Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lego Batman Movie (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
All Hail the Bricks
LEGO may have just single-handedly saved the DC Universe. Yep, you heard me right; the construction toy has come to the aid of one of the comic-book heavyweights in spectacular fashion.
Of course, this is not the first time the world’s biggest toy company has released a film. 2014’s LEGO Movie catapulted the popular bricks into the minds of more people than ever before, it was an astounding success, and deserved every inch.
Now, they’re back with The LEGO Batman Movie, a film with so many side jokes and movie references, it’s impossible to spot them all the first time around.
There are some big changes brewing in the city of Gotham, but if Batman (Will Arnett) wants to save the city from the Joker’s (Zach Galifianakis) hostile takeover, he may have to drop the lone vigilante shtick, try to work with others and perhaps, learn to lighten up; if that’s humanly possible. Maybe his superhero sidekick Robin (voiced by Michael Cera) and loyal butler Alfred (played by Ralph Fiennes) can show him a thing or two?
After depressing cinema-goers with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the studio interference that caused Suicide Squad to be a hideous mess (which is referenced in the flick marvellously), DC was in serious trouble – its universe was unravelling before it had even got going. Marvel certainly had nothing to worry about from its biggest rival, but that may have changed after this.
Everything from the voice acting to the ridiculously dry script and exceptional animation makes The LEGO Batman Movie a treat for children and adults. There are references to: get ready… Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Gremlins, The Lord of the Rings and every single Batman film to name but a few, all expertly placed within a story that betters any DC film before it.
The cast gels together perfectly. Will Arnett clearly had a ball playing the caped crusader, channelling Ben Affleck and Christian Bale flawlessly. Michael Cera gives his best performance in years and Ralph Fiennes is great as Alfred. Would you believe me if I said Mariah Carey even got in on the action? Well, she does. There are small roles for Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill and Eddie Izzard too.
Elsewhere, the animation is of course, blocky. Beautifully so in fact. It’s always exciting seeing individual locations transformed into LEGO and Gotham is no exception. It’s rendered to an exquisite standard with each and every frame stuffed to the brim with colour and detail. The music is also a highlight throughout with Lorne Balfe’s faithful score juxtaposed with some original songs and classic pop hits.
Overall, The LEGO Batman Movie was always going to be a gamble, but perhaps less of a risk considering the low quality of DC’s current crop of films. With some great animation, a genuinely funny and at times heart-warming story and a cast that works together incredibly well, it’s a cracking addition to the ever-expanding superhero genre.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/11/all-hail-the-bricks-the-lego-batman-movie-review/
Of course, this is not the first time the world’s biggest toy company has released a film. 2014’s LEGO Movie catapulted the popular bricks into the minds of more people than ever before, it was an astounding success, and deserved every inch.
Now, they’re back with The LEGO Batman Movie, a film with so many side jokes and movie references, it’s impossible to spot them all the first time around.
There are some big changes brewing in the city of Gotham, but if Batman (Will Arnett) wants to save the city from the Joker’s (Zach Galifianakis) hostile takeover, he may have to drop the lone vigilante shtick, try to work with others and perhaps, learn to lighten up; if that’s humanly possible. Maybe his superhero sidekick Robin (voiced by Michael Cera) and loyal butler Alfred (played by Ralph Fiennes) can show him a thing or two?
After depressing cinema-goers with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the studio interference that caused Suicide Squad to be a hideous mess (which is referenced in the flick marvellously), DC was in serious trouble – its universe was unravelling before it had even got going. Marvel certainly had nothing to worry about from its biggest rival, but that may have changed after this.
Everything from the voice acting to the ridiculously dry script and exceptional animation makes The LEGO Batman Movie a treat for children and adults. There are references to: get ready… Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Gremlins, The Lord of the Rings and every single Batman film to name but a few, all expertly placed within a story that betters any DC film before it.
The cast gels together perfectly. Will Arnett clearly had a ball playing the caped crusader, channelling Ben Affleck and Christian Bale flawlessly. Michael Cera gives his best performance in years and Ralph Fiennes is great as Alfred. Would you believe me if I said Mariah Carey even got in on the action? Well, she does. There are small roles for Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill and Eddie Izzard too.
Elsewhere, the animation is of course, blocky. Beautifully so in fact. It’s always exciting seeing individual locations transformed into LEGO and Gotham is no exception. It’s rendered to an exquisite standard with each and every frame stuffed to the brim with colour and detail. The music is also a highlight throughout with Lorne Balfe’s faithful score juxtaposed with some original songs and classic pop hits.
Overall, The LEGO Batman Movie was always going to be a gamble, but perhaps less of a risk considering the low quality of DC’s current crop of films. With some great animation, a genuinely funny and at times heart-warming story and a cast that works together incredibly well, it’s a cracking addition to the ever-expanding superhero genre.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/11/all-hail-the-bricks-the-lego-batman-movie-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Hemsworth and Chastain Disappoint
Snow White & the Huntsman was a film that garnered much more attention than it deserved, purely because of the goings on behind the scenes between Twilight starlet, Kristen Stewart and director Rupert Sanders. The film itself was a hollow take on the classic fairy-tale that lacked the magic and sparkle of Disney’s wonderful animation.
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
This book drew me down the rabbit hole and never let go. I hate Marissa Meyer for making me fall in love with these characters when I know that they may not have a happy ending. No, I don't actually hate her book (I loved it) but it gives you so many feelings and yet you feel that it's not possible for it to work out. If you are familiar with Lewis Carroll's work, you know what happens in Alice in Wonderland. As this is a prequel, you expect that you know how each character turns out and wonder if it will inevitably play out the same way in Heartless. It crushes your heart to know their dreams and realize that they may not come true. My only hope going into this book was that it would have a Wicked-style secret that explains how any of them could possibly find their happily ever afters.
I have always been a huge fan of well-done fairytale re-tellings (or prequels in this case) and Heartless does not disappoint. Marissa Meyer did a wonderful job with the Lunar Chronicles and this is just as well done. We get a different look at our most beloved and hated characters, prior to their lives intersecting with Alice's. Most Wonderland retellings I've read feature Alice, so this was a nice change of pace.
Catherine is our likable if a bit spineless heroine who is set to be the future Queen of Hearts - if her mother has any say. She is joined by the Joker, Hatter, March Hare and other classic characters. Cath's dream is to open the finest bakery in Hearts, but her parents have other plans.
The Joker, Jest is my favourite character by far and he has a great arc throughout the story. He is witty, kind, magical and so much more than just the Fool. I almost wish he was the main character because his scenes were always my favourite.
The author took some liberties with the characters, but overall they just helped to make them more believable. Their personalities are developed and expanded, lending them an air of realness that doesn't always permeate Wonderland.
The Mad Tea Party scene was highly enjoyable as each guest was called upon to perform whilst jauntily adorned with a hat. My only negative is that I wish the Hatter was more likable. I understand his motivations but as classically one of my favourite characters I wish I had enjoyed his role more in this novel. I also wish that Cath could have been more pro-active, even though I understand her less than stellar backbone due to the period and her upbringing.
The world is vividly described from the fabric and accouterment laden Hatta's shop to the lavish King's castle. The author even adds a little Wonderland flair to common phrases and anecdotes. World-building is very well done and makes me long to visit Hearts.
Highly recommended to young adult/teen readers who enjoy fantasy and the fantastical, fairytale re-tellings, prequels and Marissa Meyer's wonderful writing.
I have always been a huge fan of well-done fairytale re-tellings (or prequels in this case) and Heartless does not disappoint. Marissa Meyer did a wonderful job with the Lunar Chronicles and this is just as well done. We get a different look at our most beloved and hated characters, prior to their lives intersecting with Alice's. Most Wonderland retellings I've read feature Alice, so this was a nice change of pace.
Catherine is our likable if a bit spineless heroine who is set to be the future Queen of Hearts - if her mother has any say. She is joined by the Joker, Hatter, March Hare and other classic characters. Cath's dream is to open the finest bakery in Hearts, but her parents have other plans.
The Joker, Jest is my favourite character by far and he has a great arc throughout the story. He is witty, kind, magical and so much more than just the Fool. I almost wish he was the main character because his scenes were always my favourite.
The author took some liberties with the characters, but overall they just helped to make them more believable. Their personalities are developed and expanded, lending them an air of realness that doesn't always permeate Wonderland.
The Mad Tea Party scene was highly enjoyable as each guest was called upon to perform whilst jauntily adorned with a hat. My only negative is that I wish the Hatter was more likable. I understand his motivations but as classically one of my favourite characters I wish I had enjoyed his role more in this novel. I also wish that Cath could have been more pro-active, even though I understand her less than stellar backbone due to the period and her upbringing.
The world is vividly described from the fabric and accouterment laden Hatta's shop to the lavish King's castle. The author even adds a little Wonderland flair to common phrases and anecdotes. World-building is very well done and makes me long to visit Hearts.
Highly recommended to young adult/teen readers who enjoy fantasy and the fantastical, fairytale re-tellings, prequels and Marissa Meyer's wonderful writing.
Maddi Zoe (6 KP) rated MANIA by Fall Out Boy in Music
Feb 8, 2018
feet-tapping tunes (1 more)
light and dark
Fresh new sound, still Fall Out Boy
Fall Out Boy return with their seventh studio album titled 'Mania', which continues to explore their heavy alternative rock sound.
Mania is very similar in sound to Fall Out Boy's previous album from 2015 'American Beauty/American Psycho'. It's a far cry from where they first began with hits such as 'Sugar We're Goin' Down' and 'Dance, Dance'. Although it was classic rock hits such as 'I Don't Care' that brought them out into the spotlight in the first place. But you can clearly see the evolution of their music through each and every album.
They started to turn to heavier rock in their stand out album, 'Save Rock and Roll' in 2013, and continued to explore this style through to their 2015 album. Mania follows again follows this same successful recipe. But it's still fresh, with Pete Wentz describing it as a 'palette cleanse'.
You can tell that Fall Out Boy are passionate about their music. It's taken two years to get this album to a point where they felt happy with the finished product. Patrick Stump and the band started writing the new album during their 2016 tour, and it was originally scheduled for release in September last year. The release was delayed because they felt it was 'too rushed' and they didn't want to give fans something they felt was 'sub-par'.
The lyrics are, as usual, clever and intricate. It is clear that a lot of thought has gone into writing all of these songs. Some songs do again hint towards religion, such as 'Church' and 'Heaven's Gate'. This is becoming a common theme for the band, yet they maintain their heavy ego pop musicality. Fans of the band may also know it is common for the lyrics to sometimes reference other artists or the music industry in general. Anyone with a keen ear will notice the Britney Spears references in 'Young and Menace'.
Stump's voice. It is outstanding. This new album is no different. It is something that makes Fall Out Boy stand out among other bands. It is so crucial, especially in recent years, and Fall Out Boy continue to distance themselves away from bog-standard guitar solos. More often than not they have a bridge that is different to the rest of the song. This gives them more time to show off Stump's incredible and unique voice.
While the album is heavier than the majority of their music, some tracks such as 'Hold Me Tight or Don't', which are a bit lighter, and hint back to their 'old style'. Yet they continue to remain completely fresh. Whilst tracks such as 'Young and Menace' and 'Stay Frosty Royal Milk Tea' almost have a dubstep/dance vibe to them.
All ten tracks on the new album are completely different from one another other. There is something for everyone. It is combines the 'old' Fall Out Boy which we first fell in love with and the 'newer, even fresher' Fall Out Boy. It is yet again, another outstanding album from the band.
Mania is very similar in sound to Fall Out Boy's previous album from 2015 'American Beauty/American Psycho'. It's a far cry from where they first began with hits such as 'Sugar We're Goin' Down' and 'Dance, Dance'. Although it was classic rock hits such as 'I Don't Care' that brought them out into the spotlight in the first place. But you can clearly see the evolution of their music through each and every album.
They started to turn to heavier rock in their stand out album, 'Save Rock and Roll' in 2013, and continued to explore this style through to their 2015 album. Mania follows again follows this same successful recipe. But it's still fresh, with Pete Wentz describing it as a 'palette cleanse'.
You can tell that Fall Out Boy are passionate about their music. It's taken two years to get this album to a point where they felt happy with the finished product. Patrick Stump and the band started writing the new album during their 2016 tour, and it was originally scheduled for release in September last year. The release was delayed because they felt it was 'too rushed' and they didn't want to give fans something they felt was 'sub-par'.
The lyrics are, as usual, clever and intricate. It is clear that a lot of thought has gone into writing all of these songs. Some songs do again hint towards religion, such as 'Church' and 'Heaven's Gate'. This is becoming a common theme for the band, yet they maintain their heavy ego pop musicality. Fans of the band may also know it is common for the lyrics to sometimes reference other artists or the music industry in general. Anyone with a keen ear will notice the Britney Spears references in 'Young and Menace'.
Stump's voice. It is outstanding. This new album is no different. It is something that makes Fall Out Boy stand out among other bands. It is so crucial, especially in recent years, and Fall Out Boy continue to distance themselves away from bog-standard guitar solos. More often than not they have a bridge that is different to the rest of the song. This gives them more time to show off Stump's incredible and unique voice.
While the album is heavier than the majority of their music, some tracks such as 'Hold Me Tight or Don't', which are a bit lighter, and hint back to their 'old style'. Yet they continue to remain completely fresh. Whilst tracks such as 'Young and Menace' and 'Stay Frosty Royal Milk Tea' almost have a dubstep/dance vibe to them.
All ten tracks on the new album are completely different from one another other. There is something for everyone. It is combines the 'old' Fall Out Boy which we first fell in love with and the 'newer, even fresher' Fall Out Boy. It is yet again, another outstanding album from the band.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of The Evil Within 2 in Video Games
Mar 5, 2018 (Updated Mar 5, 2018)
Gameplay mechanics (2 more)
Horrifically beautiful graphics
A fantastic antagonist
Some odd voice acting (1 more)
Some duff lines of dialogue
A Gruesomely Good Time
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was a fan of the first Evil Within game, which I felt was criminally underrated. However, I must admit I slept on this game. This was due to all of the fantastic games that were released in 2017 that I was trying to catch up on at the time of this game's release.
4 months after the game's initial release, I finally got my hands on it and I loved the time I spent in this insane world.
The Evil Within 2 does what all great sequels should aim to do, which is to take the best concepts and systems from the first game and expand on them, while adding in some fresh concepts and discarding a lot of the excess fat that dragged the first game down.
This game is a much more streamlined action-horror adventure than the first entry and while it starts out with some creepy and uneasy moments, it focuses more on the action element than the horror side of things in comparison with the first game. I do however feel that the game finds a nice equal balance of horror and action, in a way that feels reminiscent of the modern classic, Resident Evil 4. Even though Shinji Mikami didn't direct this game as he did the first entry, this one actually feels more like a traditional Shinji Mikami game.
The villain that torments you for the first third of the game is brilliant, he is engaging, threatening and over the top in all of the best possible ways. The one issue I have with him is, (SPOILERS,) they kill him off far too early and replace him with a more bland, less entertaining villain.
There is also some ropey voice acting present, they changed the actor playing Kidman and the new VO artist isn't as engaging in her performance. The actor playing the protagonist's daughter Lily, is also, quite awkward and stilted sounding. There are also some strange lines of dialogue that don't feel very natural and come across a bit pantomime, but you must remember that this is a Japanese game, written in Japanese and then translated into English. I did experience some technical issues whilst playing through the final third of the game, mostly to do with the use of the radio transmitter and I experienced one slight hiccup with the in-game physics. Unfortunately, although these weren't game-breaking issues, they are still present 4 months after the game's initial release, meaning I am forced to knock a point off of my overall score.
Overall though, this is a damn good time for any horror fan out there. The fact that this game is a great deal easier than the first may bother some hardcore gamers out there, but for me it was fine as I was mostly playing for the story anyway rather than the challenge. The optional first person mode is also a nice addition and adds a cool incentive to play through the New Game Plus.
4 months after the game's initial release, I finally got my hands on it and I loved the time I spent in this insane world.
The Evil Within 2 does what all great sequels should aim to do, which is to take the best concepts and systems from the first game and expand on them, while adding in some fresh concepts and discarding a lot of the excess fat that dragged the first game down.
This game is a much more streamlined action-horror adventure than the first entry and while it starts out with some creepy and uneasy moments, it focuses more on the action element than the horror side of things in comparison with the first game. I do however feel that the game finds a nice equal balance of horror and action, in a way that feels reminiscent of the modern classic, Resident Evil 4. Even though Shinji Mikami didn't direct this game as he did the first entry, this one actually feels more like a traditional Shinji Mikami game.
The villain that torments you for the first third of the game is brilliant, he is engaging, threatening and over the top in all of the best possible ways. The one issue I have with him is, (SPOILERS,) they kill him off far too early and replace him with a more bland, less entertaining villain.
There is also some ropey voice acting present, they changed the actor playing Kidman and the new VO artist isn't as engaging in her performance. The actor playing the protagonist's daughter Lily, is also, quite awkward and stilted sounding. There are also some strange lines of dialogue that don't feel very natural and come across a bit pantomime, but you must remember that this is a Japanese game, written in Japanese and then translated into English. I did experience some technical issues whilst playing through the final third of the game, mostly to do with the use of the radio transmitter and I experienced one slight hiccup with the in-game physics. Unfortunately, although these weren't game-breaking issues, they are still present 4 months after the game's initial release, meaning I am forced to knock a point off of my overall score.
Overall though, this is a damn good time for any horror fan out there. The fact that this game is a great deal easier than the first may bother some hardcore gamers out there, but for me it was fine as I was mostly playing for the story anyway rather than the challenge. The optional first person mode is also a nice addition and adds a cool incentive to play through the New Game Plus.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Book Of Mirrors in Books
Mar 15, 2018
This novel may have been slow but I found its mystery so enticing that I loved moving and learning with each character. So many theories run through this novel that youre never sure what to think, its a great classic murder mystery.
Its only taken me almost a year to knock this book off my Netgalley shelf, but I finally got there! Id seen lots of hype for this one at the beginning of 2017 but I still didnt feel inclined to pick it up back then. Now Ive read it, Im glad that I waited. I think this one would have disappointed me if I had read it in its prime due to its slow nature, but I can appreciate slow books far more now than I could back then.
Like so many other reviewers, I did think this one was pretty slow paced, but I actually quite liked that about the plot. A cold case of over 20 years isnt going to get solved overnight, so it was practical that it took a while to find out what really went on that night. I do think there were some sections of the book that were unnecessary and added to the slowness of the plot, for example when one narrator gets on a plane and theres a whole segment about an irrelevant salesman talking to him and flirting with a girl. That bit wasnt needed in any way for the plot to progress and did just feel like filler bumf, but Ive read books with far worse filler scenes.
This story is told in a few different ways. Its told in the perspective of 3 different people and then also as a book within a book. I really liked the way this was laid out and think having the 3 different tones of voice gave the story some character it could have missed out on had it just stayed with the one narrator.
Each character in this was interesting in their own way, and I liked that each person had their own story to tell while also moving the main mystery along.
In terms of plot, this one wasnt the most innovative or astounding, but there was something enchanting about it. There were a few different theories as to Professor Weiders demise and I liked that it kept you guessing all along. I was actually quite surprised and impressed by the end of the book, the conclusion to the mystery was cleverly thought out and well executed.
Looking at the reviews of this book I think people are being a little harsh. There are lots of books that are slow mysteries but this one seems to be pissing people off more than most. I know its down to everyones own opinion but I dont see what the big issue with this one was. Personally, I enjoyed it.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Arrow for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Its only taken me almost a year to knock this book off my Netgalley shelf, but I finally got there! Id seen lots of hype for this one at the beginning of 2017 but I still didnt feel inclined to pick it up back then. Now Ive read it, Im glad that I waited. I think this one would have disappointed me if I had read it in its prime due to its slow nature, but I can appreciate slow books far more now than I could back then.
Like so many other reviewers, I did think this one was pretty slow paced, but I actually quite liked that about the plot. A cold case of over 20 years isnt going to get solved overnight, so it was practical that it took a while to find out what really went on that night. I do think there were some sections of the book that were unnecessary and added to the slowness of the plot, for example when one narrator gets on a plane and theres a whole segment about an irrelevant salesman talking to him and flirting with a girl. That bit wasnt needed in any way for the plot to progress and did just feel like filler bumf, but Ive read books with far worse filler scenes.
This story is told in a few different ways. Its told in the perspective of 3 different people and then also as a book within a book. I really liked the way this was laid out and think having the 3 different tones of voice gave the story some character it could have missed out on had it just stayed with the one narrator.
Each character in this was interesting in their own way, and I liked that each person had their own story to tell while also moving the main mystery along.
In terms of plot, this one wasnt the most innovative or astounding, but there was something enchanting about it. There were a few different theories as to Professor Weiders demise and I liked that it kept you guessing all along. I was actually quite surprised and impressed by the end of the book, the conclusion to the mystery was cleverly thought out and well executed.
Looking at the reviews of this book I think people are being a little harsh. There are lots of books that are slow mysteries but this one seems to be pissing people off more than most. I know its down to everyones own opinion but I dont see what the big issue with this one was. Personally, I enjoyed it.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Arrow for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Wrinkle in Time (2018) in Movies
Mar 25, 2018
Need to iron out this Wrinkle
The target audience for Ava DuVernay's adaptation of the 1962 classic novel A WRINKLE IN TIME are youth ages 10-14.
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Atari Flashback Classics Volume 1 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
As a child I fondly remember going to Arcades and how exciting it was to see new games arrive. IN the pre-Internet days, you would only learn of new games through word of mouth, a magazine article, or seeing them in an arcade, so naturally gamers would check out a few locales on a regular basis to help ensure that they were up to date with all of the gaming options available to them.
Atari established itself early and often as one of the leading companies for Arcade Games and classics such as Asteroids, Centipede, Missile, Command, Tempest, and countless others always drew eager gamers who would place their quarters down to experience what the company had to offer.
In time Atari released the Atari 2600 system which allowed gamers to play 100s of titles at home even though the graphics and gameplay were far from the standards of the Arcade Games and were comically primitive by today’s gaming standards.
Atari released subsequent systems but never gained the impact on the market that their original system did largely due to increased competition, the decline of the Arcades, and the rise of PC gaming, but many fondly remember that era of gaming well and the classics that installed an early love of gaming in us.
Thankfully a good dose of nostalgia and fun has arrived for the Nintendo Switch in the form of the Atari Flashback Classics Collection. While there have been other collections of classic Atari games before, this collection offers 150 games taken from the best of their Arcade, Atari 2600, and Atari 5200 catalogs. Being able to play Arcade versions of beloved classics like Lunar Lander and the blister inducing Trac-Ball games like Football and Baseball is a nostalgic trip down memory lane.
The games are faithfully captured but do require some patience as in the mobile version; the gaming screen is often only a portion of the screen leaving gaps on either side. Some games as well also must be played vertically which requires some adjustments.
The controls can take some getting used to as some are too responsive which makes controlling the games an exercise in patience and frustration. It does help to change the sensitivity but I can see how some players will not want to do this for each game they encounter issues with.
With a collection this large some titles did not make the cut as I would have loved to have seen Battlezone and Kangaroo be included as I think gamers should truly be able to have every Atari Arcade game in one collection but of course there are often numerous reasons behind their absence so we can only hope that the collection will prove popular enough to spawn a second collection down the road.
For now the Atari Flashback Collection offers an impressive collection of beloved and obscure Atari games from the days of old which is a must-own for fans of that era and those who love retro gaming.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/05/atari-flashback-classics/
Atari established itself early and often as one of the leading companies for Arcade Games and classics such as Asteroids, Centipede, Missile, Command, Tempest, and countless others always drew eager gamers who would place their quarters down to experience what the company had to offer.
In time Atari released the Atari 2600 system which allowed gamers to play 100s of titles at home even though the graphics and gameplay were far from the standards of the Arcade Games and were comically primitive by today’s gaming standards.
Atari released subsequent systems but never gained the impact on the market that their original system did largely due to increased competition, the decline of the Arcades, and the rise of PC gaming, but many fondly remember that era of gaming well and the classics that installed an early love of gaming in us.
Thankfully a good dose of nostalgia and fun has arrived for the Nintendo Switch in the form of the Atari Flashback Classics Collection. While there have been other collections of classic Atari games before, this collection offers 150 games taken from the best of their Arcade, Atari 2600, and Atari 5200 catalogs. Being able to play Arcade versions of beloved classics like Lunar Lander and the blister inducing Trac-Ball games like Football and Baseball is a nostalgic trip down memory lane.
The games are faithfully captured but do require some patience as in the mobile version; the gaming screen is often only a portion of the screen leaving gaps on either side. Some games as well also must be played vertically which requires some adjustments.
The controls can take some getting used to as some are too responsive which makes controlling the games an exercise in patience and frustration. It does help to change the sensitivity but I can see how some players will not want to do this for each game they encounter issues with.
With a collection this large some titles did not make the cut as I would have loved to have seen Battlezone and Kangaroo be included as I think gamers should truly be able to have every Atari Arcade game in one collection but of course there are often numerous reasons behind their absence so we can only hope that the collection will prove popular enough to spawn a second collection down the road.
For now the Atari Flashback Collection offers an impressive collection of beloved and obscure Atari games from the days of old which is a must-own for fans of that era and those who love retro gaming.
http://sknr.net/2019/01/05/atari-flashback-classics/