share the same chemistry that made Eddie and Richie so watchable in the first instalment and there is even some well-judged poignancy to go with their playful teasing. The Chinese restaurant scene, a fan favourite from the book and the TV mini-series, is present and correct and remains a highlight over the course of the running time.
IT: Chapter Two is a confident finale to one of 2017’s best films; filled with exceptional performances
Praise must be given to the scriptwriters here as ensembles of this size can all too often get lost with little character development. Thankfully, each cast member feels fully fleshed out, meaning we care for them a lot more than your typical horror-movie character.
However, this is Bill Skarsgard’s film and Pennywise is as menacing as ever. Skarsgard turns up the ante here with his physical performance being absolutely incredible. This portrayal is Heath Ledger Joker levels of good. It would be a shame if he wasn’t recognised officially for the exceptional work he has done to bring this wretched character to life.
While much of the film sees the Loser’s Club separate from each other as they try to locate tokens from their pasts, this allows the production team to create some truly staggering set pieces – although it’s unfortunate that many of them have been spoilt in the trailers. The much-marketed house of mirrors scene is brief but leaves a lasting impression and there’s a sequence early on involving a small girl that was really troubling.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. While the pacing for such a long film is spot on, the appearances of our titular character are not. Despite being billed as appearing more often, the movie’s gargantuan length means that Pennywise doesn’t feel like he’s on screen for any longer than in the first instalment. With such a great character and performance, it would have been nice to see him a little more.
And while you’ll have noticed me using adjectives like ‘unsettling’ and ‘unnerving’, the film isn’t truly scary unless Pennywise in clown form is on the screen. That’s mainly down to some of the CGI used to create the monsters. As in its predecessor, IT: Chapter Two’s monsters feel too glossy, lacking in any true sense of realism.
Nevertheless, IT: Chapter Two is a confident finale to one of 2017’s best films; filled with exceptional performances and the wit and humour that made its predecessor such a hit. While not reaching quite the same dizzy heights as that film and relying even more on jump scares, as a pair, it’s hard to think of a horror series that has made its mark in the last decade quite as much as IT.
⭐⭐⭐⭐ IT: Chapter Two in 4DX
I was unsure how a horror film would translate to 4DX but the good news is that the experience became even more immersive, with sight, smell and feel all being utilised to great effect.
Soaring over Derry, the advanced seating that 4DX provides means that you feel like you’re flying over the town too. Of course, while this is a pleasant experience when the film is playing nicely, as soon as the horror hits, 4DX jolts you back to reality with some well-timed movement, strobe lighting and weather effects.
A nice touch in this film was the use of smell, something not utilised in Hobbs & Shaw. Every time Pennywise was about to appear on screen, a sweet aroma would fill the cinema, lulling you into a false sense of security. It was a nice effect that added to the drama of the film beautifully.
Naturally, being a horror film, rain was utilised a lot and having the spray nozzle behind your seat was great. Although you are able to turn it off if you so wish, having the weather effects left on meant that you became immersed in what was happening on screen.
This was my first experience of 4D cinema utilised in a horror film and the overall impact was one that added to the terror rather than detracted from it. I would highly recommend viewing IT: Chapter Two in 4DX, and you can book tickets at 19 Cineworld locations across the UK.
Two years later, the town of Derry is back on the big screen in Andy Muschietti’s epic conclusion. But at nearly 3 hours long, is IT: Chapter Two just a bloated mess, or does it float to new heights?
Defeated by members of the Losers’ Club, the evil clown Pennywise returns 27 years later to terrorise the town of Derry, Maine, once again. Now adults, the childhood friends have long since gone their separate ways. But when people start disappearing, Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa) calls the others home for one final stand. Damaged by scars from the past, the united Losers must conquer their deepest fears to destroy the shape-shifting Pennywise – who is now more powerful than ever.
The film follows many of the same tropes as its predecessor, with beautiful cinematography and excellent performances masking some shoddy CGI and an over-reliance on jump scares, and while it does lack the simplicity and tightly-wound script of its predecessor, IT: Chapter Two is even more unsettling.
For director Andy Muschietti, it’s clear that the training wheels are off. After being guided through the process by Warner Bros. first time around, the success of IT (it grossed over $700million worldwide) now means he’s been free to splash his creative vision all over the screen – and it shows. A deeply disconcerting opening involving two of Derry’s LGBT community and some town bigots lets the audience know early on that this is going to be even darker and much more graphic than its predecessor.
From a casting point of view, they couldn’t have done better. Each adult version of the Loser’s Club nicely embodies their child counterpart, even if we spend more time with some than others. James McAvoy is as reliable as ever and Jessica Chastain plays Beverly nicely but it’s in Bill Hader and James Ransome that we find the perfect embodiments of their juvenile characters.
Hader and Ransome share the same chemistry that made Eddie and Richie so watchable in the first instalment and there is even some well-judged poignancy to go with their playful teasing. The Chinese restaurant scene, a fan favourite from the book and the TV mini-series, is present and correct and remains a highlight over the course of the running time.
IT: Chapter Two is a confident finale to one of 2017’s best films; filled with exceptional performances
Praise must be given to the scriptwriters here as ensembles of this size can all too often get lost with little character development. Thankfully, each cast member feels fully fleshed out, meaning we care for them a lot more than your typical horror-movie character.
However, this is Bill Skarsgard’s film and Pennywise is as menacing as ever. Skarsgard turns up the ante here with his physical performance being absolutely incredible. This portrayal is Heath Ledger Joker levels of good. It would be a shame if he wasn’t recognised officially for the exceptional work he has done to bring this wretched character to life.
While much of the film sees the Loser’s Club separate from each other as they try to locate tokens from their pasts, this allows the production team to create some truly staggering set pieces – although it’s unfortunate that many of them have been spoilt in the trailers. The much-marketed house of mirrors scene is brief but leaves a lasting impression and there’s a sequence early on involving a small girl that was really troubling.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. While the pacing for such a long film is spot on, the appearances of our titular character are not. Despite being billed as appearing more often, the movie’s gargantuan length means that Pennywise doesn’t feel like he’s on screen for any longer than in the first instalment. With such a great character and performance, it would have been nice to see him a little more.
And while you’ll have noticed me using adjectives like ‘unsettling’ and ‘unnerving’, the film isn’t truly scary unless Pennywise in clown form is on the screen. That’s mainly down to some of the CGI used to create the monsters. As in its predecessor, IT: Chapter Two’s monsters feel too glossy, lacking in any true sense of realism.
Nevertheless, IT: Chapter Two is a confident finale to one of 2017’s best films; filled with exceptional performances and the wit and humour that made its predecessor such a hit. While not reaching quite the same dizzy heights as that film and relying even more on jump scares, as a pair, it’s hard to think of a horror series that has made its mark in the last decade quite as much as IT.
⭐⭐⭐⭐ IT: Chapter Two in 4DX
I was unsure how a horror film would translate to 4DX but the good news is that the experience became even more immersive, with sight, smell and feel all being utilised to great effect.
Soaring over Derry, the advanced seating that 4DX provides means that you feel like you’re flying over the town too. Of course, while this is a pleasant experience when the film is playing nicely, as soon as the horror hits, 4DX jolts you back to reality with some well-timed movement, strobe lighting and weather effects.
A nice touch in this film was the use of smell, something not utilised in Hobbs & Shaw. Every time Pennywise was about to appear on screen, a sweet aroma would fill the cinema, lulling you into a false sense of security. It was a nice effect that added to the drama of the film beautifully.
Naturally, being a horror film, rain was utilised a lot and having the spray nozzle behind your seat was great. Although you are able to turn it off if you so wish, having the weather effects left on meant that you became immersed in what was happening on screen.
This was my first experience of 4D cinema utilised in a horror film and the overall impact was one that added to the terror rather than detracted from it. I would highly recommend viewing IT: Chapter Two in 4DX, and you can book tickets at 19 Cineworld locations across the UK.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Nov 30, 2017
My local cinema held a secret screening last night, and Molly's Game was the surprise movie they showed. Beforehand, I'd probably only seen the name of the movie along with the accompanying poster and I had literally no idea what it was about. If I'd seen the trailer, and knew a bit more about the plot movie, I don't think I'd have gone to watch it, but it actually turned out to be a pretty enjoyable movie. Despite the fact that there were about 10 other movies I was secretly hoping they'd screen instead, I wasn't disappointed by this. That's the gamble you take with a secret screening I guess.
Molly's Game is based on a true story, and the accompanying book written by Molly Bloom. It's written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, writer of, among other things, The West Wing and The Newsroom, so you get a pretty good idea of the quick-witted snappy dialogue that you're in for. Jessica Chastain plays Molly, and she is just absolutely incredible in this movie. Not knowing the basic story it was based on, the opening scenes changed direction so many times that I was left wondering what the movie was actually going to be about and which direction it was headed. Narrated by Molly, we're initially introduced to her life as an Olympic class skier. She describes her younger life training with her stern father (Kevin Costner), the spinal surgery which put her out of action for a while, her fight back to the top and the tragic accident which then put her out of action once more. Then we jump forward 12 years, where Molly is suddenly woken one morning by a phone call. It's the FBI, and they want her to come out of her room within the next few minutes or they're going to break down the door. When she does come out, she is cuffed and arrested for running high-stakes poker games. We then see her in the office of Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba), a top (and expensive) lawyer who Molly would like to represent her. The remainder of the movie then switches between Molly narrating and filling us in on the events of the last decade or so leading up to now, and Molly and Charlie as they bicker and work together in piecing together her defence.
The first half of the movie is enjoyable as we follow Molly, working her way up from bored secretary to running hugely expensive poker games for the rich, famous and weird in Los Angeles and then New York. As mentioned earlier, Jessica Chastain is simply amazing, given a superb performance as we follow Molly from troubled child to shrewd, intelligent business woman and 'poker princess'. At the height of her game she was legally raking in thousands of dollars each night, and even getting on the wrong side of the Russian mob. However, after a while it all starts to drag a little and I feel the movie could have benefited from a much tighter run time (it's 160 minutes long). Things pick up again towards the end though, and Costner and Elba get their chance to shine. Well worth watching.
Molly's Game is based on a true story, and the accompanying book written by Molly Bloom. It's written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, writer of, among other things, The West Wing and The Newsroom, so you get a pretty good idea of the quick-witted snappy dialogue that you're in for. Jessica Chastain plays Molly, and she is just absolutely incredible in this movie. Not knowing the basic story it was based on, the opening scenes changed direction so many times that I was left wondering what the movie was actually going to be about and which direction it was headed. Narrated by Molly, we're initially introduced to her life as an Olympic class skier. She describes her younger life training with her stern father (Kevin Costner), the spinal surgery which put her out of action for a while, her fight back to the top and the tragic accident which then put her out of action once more. Then we jump forward 12 years, where Molly is suddenly woken one morning by a phone call. It's the FBI, and they want her to come out of her room within the next few minutes or they're going to break down the door. When she does come out, she is cuffed and arrested for running high-stakes poker games. We then see her in the office of Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba), a top (and expensive) lawyer who Molly would like to represent her. The remainder of the movie then switches between Molly narrating and filling us in on the events of the last decade or so leading up to now, and Molly and Charlie as they bicker and work together in piecing together her defence.
The first half of the movie is enjoyable as we follow Molly, working her way up from bored secretary to running hugely expensive poker games for the rich, famous and weird in Los Angeles and then New York. As mentioned earlier, Jessica Chastain is simply amazing, given a superb performance as we follow Molly from troubled child to shrewd, intelligent business woman and 'poker princess'. At the height of her game she was legally raking in thousands of dollars each night, and even getting on the wrong side of the Russian mob. However, after a while it all starts to drag a little and I feel the movie could have benefited from a much tighter run time (it's 160 minutes long). Things pick up again towards the end though, and Costner and Elba get their chance to shine. Well worth watching.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Movies Are Prayers in Books
Jun 18, 2017
An Interesting Perspective
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Subtitled How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, film critic and committed Christian, Josh Larsen, writes Movies Are Prayers to explain his perspective that films are one of our ways of communicating with God. Films, or movies as they are oftentimes referred to in this book, can be many things from a form of escapism to historical information and artistic expression, but as Larsen maintains, they can also be prayers.
“Movies are our way of telling God what we think about this world and our place in it.” Apart from those based on Biblical characters or Christian messages, films are not usually a deliberate attempt at speaking to God. What Larsen is suggesting is that God can be found in places you would not expect – the cinema, for instance. Prayer is a human instinct, even for those who have no religious ties. We are forever asking “why am I here?” or “why me?” alongside feelings of gratitude and love for our positive experiences in life.
Josh Larsen explores several expressions of prayer, including the tenets of the Lord’s Prayer, to examine numerous films from popular classics to contemporary Disney. Beginning with wonder at the natural world (Avatar, Into The Wild), positive forms of prayer are identified in well-known cinematography, such as reconciliation (Where the Wild Things Are), meditation (Bambi), joy (Top Hat, and most musicals) and confession (Toy Story, Trainwreck). But Larsen does not stop there, he goes on to use examples of emotions that many may not consider forms of prayer: anger (Fight Club, The Piano) and lament (12 Years a Slave, Godzilla).
To back up his theory, Josh Larsen relates film sequences with Bible passages, for example, the prayers of David and Job. He likens the ending of Children of Men with the Christmas story and identifies the worshipping of false gods with Wizard of Oz. Larsen also suggests the obedience of the main character in It’s a Wonderful Life reflects the experiences of Jonah.
As well as Biblical theory, Larsen refers to citations from other respected Christian writers on the matter of prayer, challenging preconceived notions of both the religious and the atheist. Despite the fact Movies Are Prayers is heavily steeped in religious connotations, it may appeal to film buffs who wish to delve deeper into the hidden meanings of films.
Although the examples in this book are mostly well-known titles, it is unlikely that readers will have watched all the films. Helpfully, Josh Larsen provides details and descriptions of the scenes he has chosen to focus on so that even if you are not familiar with the story, it is possible to understand the author’s perspective. Having said that, Movies Are Prayers contains a lot of spoilers.
Everyone has their own personal view on Christian theory and prayer, so Movies Are Prayers can only be treated as an idea rather than gospel. However, Josh Larsen has developed an interesting theory that makes you think more about the ways we can communicate with God, even when we may not have deliberately chosen to. Being easy to read and not overly long (200 pages), Movies Are Prayers is the ideal book for film-loving Christians.
Subtitled How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, film critic and committed Christian, Josh Larsen, writes Movies Are Prayers to explain his perspective that films are one of our ways of communicating with God. Films, or movies as they are oftentimes referred to in this book, can be many things from a form of escapism to historical information and artistic expression, but as Larsen maintains, they can also be prayers.
“Movies are our way of telling God what we think about this world and our place in it.” Apart from those based on Biblical characters or Christian messages, films are not usually a deliberate attempt at speaking to God. What Larsen is suggesting is that God can be found in places you would not expect – the cinema, for instance. Prayer is a human instinct, even for those who have no religious ties. We are forever asking “why am I here?” or “why me?” alongside feelings of gratitude and love for our positive experiences in life.
Josh Larsen explores several expressions of prayer, including the tenets of the Lord’s Prayer, to examine numerous films from popular classics to contemporary Disney. Beginning with wonder at the natural world (Avatar, Into The Wild), positive forms of prayer are identified in well-known cinematography, such as reconciliation (Where the Wild Things Are), meditation (Bambi), joy (Top Hat, and most musicals) and confession (Toy Story, Trainwreck). But Larsen does not stop there, he goes on to use examples of emotions that many may not consider forms of prayer: anger (Fight Club, The Piano) and lament (12 Years a Slave, Godzilla).
To back up his theory, Josh Larsen relates film sequences with Bible passages, for example, the prayers of David and Job. He likens the ending of Children of Men with the Christmas story and identifies the worshipping of false gods with Wizard of Oz. Larsen also suggests the obedience of the main character in It’s a Wonderful Life reflects the experiences of Jonah.
As well as Biblical theory, Larsen refers to citations from other respected Christian writers on the matter of prayer, challenging preconceived notions of both the religious and the atheist. Despite the fact Movies Are Prayers is heavily steeped in religious connotations, it may appeal to film buffs who wish to delve deeper into the hidden meanings of films.
Although the examples in this book are mostly well-known titles, it is unlikely that readers will have watched all the films. Helpfully, Josh Larsen provides details and descriptions of the scenes he has chosen to focus on so that even if you are not familiar with the story, it is possible to understand the author’s perspective. Having said that, Movies Are Prayers contains a lot of spoilers.
Everyone has their own personal view on Christian theory and prayer, so Movies Are Prayers can only be treated as an idea rather than gospel. However, Josh Larsen has developed an interesting theory that makes you think more about the ways we can communicate with God, even when we may not have deliberately chosen to. Being easy to read and not overly long (200 pages), Movies Are Prayers is the ideal book for film-loving Christians.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Marvel films have become a staple for any movie fan’s diet over the past few years. We’ve had some bloody fantastic ones; Spiderman 2, Iron Man and the second X-Men to name a few; and we’ve had some pretty rubbish ones, Hulk, The Fantastic Four and Spiderman 3 are ones that spring to mind.
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avatar (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
James Cameron has had his work cut out trying to eclipse the success of his previous film Titanic, way back in 1997 and to this day it remains the highest grossing film of all time. It’s hard to believe that it’s been 12 years since his name was plastered on the big screen but he’s back with Avatar, a science fiction epic to rival Titanic’s crown.
Avatar has been marketed to death with 10-minute trailers littering cinemas across the globe and it hasn’t stopped there, James Cameron has been parading himself and the films stars around like toy soldiers to ensure it receives as much attention as he thinks it deserves, but is it actually any good?
Let’s start with the premise, an ex marine (Sam Worthington) who has been paralysed from the waist down in battle has been sent to an alien planet called Pandora to help mine for a very valuable metal and would you believe it, it’s name is ‘Unobtainium’, no jokes. Whilst there, he meets the Na’vi, an alien race that resemble giant smurfs. He becomes intrigued by their way of life, not to mention falling in love with one of them (Zoe Saldana). No, I’m not kidding and yes it does sound ridiculous.
The film starts pretty slowly, but then again at just under three hours long it has plenty of time to build momentum and after those first 10-minutes you get sucked into the whole environment of Pandora in the most dazzling 3D I have ever seen in the cinema. The special effects are complimented perfectly with the 3D experience and the alien environment is stunning, so stunning in fact that you have to see it, to believe it.
Considering the story is about blue smurf like aliens and is to say the least, a little thin on the ground; I was surprised to be sat there with all different kinds of emotion splattered across my face. One minute I would be wanting to shout out at the screen in sheer rage at what was going on, other times I would be sobbing my heart out in some of the most upsetting scenes I have seen in a modern Sci-fi. It just doesn’t happen, Sci-fi and tears just don’t go together; it’s like eating chocolate with fish. The transition between action, thriller, comedy and drama is exceptionally watertight and Avatar blends these genres all perfectly to form what is a complete package of a film.
Unfortunately, whilst the acting is sublime from most corners, with Zoe Saldana being the stand out performance as one of the female Na’vi, some of the human actors don’t really get enough screen time; annoying considering the films length. Sigourney Weaver is viciously underused and even though she plays her character with brilliance, she needed more screen time to fully develop the role.
Thankfully though, Cameron’s film limits the faults to those few and Avatar remains a magical ride, which whilst not being utterly original, reeks of box office championship and may just take over Titanic as the biggest film of all time.
Avatar is then, what everyone had ever wanted it to be, it combines unparalleled special effects in superb 3D with fabulous performances from the actors who really looked like they wanted to be in their roles. Trust the hype and you will witness history in the making.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/17/avatar-2009/
Avatar has been marketed to death with 10-minute trailers littering cinemas across the globe and it hasn’t stopped there, James Cameron has been parading himself and the films stars around like toy soldiers to ensure it receives as much attention as he thinks it deserves, but is it actually any good?
Let’s start with the premise, an ex marine (Sam Worthington) who has been paralysed from the waist down in battle has been sent to an alien planet called Pandora to help mine for a very valuable metal and would you believe it, it’s name is ‘Unobtainium’, no jokes. Whilst there, he meets the Na’vi, an alien race that resemble giant smurfs. He becomes intrigued by their way of life, not to mention falling in love with one of them (Zoe Saldana). No, I’m not kidding and yes it does sound ridiculous.
The film starts pretty slowly, but then again at just under three hours long it has plenty of time to build momentum and after those first 10-minutes you get sucked into the whole environment of Pandora in the most dazzling 3D I have ever seen in the cinema. The special effects are complimented perfectly with the 3D experience and the alien environment is stunning, so stunning in fact that you have to see it, to believe it.
Considering the story is about blue smurf like aliens and is to say the least, a little thin on the ground; I was surprised to be sat there with all different kinds of emotion splattered across my face. One minute I would be wanting to shout out at the screen in sheer rage at what was going on, other times I would be sobbing my heart out in some of the most upsetting scenes I have seen in a modern Sci-fi. It just doesn’t happen, Sci-fi and tears just don’t go together; it’s like eating chocolate with fish. The transition between action, thriller, comedy and drama is exceptionally watertight and Avatar blends these genres all perfectly to form what is a complete package of a film.
Unfortunately, whilst the acting is sublime from most corners, with Zoe Saldana being the stand out performance as one of the female Na’vi, some of the human actors don’t really get enough screen time; annoying considering the films length. Sigourney Weaver is viciously underused and even though she plays her character with brilliance, she needed more screen time to fully develop the role.
Thankfully though, Cameron’s film limits the faults to those few and Avatar remains a magical ride, which whilst not being utterly original, reeks of box office championship and may just take over Titanic as the biggest film of all time.
Avatar is then, what everyone had ever wanted it to be, it combines unparalleled special effects in superb 3D with fabulous performances from the actors who really looked like they wanted to be in their roles. Trust the hype and you will witness history in the making.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/17/avatar-2009/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Spielberg, where are you?
Roald Dahl’s inspiring novels have had a chequered history when it comes to turning them into films. Danny DeVito’s Matilda is widely regarded as one of the best adaptations, with Tim Burton’s Charlie & the Chocolate Factory rendered a monstrosity by fans of the author and movie critics alike.
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Great Ape-scape
Six years ago, I didn’t think I’d be telling you that a remake of the classic Planet of the Apes and its sequel would go on to be one of the finest double acts since The Two Ronnies, but that’s exactly what has happened.
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated American Sniper (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Incredibly Harrowing
There’s something about Clint Eastwood’s varied directing career that puts him among the greats of the craft. Along with Spielberg, Scott and Fincher, Eastwood has created some of cinema’s greatest films – yet he goes about it in a completely different fashion to his peers, he doesn’t shout about it.
Here, Eastwood directs Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller in his latest offering, American Sniper, but does it stand as one of the better films on his resume?
American Sniper follows the story of Chris Kyle, a decorated marksman in the US military at a time when the war against terror strikes fear into the hearts of practically everyone across the globe.
An Oscar-nominated Bradley Cooper plays the lead role beautifully, in what is the best performance of his career, while Sienna Miller makes a welcome return to the big screen as his loyal wife Taya.
As the film plays out, we see the duo go about their lives – apart and together as they come to terms with raising a family, despite Kyle’s constant deployment to Iraq and the many troubles that brings as he tries to resume normal life.
Eastwood really hits hard with the imagery, never glamorising the war on terror or conflict itself and this is perhaps the strongest part of the picture. Many films in the genre almost feel like military propaganda, but here, the brutality is raw in the emotions of the lead characters and squalid locations.
The surroundings themselves are beautifully shot with Eastwood’s trademark flair for long, sweeping camera angles being used in abundance. Thankfully he lets the stunning locations speak for themselves throughout the majority of the film, not tampering with them despite that becoming a norm recently.
These scenery shots are juxtaposed with the damp, dirty conditions the soldiers must deal with frequently, with sunset-flooded vistas giving way to crumbling buildings and claustrophobic rooms.
However, the very nature of the movie, following Cooper’s character on his various Tours, does get repetitive at times and there are certain moments that feel like you’re watching someone playing a video game like Resident Evil or Call of Duty as one minor set piece leads to a larger one – though the tense final act makes up for this somewhat.
American Sniper also makes you increasingly aware of the human cost that comes with conflict. This is a bleak film, make no mistake and it’s especially harrowing seeing how Taya (Sienna Miller) copes with being away from her husband for long periods of time, especially with the job of raising a family.
Despite a running time of over two hours, Sniper never feels long, a testament to the snappy pacing and wonderful performances Sienna+Miller+Sienna+Miller+Films+American+dQWprK3Evu6lthroughout, and despite a lack of backstory for some of the other characters, Eastwood delves into the lifestyle of Chris and his wife beautifully.
Overall, Eastwood has another memorable film to add to his CV, and whilst it would be insulting to call it ‘fun’, American Sniper is enjoyable to watch in a whole different way. Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller are both excellent and when the whole cinema leaves the screen in complete silence, you know that the message has got across.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/23/incredibly-harrowing-american-sniper-review/
Here, Eastwood directs Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller in his latest offering, American Sniper, but does it stand as one of the better films on his resume?
American Sniper follows the story of Chris Kyle, a decorated marksman in the US military at a time when the war against terror strikes fear into the hearts of practically everyone across the globe.
An Oscar-nominated Bradley Cooper plays the lead role beautifully, in what is the best performance of his career, while Sienna Miller makes a welcome return to the big screen as his loyal wife Taya.
As the film plays out, we see the duo go about their lives – apart and together as they come to terms with raising a family, despite Kyle’s constant deployment to Iraq and the many troubles that brings as he tries to resume normal life.
Eastwood really hits hard with the imagery, never glamorising the war on terror or conflict itself and this is perhaps the strongest part of the picture. Many films in the genre almost feel like military propaganda, but here, the brutality is raw in the emotions of the lead characters and squalid locations.
The surroundings themselves are beautifully shot with Eastwood’s trademark flair for long, sweeping camera angles being used in abundance. Thankfully he lets the stunning locations speak for themselves throughout the majority of the film, not tampering with them despite that becoming a norm recently.
These scenery shots are juxtaposed with the damp, dirty conditions the soldiers must deal with frequently, with sunset-flooded vistas giving way to crumbling buildings and claustrophobic rooms.
However, the very nature of the movie, following Cooper’s character on his various Tours, does get repetitive at times and there are certain moments that feel like you’re watching someone playing a video game like Resident Evil or Call of Duty as one minor set piece leads to a larger one – though the tense final act makes up for this somewhat.
American Sniper also makes you increasingly aware of the human cost that comes with conflict. This is a bleak film, make no mistake and it’s especially harrowing seeing how Taya (Sienna Miller) copes with being away from her husband for long periods of time, especially with the job of raising a family.
Despite a running time of over two hours, Sniper never feels long, a testament to the snappy pacing and wonderful performances Sienna+Miller+Sienna+Miller+Films+American+dQWprK3Evu6lthroughout, and despite a lack of backstory for some of the other characters, Eastwood delves into the lifestyle of Chris and his wife beautifully.
Overall, Eastwood has another memorable film to add to his CV, and whilst it would be insulting to call it ‘fun’, American Sniper is enjoyable to watch in a whole different way. Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller are both excellent and when the whole cinema leaves the screen in complete silence, you know that the message has got across.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/23/incredibly-harrowing-american-sniper-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/