Search
Search results
Debbiereadsbook (1110 KP) rated Two For The Road in Books
Jan 28, 2019
I loved this bookj!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Dylan saw Riley when he was just 15, Riley was suited and booted and Dylan fell in love. At 22, Dylan manages to wrangle to lift to work with Riley, in an effort to get his man. Because Riley is HIS: Riley just needs to see it too. But Riley is 20 years older than Dylan, and Dylan's dad's best fried, even if a bit estranged. Coming back to the village he was born to spend time with his dying father was a shock to Riley's system, but a much needed one. Leaving his partner of 20 years not so much of a shock as a revelation of just what had been going on behind his back for the bigger part of that relationship. Dylan is a breath of fresh air to Riley, who is lonely after his dad passed away. Chatting on the 45 minute drive to work every day brings the two men closer, and when Dylan finally declares his intention to make Riley his, all Riley thinks about is what would Dylan's dad think. Can Riley get past the age gap?
I started reading this and I was liking it. It was shaping up nicely for a 4 star rating. Not loving, just really enjoying it. And then SOMETHING! I've no idea what happened, or who said what, but something happened and I began to LOVE this book! I loved it from that point!
Dylan is young, yes, but he is old enough to know what he wants, more importantly, WHO he wants, and Dylan WANTS Riley. Riley is his and no one else's and Dylan will fight for Riley, even if Riley is scared and worried and all those negative feelings. When Dylan finds out why Riley is scared (not cos of the age gap, that's mentioned a lot!) Dylan steps up his advances a notch and poor Riley doesn't stand a chance. But Dylan's dad catches them, and Riley pushes Dylan away, running at the first hurdle. Dylan though, he doesn't. He'll wait til Riley comes round, cos he WILL come round, just as Dylan's dad will. And they do, wonderfully.
This is one of those books that you just fall into and inhale, you know?? Not too complicated, but you have to pick up the clues about Riley's past relationship. It's not overly explicit, but it is incredibly sexy, especially when Riley's experience is bought to light, even with being in a 20 year relationship (I did NOT like that man!) There is angst and turmoil, but it's not too heavy. Just enough for you to shed a tear when Riley breaks down and cries for what could have been with Dylan.
This really is a warm and fuzzies slash too stinking cute book! It also seems to be the first I've read of Milne, so my wish list is now a little longer.
So!
5 full and shiny and COLOURFUL stars (because after 20 years of white, Riley needs colour)
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Dylan saw Riley when he was just 15, Riley was suited and booted and Dylan fell in love. At 22, Dylan manages to wrangle to lift to work with Riley, in an effort to get his man. Because Riley is HIS: Riley just needs to see it too. But Riley is 20 years older than Dylan, and Dylan's dad's best fried, even if a bit estranged. Coming back to the village he was born to spend time with his dying father was a shock to Riley's system, but a much needed one. Leaving his partner of 20 years not so much of a shock as a revelation of just what had been going on behind his back for the bigger part of that relationship. Dylan is a breath of fresh air to Riley, who is lonely after his dad passed away. Chatting on the 45 minute drive to work every day brings the two men closer, and when Dylan finally declares his intention to make Riley his, all Riley thinks about is what would Dylan's dad think. Can Riley get past the age gap?
I started reading this and I was liking it. It was shaping up nicely for a 4 star rating. Not loving, just really enjoying it. And then SOMETHING! I've no idea what happened, or who said what, but something happened and I began to LOVE this book! I loved it from that point!
Dylan is young, yes, but he is old enough to know what he wants, more importantly, WHO he wants, and Dylan WANTS Riley. Riley is his and no one else's and Dylan will fight for Riley, even if Riley is scared and worried and all those negative feelings. When Dylan finds out why Riley is scared (not cos of the age gap, that's mentioned a lot!) Dylan steps up his advances a notch and poor Riley doesn't stand a chance. But Dylan's dad catches them, and Riley pushes Dylan away, running at the first hurdle. Dylan though, he doesn't. He'll wait til Riley comes round, cos he WILL come round, just as Dylan's dad will. And they do, wonderfully.
This is one of those books that you just fall into and inhale, you know?? Not too complicated, but you have to pick up the clues about Riley's past relationship. It's not overly explicit, but it is incredibly sexy, especially when Riley's experience is bought to light, even with being in a 20 year relationship (I did NOT like that man!) There is angst and turmoil, but it's not too heavy. Just enough for you to shed a tear when Riley breaks down and cries for what could have been with Dylan.
This really is a warm and fuzzies slash too stinking cute book! It also seems to be the first I've read of Milne, so my wish list is now a little longer.
So!
5 full and shiny and COLOURFUL stars (because after 20 years of white, Riley needs colour)
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Natalia (73 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Dec 19, 2018
Character Development (5 more)
Story
Art Direction
Soundtrack + Effects
Comedy, Action and Emotions
True to the Source
I've just recently come home from the cinema, and I can gladly say this was an amazing film. I may be looking at it through rose-coloured glasses, with how excited I was when we got the first trailer, but I can say with all sincerity that this film made me laugh, cry and blew away my expectations.
The film crosses over some iconic and some more obscure Spider-Man universes and manages to do it in a unique and palatable way. Each iteration of Spider-Man has a specific animation/art style, along with a specific soundtrack and extremely talented voice actors (or at least actors whose voices were made for the role: this meaning John Mulaney). Seeing all of this creative work come together in one film truly is an experience that I don't want people to miss out on.
A key part I really want to go into more is the use of colour and focus. It visuals of the film are vivid and attune to the tone of what scene is playing out. You can see how saturation and the palettes themselves are used the highlight characters or actions and are especially useful with emotional scenes. These emotions though are presented more with the composition which is consistently used to call back previous scenes in a subtle way that I absolutely adore.
The characters are very much real, most specifically in Miles and his family relationships. We see a real family dynamic that works - if I could point out a scene from a few trailers as an example, when Miles' father takes him to school and asks for him to say 'I love you' back really shows this realistic family that you could picture actually existing in the real world. The lack of a really existing romantic subplot is also something I love - the focus is on coming to terms with the fact that Miles isn't alone, that no one is. Without this romance, the film is just as good as any other, possibly even better with the fact that our potential romantic interest actually doesn't turn out to be.
The next thing that is certainly huge for any die-hard Marvel fans is the fact that it's very much true to the comic books. In the way its told, the way it's presented, and the actual story, the characters are all recognizable both by appearance and by their personalities/behaviours.
The only negative I can find for the film isn't even part of the film itself: Though the cinema gave warning for epilepsy, the film itself does not. While I'm sure theatres are required to give warning, it may be a good idea to give an on-screen warning, especially when the opening logo itself could easily trigger epilepsy.
Overall, I wish I could go back and watch it over and over, so I think most people will enjoy this film, no matter what their knowledge of the MCU is. An engaging story told in a creative way and with an incredibly hilarious after credits scene - worth a watch from everyone.
The film crosses over some iconic and some more obscure Spider-Man universes and manages to do it in a unique and palatable way. Each iteration of Spider-Man has a specific animation/art style, along with a specific soundtrack and extremely talented voice actors (or at least actors whose voices were made for the role: this meaning John Mulaney). Seeing all of this creative work come together in one film truly is an experience that I don't want people to miss out on.
A key part I really want to go into more is the use of colour and focus. It visuals of the film are vivid and attune to the tone of what scene is playing out. You can see how saturation and the palettes themselves are used the highlight characters or actions and are especially useful with emotional scenes. These emotions though are presented more with the composition which is consistently used to call back previous scenes in a subtle way that I absolutely adore.
The characters are very much real, most specifically in Miles and his family relationships. We see a real family dynamic that works - if I could point out a scene from a few trailers as an example, when Miles' father takes him to school and asks for him to say 'I love you' back really shows this realistic family that you could picture actually existing in the real world. The lack of a really existing romantic subplot is also something I love - the focus is on coming to terms with the fact that Miles isn't alone, that no one is. Without this romance, the film is just as good as any other, possibly even better with the fact that our potential romantic interest actually doesn't turn out to be.
The next thing that is certainly huge for any die-hard Marvel fans is the fact that it's very much true to the comic books. In the way its told, the way it's presented, and the actual story, the characters are all recognizable both by appearance and by their personalities/behaviours.
The only negative I can find for the film isn't even part of the film itself: Though the cinema gave warning for epilepsy, the film itself does not. While I'm sure theatres are required to give warning, it may be a good idea to give an on-screen warning, especially when the opening logo itself could easily trigger epilepsy.
Overall, I wish I could go back and watch it over and over, so I think most people will enjoy this film, no matter what their knowledge of the MCU is. An engaging story told in a creative way and with an incredibly hilarious after credits scene - worth a watch from everyone.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
" With great power comes great responsibility"
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record-breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated My Spy (2019) in Movies
Apr 4, 2020
Eleven months after first being slated for release we finally got My Spy in the cinema. With its predecessors like Playing With Fire, The Pacifier and The Game Plan leaving a very mixed tough guy/kid's movie playing field I wasn't expecting great things.
JJ has stepped over the line one too many times and now he's relegated to surveillance with Bobbi, the agency tech wizard. Their mission is to stay put and watch the wife and child of a man who was connected to the case.
When they get to their stakeout position the last thing they expect is to be made by the very person they're watching. Sophie may only be 9 but she's no fool and she's about to use her new found leverage to her benefit.
I absolutely loved this, it was looking a little rough at the start but I genuinely enjoyed myself once it hit its stride.
But it was a 12A? Honestly astounded to see that pop up at the beginning, I would have assumed it would be a PG, but that extra allowance gave the film a bit more colour.
This comedy felt perfect for Dave Bautista, I don't think I've seen him in a role that really felt suited to him, I like his humour but even the lovable Drax was always a bit off. Everest in Hotel Artemis was probably the best until I saw this. I love that he got a chance to do a mix of drama and comedy all in one film.
His pairing with Kristen Schaal as Bobbi was such fun. Their completely different approaches coupled with her to-the-point attitude make for a great team. Bobbi's adoration and desire to do more fieldwork is played off incredibly well.
I'm not usually a fan of child actors, it can seem forced and unnatural, but Chloe Coleman as Sophie is savage and I love it. Her standing up to JJ and her vulnerable side comes over so well, I genuinely enjoyed her acting and her comic timing, I can't wait to see her in more things.
The only actor I would query is Ken Jeong, he's funny and I find him generally amusing in most things he does but in this A) he wasn't entirely believable in the role and B) his humour was a step apart from the rest of the script, his parts in particular weren't in scenes designed for humour. It was the only part of the film that made me pause as I watched it, but it wasn't a massively negative impact on the whole.
We get some great settings and amazing action style sequences, the ones with both Bautista and Coleman had some real heart and humour. The whole storyline where he teaches her how to spy is amusing and well done.
I really did enjoy My Spy, that 12A totally helped it from being like those before it, the script could be aimed more at adults and the humour could cover both adult and children's amusement, it's a great stress-free film and I would absolutely watch it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/my-spy-movie-review.html
JJ has stepped over the line one too many times and now he's relegated to surveillance with Bobbi, the agency tech wizard. Their mission is to stay put and watch the wife and child of a man who was connected to the case.
When they get to their stakeout position the last thing they expect is to be made by the very person they're watching. Sophie may only be 9 but she's no fool and she's about to use her new found leverage to her benefit.
I absolutely loved this, it was looking a little rough at the start but I genuinely enjoyed myself once it hit its stride.
But it was a 12A? Honestly astounded to see that pop up at the beginning, I would have assumed it would be a PG, but that extra allowance gave the film a bit more colour.
This comedy felt perfect for Dave Bautista, I don't think I've seen him in a role that really felt suited to him, I like his humour but even the lovable Drax was always a bit off. Everest in Hotel Artemis was probably the best until I saw this. I love that he got a chance to do a mix of drama and comedy all in one film.
His pairing with Kristen Schaal as Bobbi was such fun. Their completely different approaches coupled with her to-the-point attitude make for a great team. Bobbi's adoration and desire to do more fieldwork is played off incredibly well.
I'm not usually a fan of child actors, it can seem forced and unnatural, but Chloe Coleman as Sophie is savage and I love it. Her standing up to JJ and her vulnerable side comes over so well, I genuinely enjoyed her acting and her comic timing, I can't wait to see her in more things.
The only actor I would query is Ken Jeong, he's funny and I find him generally amusing in most things he does but in this A) he wasn't entirely believable in the role and B) his humour was a step apart from the rest of the script, his parts in particular weren't in scenes designed for humour. It was the only part of the film that made me pause as I watched it, but it wasn't a massively negative impact on the whole.
We get some great settings and amazing action style sequences, the ones with both Bautista and Coleman had some real heart and humour. The whole storyline where he teaches her how to spy is amusing and well done.
I really did enjoy My Spy, that 12A totally helped it from being like those before it, the script could be aimed more at adults and the humour could cover both adult and children's amusement, it's a great stress-free film and I would absolutely watch it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/my-spy-movie-review.html
Ian Anderson recommended Alabama Blues/Passionate Blues by JB Lenoir in Music (curated)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
May 30, 2017
A Fairytale
“Terrific”, “Spellbinding” and “Enchanting” are just three of the many words that critics have used to describe this book; they are also a slight exaggeration. Obviously it is a matter of personal opinion but this novel, whilst having an interesting storyline, was a little too drawn out and, at times… not exactly boring but not all that gripping.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jun 1, 2017
Beautiful visuals (3 more)
Gal Gadot is a strong and sexy Diana
A war film with comic book fantasy
The strong messages within the film
Bringing a God to a Gun Fight
So I may be a little biased as I am a huge DC fan, but that doesn't mean every DC film gets the top rating from me, because I know that most of the DC films, somewhat especially as of recent, haven't quite grasped the ability to merge comic book elements with great film elements....this film has nailed it.
Gal Gadot has brought the character of Wonder Woman, a.k.a Diana Prince, to the big screen with such power that is unmatched by any other female comic book character. She's strong, sexy, charming and innocent to the ways of the world outside of Themyscira.
The effects of this film bring to the big screen, stunning visuals, a dull colour overtone to add to the atmosphere of the effects of war on the world that really make you aware of just how important the situation of the world is, and why Diana has truly been sent to help. The team of brilliant minds behind this film have managed to bring the glowing lasso, the powers of Wonder Woman herself, and the deviating effects of war into a perfectly organized combination that makes you feel like you're watching a war film with comic book fantasy elements, not just a comic book film that contains a war.
There's humour that is brought forth via Diana's innocence of the world outside of her home on Paradise Island. She learns the deviation of the many deaths that the war has brought to the world, but through her companion, Steve Trevor, she learns of the joys of how life was before, and how it could be again, when there is no more war.
The film is full of moments that make you want to laugh, cry or watch in awe as Wonder Woman proves to the men in the war that women are not as weak and frightened as they thought at the time. It's hard for her not to in her own film, but she truly steals the show, and you want nothing more than to see her kick ass.
The choreography of the fight sequences are sleek and beautiful in themselves. The fight on Themyscira reminded me somewhat of 300, if the Spartans were all badass Amazonians with bows and arrows, and horses. The beautiful slow motion shots are used to portray the power of these beautiful warriors, and the best slow motion shot takes place in the war, at No Man's Land.
This scene is cinematic beauty! Wonder Woman steps ups the ladder and stands strong as she makes her way across No Man's Land, deflecting bullets and proving that whilst no man can cross, She can, and will! Gal Gadot's beauty shines through amongst the dim and dull overtone of the film and she truly portrays that she is a Goddess amongst the world of men.
Overall I highly recommend this film! You'll laugh, you'll cry (possibly...unless you're a robot), and you'll sit in awe of Wonder Woman as she kicks ass and proves that you shouldn't send men to do a woman's job ;)
Gal Gadot has brought the character of Wonder Woman, a.k.a Diana Prince, to the big screen with such power that is unmatched by any other female comic book character. She's strong, sexy, charming and innocent to the ways of the world outside of Themyscira.
The effects of this film bring to the big screen, stunning visuals, a dull colour overtone to add to the atmosphere of the effects of war on the world that really make you aware of just how important the situation of the world is, and why Diana has truly been sent to help. The team of brilliant minds behind this film have managed to bring the glowing lasso, the powers of Wonder Woman herself, and the deviating effects of war into a perfectly organized combination that makes you feel like you're watching a war film with comic book fantasy elements, not just a comic book film that contains a war.
There's humour that is brought forth via Diana's innocence of the world outside of her home on Paradise Island. She learns the deviation of the many deaths that the war has brought to the world, but through her companion, Steve Trevor, she learns of the joys of how life was before, and how it could be again, when there is no more war.
The film is full of moments that make you want to laugh, cry or watch in awe as Wonder Woman proves to the men in the war that women are not as weak and frightened as they thought at the time. It's hard for her not to in her own film, but she truly steals the show, and you want nothing more than to see her kick ass.
The choreography of the fight sequences are sleek and beautiful in themselves. The fight on Themyscira reminded me somewhat of 300, if the Spartans were all badass Amazonians with bows and arrows, and horses. The beautiful slow motion shots are used to portray the power of these beautiful warriors, and the best slow motion shot takes place in the war, at No Man's Land.
This scene is cinematic beauty! Wonder Woman steps ups the ladder and stands strong as she makes her way across No Man's Land, deflecting bullets and proving that whilst no man can cross, She can, and will! Gal Gadot's beauty shines through amongst the dim and dull overtone of the film and she truly portrays that she is a Goddess amongst the world of men.
Overall I highly recommend this film! You'll laugh, you'll cry (possibly...unless you're a robot), and you'll sit in awe of Wonder Woman as she kicks ass and proves that you shouldn't send men to do a woman's job ;)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
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 Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/