Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Spectacularly Dumb
With box office takings of over $1.5billion, it was obvious that Universal Pictures would never let Furious 7 be the end of a multi-billion dollar franchise, no matter what many fans truly wanted.
The previous instalment was also, surprisingly, warmly received by critics who were impressed with how sensitively the naturally bombastic series handled the death of lead star Paul Walker. Two years on, the crew are back with Fast and Furious 8; does it do enough to keep the franchise on a high?
Now that Dom (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their honeymoon, Brian and Mia have retired from the game, and the rest of the crew have been exonerated, the plucky team of globetrotters has found a normal life of sorts. But when a mysterious woman (Charlize Theron) seduces Dom back into a world of crime that he can’t seem to escape from, the rest of the gang will face things that will test them like never before.
Newcomer to the franchise, director F. Gary Gray (Law Abiding Citizen, The Italian Job) manages to craft what is perhaps the most ridiculous entry in the series to date, plagued with tonal imbalances and plot holes so big you could fit the QE2 into them with ease. But you know what? It’s probably the most fun you’ll have in the cinema all year.
The cast are all reunited, barring Paul Walker’s Brian and those publicised rifts between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere to be seen as everyone on screen appears to be having the time of their lives. New recruit Charlize Theron adds a level of class to proceedings as steely supervillain, Cipher. She’s a cracking addition to the series and her acting prowess oozes from every pore, despite the often clunky dialogue.
Of course, successful predecessors command bigger budgets for their follow-ups and Furious 8 is no exception. $250million was spent on creating this film and it shows. It’s a feast for the eyes with explosions, shiny cars, stunning locations and breath-taking special effects. The result is frankly exceptional. From Cuba to NYC and from Berlin to Russia (actually filmed in Iceland), the vistas are nicely filmed and beautifully executed.
The action sequences are also choreographed very well, but from a franchise built on these foundations, I’d expect nothing less. In particular, a street chase through New York City is edge of your seat stuff as literally hundreds of vehicles worm their way through its congested streets.
Negatives? Well, the story is awkward despite some decent twists, the aforementioned plot holes cause a few headaches for a series that prides itself on continuity and some of the comedic elements are poorly placed, but in this eighth outing, much of that can be forgiven. After all, what other franchise could survive eight films and still prove as exciting as its first?
Overall, Fast and Furious 8 is unashamedly ridiculous but who cares? With exceptional special effects and a great new adversary in Charlize Theron, the series once again manages to surpass expectation. Each film tries its best to outdo its predecessor and before long, we’ll no doubt be heading to Mars with the gang. I’m up for that. Are you?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/13/spectacularly-dumb-fast-furious-8-review/
The previous instalment was also, surprisingly, warmly received by critics who were impressed with how sensitively the naturally bombastic series handled the death of lead star Paul Walker. Two years on, the crew are back with Fast and Furious 8; does it do enough to keep the franchise on a high?
Now that Dom (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their honeymoon, Brian and Mia have retired from the game, and the rest of the crew have been exonerated, the plucky team of globetrotters has found a normal life of sorts. But when a mysterious woman (Charlize Theron) seduces Dom back into a world of crime that he can’t seem to escape from, the rest of the gang will face things that will test them like never before.
Newcomer to the franchise, director F. Gary Gray (Law Abiding Citizen, The Italian Job) manages to craft what is perhaps the most ridiculous entry in the series to date, plagued with tonal imbalances and plot holes so big you could fit the QE2 into them with ease. But you know what? It’s probably the most fun you’ll have in the cinema all year.
The cast are all reunited, barring Paul Walker’s Brian and those publicised rifts between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere to be seen as everyone on screen appears to be having the time of their lives. New recruit Charlize Theron adds a level of class to proceedings as steely supervillain, Cipher. She’s a cracking addition to the series and her acting prowess oozes from every pore, despite the often clunky dialogue.
Of course, successful predecessors command bigger budgets for their follow-ups and Furious 8 is no exception. $250million was spent on creating this film and it shows. It’s a feast for the eyes with explosions, shiny cars, stunning locations and breath-taking special effects. The result is frankly exceptional. From Cuba to NYC and from Berlin to Russia (actually filmed in Iceland), the vistas are nicely filmed and beautifully executed.
The action sequences are also choreographed very well, but from a franchise built on these foundations, I’d expect nothing less. In particular, a street chase through New York City is edge of your seat stuff as literally hundreds of vehicles worm their way through its congested streets.
Negatives? Well, the story is awkward despite some decent twists, the aforementioned plot holes cause a few headaches for a series that prides itself on continuity and some of the comedic elements are poorly placed, but in this eighth outing, much of that can be forgiven. After all, what other franchise could survive eight films and still prove as exciting as its first?
Overall, Fast and Furious 8 is unashamedly ridiculous but who cares? With exceptional special effects and a great new adversary in Charlize Theron, the series once again manages to surpass expectation. Each film tries its best to outdo its predecessor and before long, we’ll no doubt be heading to Mars with the gang. I’m up for that. Are you?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/13/spectacularly-dumb-fast-furious-8-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Snow White has certainly been receiving a lot of attention this year and it’s been hard to ignore two films competing with each other to win the accolade of best cinema adaptation.
Julia Roberts has already starred in sickly sweet adaptation Mirror Mirror and here Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame takes on the lead role in the gritty, dramatic adaptation of the fairytale. But is it a good take on a children’s classic?
Snow White & The Huntsman opens as you would expect with a look back at the aforementioned Princess’ traumatic childhood, from the death of her mother, to witnessing the death of her father King Magnus, it seems like any normal child would’ve had a few problems after this but Snow seems a little more reserved.
Snow White’s father is killed at the hands of her wicked stepmother, played wonderfully by Charlize Theron who really gets her teeth into the role she’s been given and plays the character with a nice dose of evil intertwined with brief moments of sincerity. Those of you familiar with the story will no doubt know that Snow White hides with the seven dwarves to escape the clutches of her stepmother, but more on that later.
Chris Hemsworth, who seems to be getting more and more acting jobs these days does a nice job as the widowed, constantly drunk huntsman, though his accent is a little hard to assess, no doubt done to cover his Australian roots.
Hemsworth is sent by the wicked Queen to kill Snow White so that her eternal youth isn’t threatened but things run less than smoothly as he realises that he is being tricked, he and Snow then decide to go on the run, bumping into the seven dwarves along the way.
The Kingdom in which they live is beautifully realised in fabulous CGI, from the dark forest, to the towering stone walls of the castle and then further into the ‘sanctuary’ a place where people can go to relax and unwind. Fairies, badgers, foxes, rabbits, mushrooms with beady little eyes and moss covered tortoises are amongst the creatures here and ruling over them all is the spirit of the forest, a fabulous and very real looking white stag.
This is, however, where Snow White & The Huntsman falls short. Yes, the CGI is impeccable and yes the acting is good, but it all feels a little bit soulless. It’s all about the frills rather than creating a deep and meaningful story. It has the basics right but it’s impossible to care about the characters because there isn’t enough back-story. Each set piece is interspersed with a little bit of emotion, but it’s not really enough and because of this, the entire film feels disjointed.
This is made worse by the fact the film is stretched to over two hours when there isn’t really enough story to create a two hour film.
Unfortunately, these points detract from what is a wonderful and beautifully realised adaptation of a classic children’s fairytale. To compare it to Mirror Mirror would be unfair as they are both so different. Snow White & The Huntsman is like last year’s Alice in Wonderland, it all looks and sounds great, but is ultimately; decidedly average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/06/07/snow-white-the-huntsman-review/
Julia Roberts has already starred in sickly sweet adaptation Mirror Mirror and here Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame takes on the lead role in the gritty, dramatic adaptation of the fairytale. But is it a good take on a children’s classic?
Snow White & The Huntsman opens as you would expect with a look back at the aforementioned Princess’ traumatic childhood, from the death of her mother, to witnessing the death of her father King Magnus, it seems like any normal child would’ve had a few problems after this but Snow seems a little more reserved.
Snow White’s father is killed at the hands of her wicked stepmother, played wonderfully by Charlize Theron who really gets her teeth into the role she’s been given and plays the character with a nice dose of evil intertwined with brief moments of sincerity. Those of you familiar with the story will no doubt know that Snow White hides with the seven dwarves to escape the clutches of her stepmother, but more on that later.
Chris Hemsworth, who seems to be getting more and more acting jobs these days does a nice job as the widowed, constantly drunk huntsman, though his accent is a little hard to assess, no doubt done to cover his Australian roots.
Hemsworth is sent by the wicked Queen to kill Snow White so that her eternal youth isn’t threatened but things run less than smoothly as he realises that he is being tricked, he and Snow then decide to go on the run, bumping into the seven dwarves along the way.
The Kingdom in which they live is beautifully realised in fabulous CGI, from the dark forest, to the towering stone walls of the castle and then further into the ‘sanctuary’ a place where people can go to relax and unwind. Fairies, badgers, foxes, rabbits, mushrooms with beady little eyes and moss covered tortoises are amongst the creatures here and ruling over them all is the spirit of the forest, a fabulous and very real looking white stag.
This is, however, where Snow White & The Huntsman falls short. Yes, the CGI is impeccable and yes the acting is good, but it all feels a little bit soulless. It’s all about the frills rather than creating a deep and meaningful story. It has the basics right but it’s impossible to care about the characters because there isn’t enough back-story. Each set piece is interspersed with a little bit of emotion, but it’s not really enough and because of this, the entire film feels disjointed.
This is made worse by the fact the film is stretched to over two hours when there isn’t really enough story to create a two hour film.
Unfortunately, these points detract from what is a wonderful and beautifully realised adaptation of a classic children’s fairytale. To compare it to Mirror Mirror would be unfair as they are both so different. Snow White & The Huntsman is like last year’s Alice in Wonderland, it all looks and sounds great, but is ultimately; decidedly average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/06/07/snow-white-the-huntsman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A charming adaptation
Wolves, witches and giants all appear in the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s popular musical which takes all the best bits of our favourite fairytales and mashes them together in one engaging, song-filled rollercoaster.
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Jul 13, 2018
Surprising Enjoyable Action Movie
As I headed into Skyscraper at my local cinema, I tweeted something about disengaging my brain for a couple of hours, fully open to the prospect of some completely ridiculous action, courtesy of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. That's exactly what I ended up with, and I actually really enjoyed it all too.
The movie opens 10 years ago, with FBI agent Will Sawyer (Johnson) and his team attending a domestic hostage situation which goes badly wrong. Back in the present, Will is now an amputee and married to the military nurse that cared for him during that incident (Neve Campbell). They've got 2 young kids and the whole family is in Hong Kong where Will has been hired as security consultant for The Pearl, a new state-of-the-art skyscraper and the tallest building in the world. A news reel montage fires off lots of impressive facts and figures about the building, hardly giving you time to digest or even question them. Let's just say, it cost billions of dollars, looks incredibly futuristic (and a bit silly) and is a scientific wonder of the world. Before The Pearl opens up its doors for people to live and work in though, Will needs to sign off on fire safety and security.
We're shown Will putting on his false leg, letting us know how that all works in preparation for later scenes in the movie. Will then fixes his wife's phone before he rushes out of the door and ushers a line so obviously important to the movie it's actually annoyingly distracting. So important is this piece of information, he actually uses two variations of it within minutes of each other too - "Remember, you can fix 90% of problems by just turning it off and on again...". Like I say, just disengage your brain, don't worry about it, and you'll be fine.
If you've seen the trailer, you'll have gathered that Wills family are the only residents in The Pearl, with the buildings owner and his team way up top in the penthouse. You'll have gathered that this is attempting to be a Die Hard / Towering Inferno crossover, and that there are bad guys involved. You'll no doubt have also seen the famous leap from a crane by Dwayne Johnsons character into the burning skyscraper. This is where the movie really kicks into action.
Now, I was watching this in 3D, so I'm not sure if it will have quite the same effect on a TV screen at home, but I was literally on the edge of my seat whenever Will was either dangling or jumping 96 floors in the air (which is a lot), while a Hong Kong crowd gasps and cheers on the streets below. The action and peril is relentless, repeatedly moving Will and his family from one dangerous set piece to another. While not quite as funny or charming as he is in his other movies, Skyscraper is still all about Dwayne Johnson though, and all other characters come out of this pretty short changed. Neve Campbell gets a couple of chances to kick some ass, but otherwise she's pretty underused. The bad guys aren't particularly effective, or memorable, neither are the police team down on the ground.
It's predictable and it's ridiculous. But I absolutely loved it.
The movie opens 10 years ago, with FBI agent Will Sawyer (Johnson) and his team attending a domestic hostage situation which goes badly wrong. Back in the present, Will is now an amputee and married to the military nurse that cared for him during that incident (Neve Campbell). They've got 2 young kids and the whole family is in Hong Kong where Will has been hired as security consultant for The Pearl, a new state-of-the-art skyscraper and the tallest building in the world. A news reel montage fires off lots of impressive facts and figures about the building, hardly giving you time to digest or even question them. Let's just say, it cost billions of dollars, looks incredibly futuristic (and a bit silly) and is a scientific wonder of the world. Before The Pearl opens up its doors for people to live and work in though, Will needs to sign off on fire safety and security.
We're shown Will putting on his false leg, letting us know how that all works in preparation for later scenes in the movie. Will then fixes his wife's phone before he rushes out of the door and ushers a line so obviously important to the movie it's actually annoyingly distracting. So important is this piece of information, he actually uses two variations of it within minutes of each other too - "Remember, you can fix 90% of problems by just turning it off and on again...". Like I say, just disengage your brain, don't worry about it, and you'll be fine.
If you've seen the trailer, you'll have gathered that Wills family are the only residents in The Pearl, with the buildings owner and his team way up top in the penthouse. You'll have gathered that this is attempting to be a Die Hard / Towering Inferno crossover, and that there are bad guys involved. You'll no doubt have also seen the famous leap from a crane by Dwayne Johnsons character into the burning skyscraper. This is where the movie really kicks into action.
Now, I was watching this in 3D, so I'm not sure if it will have quite the same effect on a TV screen at home, but I was literally on the edge of my seat whenever Will was either dangling or jumping 96 floors in the air (which is a lot), while a Hong Kong crowd gasps and cheers on the streets below. The action and peril is relentless, repeatedly moving Will and his family from one dangerous set piece to another. While not quite as funny or charming as he is in his other movies, Skyscraper is still all about Dwayne Johnson though, and all other characters come out of this pretty short changed. Neve Campbell gets a couple of chances to kick some ass, but otherwise she's pretty underused. The bad guys aren't particularly effective, or memorable, neither are the police team down on the ground.
It's predictable and it's ridiculous. But I absolutely loved it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Aug 23, 2018
You don't have to be a CRA to enjoy this film
I am not Crazy (debatable), Rich (not even close) or Asian (not going to touch that one). So, it was an interesting test to see if I would be entertained by CRAZY RICH ASIANS, a RomCom focused on groups that I am not a part of.
Surprisingly, the answer is not just "yes", it's "heck, yes!"
Based on the bestselling book by Kevin Kwan, Crazy Rich Asians (CRA from hereout) tells the story of Asian-American College Economics Professor Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) who heads to Singapore for a wedding with her boyfriend, Nick Young (Henry Golding) unknowingly heading into the "belly of the beast" of his ultra-rich family and the various relatives, friends and hangers-on who are not shy about letting Rachel know if they approve of her.
This film is being hailed as a landmark in Cinema, for a mainstream movie is filled with nothing by Asian actors and actresses, and it acquits itself nicely not just as a mainstream film filled with Asian actors and actresses, but as a GOOD film regardless of the nationalities of the people portrayed and the actors portraying them.
For the most part, Director Jon M. Chu has crafted a beautiful, funny film that sends a message and brings the viewer into a world that is, heretofore, not seen on the screen. And he brings this to the viewer with a loving eye and deep, soulful heart that shines throughout.
As the lead couple, Wu and Golding are charming, charismatic and VERY GOOD TO LOOK AT, they are an easy pair of people to spend some time with. Most of the other actors on the screen are very well cast and some standouts include Nico Santos as Oliver and good ol' Ken Jeong as Wye Mun Goh.
But it is the work of three very good, very different, but very PROFESSIONAL actresses that caught my eye. The first is Awkwafina (OCEAN'S 8) as an old College roommate of Rachel's who is the funniest thing in the film (think Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids) she brings a much needed level of irreverence to the stodginess of Nick's family. Gemma Chan (TV's HUMANS) carries a good deal of the dramatic and emotional weight of this film as Nick's Sister - a "cool on the outside, emotionally troubled on the inside" soul who steals any scene she is in. I think we have a real star in the making with her.
And then there is Michelle Yeoh (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON) as Nick's "Tiger Mom" who disapproves of his girlfriend and her "American ways". She's a traditionalist who gave up quite a bit for her family and expects the same level of familiar commitment from her children. It would be easy to make this character one-dimensional, but in Yeoh's capable hands, it is anything but.
It's not a perfect film - I felt it dragged a bit in the middle - but the beginning and (especially) the last 1/2 hour of this film is funny, poignant and emotional (bring your hankies - you're gonna need them).
Oh...and stay through the first part of the credits, there is a scene about 2 minutes in that sets up the sequel (there are 3 books in this series).
This is a good film for EVERYONE - whether your are a CRA or not!
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Surprisingly, the answer is not just "yes", it's "heck, yes!"
Based on the bestselling book by Kevin Kwan, Crazy Rich Asians (CRA from hereout) tells the story of Asian-American College Economics Professor Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) who heads to Singapore for a wedding with her boyfriend, Nick Young (Henry Golding) unknowingly heading into the "belly of the beast" of his ultra-rich family and the various relatives, friends and hangers-on who are not shy about letting Rachel know if they approve of her.
This film is being hailed as a landmark in Cinema, for a mainstream movie is filled with nothing by Asian actors and actresses, and it acquits itself nicely not just as a mainstream film filled with Asian actors and actresses, but as a GOOD film regardless of the nationalities of the people portrayed and the actors portraying them.
For the most part, Director Jon M. Chu has crafted a beautiful, funny film that sends a message and brings the viewer into a world that is, heretofore, not seen on the screen. And he brings this to the viewer with a loving eye and deep, soulful heart that shines throughout.
As the lead couple, Wu and Golding are charming, charismatic and VERY GOOD TO LOOK AT, they are an easy pair of people to spend some time with. Most of the other actors on the screen are very well cast and some standouts include Nico Santos as Oliver and good ol' Ken Jeong as Wye Mun Goh.
But it is the work of three very good, very different, but very PROFESSIONAL actresses that caught my eye. The first is Awkwafina (OCEAN'S 8) as an old College roommate of Rachel's who is the funniest thing in the film (think Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids) she brings a much needed level of irreverence to the stodginess of Nick's family. Gemma Chan (TV's HUMANS) carries a good deal of the dramatic and emotional weight of this film as Nick's Sister - a "cool on the outside, emotionally troubled on the inside" soul who steals any scene she is in. I think we have a real star in the making with her.
And then there is Michelle Yeoh (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON) as Nick's "Tiger Mom" who disapproves of his girlfriend and her "American ways". She's a traditionalist who gave up quite a bit for her family and expects the same level of familiar commitment from her children. It would be easy to make this character one-dimensional, but in Yeoh's capable hands, it is anything but.
It's not a perfect film - I felt it dragged a bit in the middle - but the beginning and (especially) the last 1/2 hour of this film is funny, poignant and emotional (bring your hankies - you're gonna need them).
Oh...and stay through the first part of the credits, there is a scene about 2 minutes in that sets up the sequel (there are 3 books in this series).
This is a good film for EVERYONE - whether your are a CRA or not!
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Oct 25, 2018 (Updated Oct 25, 2018)
Sublime performance from Rami Malek (1 more)
Sound mixing
They Will Rock You
I feel like I should preface this review with some context. Queen were the first band that I was properly into and the Bohemian Rhapsody/These Are The Days Of Our Loves double A side CD was the first piece of music that I ever bought with my own money. I have loved Queen's music for the vast majority of my life and I have grown up watching their concerts and music videos. I have been waiting for this movie to be made for a long time.
So did it meet my lofty expectations? Well, that depends on what aspects you choose to highlight. If you are asking me if Rami Malek did a good job portraying Freddie Mercury, then I would reply; that is the understatement of the century. This performance is the best I've seen so far this year. There were points that I genuinely forgot that I wasn't watching the real Freddie onscreen, Malek totally disappeared into the persona and if there is any justice, the academy will recognise that come Oscar nomination time. Not only did he capture Freddie's onstage mannerisms, but even the subtle way that Freddie would shift his eyes or lick his lips during interviews etc was absolutely spot on. In terms of the singing, I believe the method used was that Malek would sing into a computer and Freddie's voice was then added over the top, then it was manipulated to where it best resembled Freddie's vocal. If this film deserves another Oscar nod, it's for the sound mixing. They managed to recreate Freddie's unique vocal range perfectly and the lip syncing is also lined up incredibly well.
The rest of the cast are great too. The rest of the band were well cast, especially Gwilym Lee as Brian May. I really enjoyed the chemistry and camaraderie between the band members too. I also enjoyed what Aidan Gillen, Tom Hollander and an unrecognisable Mike Myers brought to the film. Lucy Boynton was also believable as Freddie's one true love, Mary Austin and she and Malek brought a new dimension to Mary's and Freddie's relationship that I had never really thought too much about.
Could the movie have went further than it did in terms of portraying the hedonism went on in Freddie's life? Yes, it definitely could have and that was one of my main concerns going in. I was concerned regarding the film's 12A rating and wondered how they were going to get around this and still show the sexually driven, intense life that Freddie led. Thankfully, I felt that the movie still managed to contain enough implications and allusions to the more adult stuff in the story that you were able to fill in the blanks without feeling robbed of too much of the narrative.
Unfortunately, there was a fairly important part in the movie where the sound abruptly cut out in my cinema hall for about 30 seconds, this obviously isn't the movie's fault, but it did detract from my initial viewing.
Overall, I enjoyed Bohemian Rhapsody. It catalogued Queen's exceptional inventory of hits and did a fantastic job in casting the right actor to portray a modern day icon. The other actors that rounded out the cast helped to sell the whole movie and the production was very well done in terms of recreating the talent and energy that this band were famous for.
So did it meet my lofty expectations? Well, that depends on what aspects you choose to highlight. If you are asking me if Rami Malek did a good job portraying Freddie Mercury, then I would reply; that is the understatement of the century. This performance is the best I've seen so far this year. There were points that I genuinely forgot that I wasn't watching the real Freddie onscreen, Malek totally disappeared into the persona and if there is any justice, the academy will recognise that come Oscar nomination time. Not only did he capture Freddie's onstage mannerisms, but even the subtle way that Freddie would shift his eyes or lick his lips during interviews etc was absolutely spot on. In terms of the singing, I believe the method used was that Malek would sing into a computer and Freddie's voice was then added over the top, then it was manipulated to where it best resembled Freddie's vocal. If this film deserves another Oscar nod, it's for the sound mixing. They managed to recreate Freddie's unique vocal range perfectly and the lip syncing is also lined up incredibly well.
The rest of the cast are great too. The rest of the band were well cast, especially Gwilym Lee as Brian May. I really enjoyed the chemistry and camaraderie between the band members too. I also enjoyed what Aidan Gillen, Tom Hollander and an unrecognisable Mike Myers brought to the film. Lucy Boynton was also believable as Freddie's one true love, Mary Austin and she and Malek brought a new dimension to Mary's and Freddie's relationship that I had never really thought too much about.
Could the movie have went further than it did in terms of portraying the hedonism went on in Freddie's life? Yes, it definitely could have and that was one of my main concerns going in. I was concerned regarding the film's 12A rating and wondered how they were going to get around this and still show the sexually driven, intense life that Freddie led. Thankfully, I felt that the movie still managed to contain enough implications and allusions to the more adult stuff in the story that you were able to fill in the blanks without feeling robbed of too much of the narrative.
Unfortunately, there was a fairly important part in the movie where the sound abruptly cut out in my cinema hall for about 30 seconds, this obviously isn't the movie's fault, but it did detract from my initial viewing.
Overall, I enjoyed Bohemian Rhapsody. It catalogued Queen's exceptional inventory of hits and did a fantastic job in casting the right actor to portray a modern day icon. The other actors that rounded out the cast helped to sell the whole movie and the production was very well done in terms of recreating the talent and energy that this band were famous for.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Border (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
If you’re a fan of the original super dark fairy tales, you’re probably going to love Border. But be warned, it contains some incredibly disturbing content that I wasn’t prepared for. This film is not an easy watch, and I found myself thinking about it for a long time afterwards. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it just isn’t for the faint of heart.
The film follows Tina (Eva Melander), a woman who works for the Swedish Border Control. She has a unique talent to sniff out contraband, so she’s an asset to the rest of the team. This ability confuses many around her, and this becomes a central part of Tina’s self-discovery later on in the film. Alongside her ability, Tina suffers from facial deformities which makes her an outcast in society.
Tina’s life changes when she meets a man named Vore (Eero Milonoff), who looks just like her. At first, she suspects him of something, but following an inspection, lets him pass through. The two of them have frequent encounters throughout the film, with Vore helping Tina to understand who she is. As she’s embarking on this journey, Tina is assigned to a child pornography case, with the authorities believing her ability can help them find the perpetrator.
Border is dark both in its narrative and its visuals, as you seldom see the sunlight throughout the entire film. It feels gritty, dirty and bleak, reflecting this incredibly harrowing case that Tina has to try and solve. Even her own home is depressing; living in a tiny cabin-like home with a man named Roland who trains dogs. Tina’s relationship with Roland is confusing to the audience, and she barely spends any time at home, opting to take walks outside instead. She is an incredibly lonely, isolated character until Vore comes along.
The film’s visuals really stood out to me, I loved the ethereal fantasy elements even when bad things are happening. Since Tina spends a lot of her time outdoors, her encounters with wildlife and nature are beautifully shot. These moments seem to be the only ones that bring Tina real joy, and the cinematography reflects this. The film’s bleakness can often feel too much at times, but it’s entirely appropriate given the story. Despite Tina’s eventual self-discovery, this is not a happy film.
Tina and Vore’s animalistic behaviour may be uncomfortable for some audiences, and it was for me too. The film relies on long, purely diegetic scenes that bring us closer to the action than we may have liked. Their relationship is raw, functional and sometimes aggressive, often making it difficult to like the characters. Despite this, I still liked Tina as a character and wanted her to find happiness.
Border is just under two hours in length, but feels much longer due to Abbasi’s use of lingering shots. I did find myself feeling a little frustrated with this at times, but the beauty of the cinematography made up for it. The story is as twisted as it is captivating, and by the end of the film you’re left in a stunned silence trying to process what you just saw. It’s the kind of film that leaves you feeling exhausted afterwards.
This happened to be my first real exploration of Nordic cinema, and I’m certainly interested to see what other films are out there. Border is a unique and harrowing story that points fun at Nordic relations, and is certainly worth the watch. Having said that, I’m not sure I could go through it again.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-border-2019/
The film follows Tina (Eva Melander), a woman who works for the Swedish Border Control. She has a unique talent to sniff out contraband, so she’s an asset to the rest of the team. This ability confuses many around her, and this becomes a central part of Tina’s self-discovery later on in the film. Alongside her ability, Tina suffers from facial deformities which makes her an outcast in society.
Tina’s life changes when she meets a man named Vore (Eero Milonoff), who looks just like her. At first, she suspects him of something, but following an inspection, lets him pass through. The two of them have frequent encounters throughout the film, with Vore helping Tina to understand who she is. As she’s embarking on this journey, Tina is assigned to a child pornography case, with the authorities believing her ability can help them find the perpetrator.
Border is dark both in its narrative and its visuals, as you seldom see the sunlight throughout the entire film. It feels gritty, dirty and bleak, reflecting this incredibly harrowing case that Tina has to try and solve. Even her own home is depressing; living in a tiny cabin-like home with a man named Roland who trains dogs. Tina’s relationship with Roland is confusing to the audience, and she barely spends any time at home, opting to take walks outside instead. She is an incredibly lonely, isolated character until Vore comes along.
The film’s visuals really stood out to me, I loved the ethereal fantasy elements even when bad things are happening. Since Tina spends a lot of her time outdoors, her encounters with wildlife and nature are beautifully shot. These moments seem to be the only ones that bring Tina real joy, and the cinematography reflects this. The film’s bleakness can often feel too much at times, but it’s entirely appropriate given the story. Despite Tina’s eventual self-discovery, this is not a happy film.
Tina and Vore’s animalistic behaviour may be uncomfortable for some audiences, and it was for me too. The film relies on long, purely diegetic scenes that bring us closer to the action than we may have liked. Their relationship is raw, functional and sometimes aggressive, often making it difficult to like the characters. Despite this, I still liked Tina as a character and wanted her to find happiness.
Border is just under two hours in length, but feels much longer due to Abbasi’s use of lingering shots. I did find myself feeling a little frustrated with this at times, but the beauty of the cinematography made up for it. The story is as twisted as it is captivating, and by the end of the film you’re left in a stunned silence trying to process what you just saw. It’s the kind of film that leaves you feeling exhausted afterwards.
This happened to be my first real exploration of Nordic cinema, and I’m certainly interested to see what other films are out there. Border is a unique and harrowing story that points fun at Nordic relations, and is certainly worth the watch. Having said that, I’m not sure I could go through it again.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-border-2019/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1920 London (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 1920 London starts as we meet the Prince Veer (Karwel) and Princess Shivangi (Chopra) living in London, they soon become the latest victim of an evil spirit which takes over Veer’s body, Shivangi must go into her past to find her former lover Jai Singh Gujjar (Joshi) a man that was left banished because of their affair, who has an ability to tackle unwanted spirits.
With the past being placed in the past, Jai comes to figure out how to save Veer and giving Shivangi a peaceful life, only the evil spirit isn’t going to let that happen.
Thoughts on 1920 London
Characters – Shivangi the princess who has just gotten married, she sees her husband become possessed, which forces her to return to her family for help, with her ex-lover being the only one that could save her husband. Jai Singh is the exorcist that was once the lover of Shivangi, but not being from the royal family means he was once banished for their love. Now he must help her fight an evil spirit, he speciality. Veer is the husband that gets stricken down by the evil spirit that has taken over his body.
Performances – We focus mostly on just the two stars of the movie, Meera Chopra and Sharman Joshi who are both great through the film dealing with the horror, the personal status they are facing and love they both feel.
Story – The story here follows a possession, this is a story I have seen many times, but the different is, I have only ever seen Christian or Jewish religions deal with the spirits, this time we get to see how Hindus treat unwanted spirits. The story does follow the traditional scares, but then here is a twist in the story which explains the possession, one about honour, love and revenge, which does make the story feel fresher, I learnt that this is part of a series of film, but I am confident there isn’t a connection between the previous ones. Most of this is by the books and that is al we want from a horror film.
Horror/Mystery – There are good scare moments in this film, nothing overly original, but they will give the jumps required, the mystery comes from just what the motivation of the evil spirit is to be doing the possessing.
Settings – The film takes the action to London, which I guess is new to the franchise, this is fine even though we spend most of the time in the mansions with no landmarks in the background, with the landmark scenes including the bridges only.
Special Effects – The effects are used well to create the horror moments, like most films the practical is good, but the CGI comes off weak.
Scene of the Movie – The final battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While I understand this is a Bollywood film, the songs lose moments of tension in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that works for the exorcism genre well, it shows how a different religion reads evil spirits and does battle against them, which is interesting to see and does give us good moments of horror.
Overall: Good horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/27/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-1920-london-2016/
With the past being placed in the past, Jai comes to figure out how to save Veer and giving Shivangi a peaceful life, only the evil spirit isn’t going to let that happen.
Thoughts on 1920 London
Characters – Shivangi the princess who has just gotten married, she sees her husband become possessed, which forces her to return to her family for help, with her ex-lover being the only one that could save her husband. Jai Singh is the exorcist that was once the lover of Shivangi, but not being from the royal family means he was once banished for their love. Now he must help her fight an evil spirit, he speciality. Veer is the husband that gets stricken down by the evil spirit that has taken over his body.
Performances – We focus mostly on just the two stars of the movie, Meera Chopra and Sharman Joshi who are both great through the film dealing with the horror, the personal status they are facing and love they both feel.
Story – The story here follows a possession, this is a story I have seen many times, but the different is, I have only ever seen Christian or Jewish religions deal with the spirits, this time we get to see how Hindus treat unwanted spirits. The story does follow the traditional scares, but then here is a twist in the story which explains the possession, one about honour, love and revenge, which does make the story feel fresher, I learnt that this is part of a series of film, but I am confident there isn’t a connection between the previous ones. Most of this is by the books and that is al we want from a horror film.
Horror/Mystery – There are good scare moments in this film, nothing overly original, but they will give the jumps required, the mystery comes from just what the motivation of the evil spirit is to be doing the possessing.
Settings – The film takes the action to London, which I guess is new to the franchise, this is fine even though we spend most of the time in the mansions with no landmarks in the background, with the landmark scenes including the bridges only.
Special Effects – The effects are used well to create the horror moments, like most films the practical is good, but the CGI comes off weak.
Scene of the Movie – The final battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While I understand this is a Bollywood film, the songs lose moments of tension in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that works for the exorcism genre well, it shows how a different religion reads evil spirits and does battle against them, which is interesting to see and does give us good moments of horror.
Overall: Good horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/27/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-1920-london-2016/