Search
Search results
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/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
Dec 14, 2018
“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, <i>Snegurochka</i>, which in English translates to <i>The Snow Maiden</i>. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, <i>Little Daughter of the Snow</i>, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with <i>Snegurochka</i> and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that <i>The Snow Child</i> 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, <i>The Snow Child</i> 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, <i>Snegurochka</i>, which in English translates to <i>The Snow Maiden</i>. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, <i>Little Daughter of the Snow</i>, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with <i>Snegurochka</i> and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that <i>The Snow Child</i> 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, <i>The Snow Child</i> 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.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Wolf by Wolf (Wolf by Wolf, #1) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What if the Nazis won the war? That is the setting for this captivating alternative historical novel by Ryan Graudin. In the newly named land of Germania it is 1956, more than a decade has passed since the Nazis won. The world is still not safe, especially for those who do not fit the Aryan race description. Seventeen-year-old Yael is about to set out on her first ever mission on behalf of the secret resistance group, but it will not be easy to fulfill her duty: to kill Hitler.
Yael was a Jewish prisoner in the death camps during the war. To most Nazi officials she was known as Experiment 85, and was undergoing melanin manipulation. What the doctors did not bargain on was that these experimentations would result in the ability to change physical appearance at will. Yael discovered she could change her skin tone, facial features, hair colour, height or even impersonate someone else, purely by concentrating really hard. It is this strange power that is going to help Yael on her quest to defeat Hitler.
In order to succeed, Yael needs to get as close as possible to the Fuhrer and the only way the resistance believe she will be able to do this is be impersonating Adele Wolfe, a motorbike racer, in the Axis tour: an epic long race from Berlin to Tokyo. However it is not as simple as changing skins and winning the race. Yael needs to convince the contestants that she is Adele and avoid all the dangerous tactics of the other racers so that she can get to the finish line.
<i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is an action-packed, exciting novel aimed at young adult readers interested in history and science fiction. Since it is taught in schools, most people are aware of the Holocaust and have an idea of the horrors Jews faced. But what if that did not stop at the end of the war? This is the idea explored within this novel amongst the exhilaration of the motorcycle race. No one would be completely happy under Hitler’s rule, and we can be thankful that this is only a ‘what if?’ scenario rather than our reality.
The science-fiction element was an interesting twist to the storyline. It does, however, detract from the seriousness of the Nazi rule. Without reminders of the time period, it could almost be a dystopian novel set in the future where a tyrant controls the world.
What I personally liked about <i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is that whilst the main storyline is playing out, we learn more about Yael’s life. She may have lost her true identity but there are several people who have impacted on who Yael is inside. These people are represent by five wolves tattooed onto her arm, and with the memories of each individual fresh in her mind, Yael has the courage and strength to do what she needs to do.
Although not one of the easiest topics to read about – a lot of unnecessary death – I highly recommend <i>Wolf by Wolf </i>to all young adult readers regardless of gender or reading preferences. This book covers such a wide range of genres that it is bound to cater to all tastes. If you love this book you will be pleased to know that it is the first in a series meaning that the story does not end here!
What if the Nazis won the war? That is the setting for this captivating alternative historical novel by Ryan Graudin. In the newly named land of Germania it is 1956, more than a decade has passed since the Nazis won. The world is still not safe, especially for those who do not fit the Aryan race description. Seventeen-year-old Yael is about to set out on her first ever mission on behalf of the secret resistance group, but it will not be easy to fulfill her duty: to kill Hitler.
Yael was a Jewish prisoner in the death camps during the war. To most Nazi officials she was known as Experiment 85, and was undergoing melanin manipulation. What the doctors did not bargain on was that these experimentations would result in the ability to change physical appearance at will. Yael discovered she could change her skin tone, facial features, hair colour, height or even impersonate someone else, purely by concentrating really hard. It is this strange power that is going to help Yael on her quest to defeat Hitler.
In order to succeed, Yael needs to get as close as possible to the Fuhrer and the only way the resistance believe she will be able to do this is be impersonating Adele Wolfe, a motorbike racer, in the Axis tour: an epic long race from Berlin to Tokyo. However it is not as simple as changing skins and winning the race. Yael needs to convince the contestants that she is Adele and avoid all the dangerous tactics of the other racers so that she can get to the finish line.
<i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is an action-packed, exciting novel aimed at young adult readers interested in history and science fiction. Since it is taught in schools, most people are aware of the Holocaust and have an idea of the horrors Jews faced. But what if that did not stop at the end of the war? This is the idea explored within this novel amongst the exhilaration of the motorcycle race. No one would be completely happy under Hitler’s rule, and we can be thankful that this is only a ‘what if?’ scenario rather than our reality.
The science-fiction element was an interesting twist to the storyline. It does, however, detract from the seriousness of the Nazi rule. Without reminders of the time period, it could almost be a dystopian novel set in the future where a tyrant controls the world.
What I personally liked about <i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is that whilst the main storyline is playing out, we learn more about Yael’s life. She may have lost her true identity but there are several people who have impacted on who Yael is inside. These people are represent by five wolves tattooed onto her arm, and with the memories of each individual fresh in her mind, Yael has the courage and strength to do what she needs to do.
Although not one of the easiest topics to read about – a lot of unnecessary death – I highly recommend <i>Wolf by Wolf </i>to all young adult readers regardless of gender or reading preferences. This book covers such a wide range of genres that it is bound to cater to all tastes. If you love this book you will be pleased to know that it is the first in a series meaning that the story does not end here!
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jan 28, 2020
Pleasantly Surprising
As I've mentioned before, I grew up during the 90s, and therefore, the Disney movies I have the fondest memories of run between Beauty & the Beast and Mulan. The original Aladdin's release in 1992 places it firmly it that era, and as such, is one that I lived as a kid. Couple this with the fact that I haven't particularly liked any of the live action Disney remakes so far, and this was one I was prepared to loathe.
But, dammit, Guy Ritchie wasn't going to let that happen! Aladdin is an adaption that is full with to the brim with positives.
The cast for one thing. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott (as Aladdin and Jasmine) are likeable leads and carry the main bulk of the story with minimal effort. They share good chemistry and are instantly charming.
Will Smith was obviously the big talking point before the films release. I though he did a great job at bringing Genie to life. He doesn't try to imitate what Robin Williams did back in 1992, and manages to stop short of turning into a full blown Will Smith vehicle, and this results in a respectful and fun portrayal of one of Disney's most beloved characters.
Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) was fine - he never really goes full Disney villain and felt quite subdued. Both a little underwhelming, but maybe a bit more grounded?
Even the CGI characters of Apu and The Magic Carpet have a respectable amount of personality!
The CGI is actually (and maybe predictably) where one of the few negatives stems from. The CG effects use in Will Smith when he's in full blown genie mode are pretty jarring at first. I feel myself getting used to it, and accepting that it actually looked fine seeing as he is a magical being and all, but then there another close up of his face and it's terrifying again. The infamous carpet ride hand a few dodgy moments as well, but other than that, it was all pretty good. The wider shots of Agrabar looked stunning and full of colour, and the film is gorgeous looking for the most part.
I've also mentioned before that I'm not a massive musical fan, but the nostalgia in me give films like Aladdin a bit of a pass. The songs here are all fine (if you ignore the autotune here and there) and the cast all seem like they can sing mostly unaided. I didn't care much for the new song they put in - it absolutely reeked of Frozen, right down to Jasmine's posturing - and added nothing to the narrative, even if the message is an empowering one.
The film also gets a bit carried away during the pre-credits, with it's reliance on the audiences tolerance for the songs.
Other than that handful of gripes, I would say that Aladdin is safely the best of the bunch so far when it comes to these live action Disney remakes. It actually feels like that cast and crew care about what they're doing, and it's doesn't come across as a money grab anywhere near as much as say The Lion King.
If you haven't yet given it a chance due to your fondness for the original, try not to worry about that and enjoy it for what it is. It could have been a lot worse!
But, dammit, Guy Ritchie wasn't going to let that happen! Aladdin is an adaption that is full with to the brim with positives.
The cast for one thing. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott (as Aladdin and Jasmine) are likeable leads and carry the main bulk of the story with minimal effort. They share good chemistry and are instantly charming.
Will Smith was obviously the big talking point before the films release. I though he did a great job at bringing Genie to life. He doesn't try to imitate what Robin Williams did back in 1992, and manages to stop short of turning into a full blown Will Smith vehicle, and this results in a respectful and fun portrayal of one of Disney's most beloved characters.
Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) was fine - he never really goes full Disney villain and felt quite subdued. Both a little underwhelming, but maybe a bit more grounded?
Even the CGI characters of Apu and The Magic Carpet have a respectable amount of personality!
The CGI is actually (and maybe predictably) where one of the few negatives stems from. The CG effects use in Will Smith when he's in full blown genie mode are pretty jarring at first. I feel myself getting used to it, and accepting that it actually looked fine seeing as he is a magical being and all, but then there another close up of his face and it's terrifying again. The infamous carpet ride hand a few dodgy moments as well, but other than that, it was all pretty good. The wider shots of Agrabar looked stunning and full of colour, and the film is gorgeous looking for the most part.
I've also mentioned before that I'm not a massive musical fan, but the nostalgia in me give films like Aladdin a bit of a pass. The songs here are all fine (if you ignore the autotune here and there) and the cast all seem like they can sing mostly unaided. I didn't care much for the new song they put in - it absolutely reeked of Frozen, right down to Jasmine's posturing - and added nothing to the narrative, even if the message is an empowering one.
The film also gets a bit carried away during the pre-credits, with it's reliance on the audiences tolerance for the songs.
Other than that handful of gripes, I would say that Aladdin is safely the best of the bunch so far when it comes to these live action Disney remakes. It actually feels like that cast and crew care about what they're doing, and it's doesn't come across as a money grab anywhere near as much as say The Lion King.
If you haven't yet given it a chance due to your fondness for the original, try not to worry about that and enjoy it for what it is. It could have been a lot worse!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Zulu (2013) in Movies
Aug 5, 2019
Story: Zulu starts when a young woman is murdered, police officer Ali Sokhela (Forest) and his team that includes the washed up Brian Epkeen (Bloom) and rookie Dan Fletcher (Kemp) must start to investigate the case.
As the investigation deepens Brian must hold himself together while Ali must face his demons from his past which becomes deadly as they fall into an illegal drug dealing ring with a new devasting drug on the market.
Thoughts on Zulu
Characters – Brian Epkeen is a washed-up police officer, he is great at solving crimes, he tends to have a different woman every night, which has made him distant from his son. He never looks professional but will always do the right thing for his team. Ali Sokhela is scared by his childhood in the racial torn country, now he is a captain in the police force which sees him needing to forgive the men his father fought against to work in the same team, he does have connections which helps him through the city, with his own demons he must locate the killer. Dan is a rookie officer that is part of the team, his innocence isn’t ready to be in the field with the seasoned vets. Ruby is Brian’s ex-wife that hates him and that Brian hassle when he feels like it.
Performances – Orlando Bloom does show us that he can still be a leading man, an edgy side to his character is a big plus too, we could happily watch more of his work here. Forest Whitaker is great too, he has the darker backstory which pushes him into his decisions and hits the accent. The rest of the cast don’t get as much screen time as he does, but you do feel like they hired a lot of local talent which helps make the film feel authentic.
Story – The story follows two cops, one with a dark past because of his skin colour as a child, the other lives in darkness because of his addiction that must use their skills to solve a crime which starts simple enough until things get out of hand to a much bigger problem running through the city. This does feel gritty with how we investigate things, it doesn’t hold back with what happens to the characters and shows us just how far the criminal underworld will go to keep a secret. While this doesn’t rely on twists to get the final outcome, it does show us just how far these two would go to solve a crime and bring the criminals to justice.
Crime – The crime world we enter here shows us just how both sides in a drug war are waging against each other, we get bodies piling up that will only increase the battle with a racial tension that just increases the tension between the twos.
Settings – The film is set in South Africa, we get to see how difficult the drug war is with the racial tension still between the people in the city.
Scene of the Movie – Brian’s escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The scene where the head turns up, there is such a pointless line here.
Final Thoughts – This is a gritty crime drama that shows us the harsh reality of the drug world, the two cops must overcome demons that will put them through a major test to get to the bottom of a crime.
Overall: Crime fans surprise.
As the investigation deepens Brian must hold himself together while Ali must face his demons from his past which becomes deadly as they fall into an illegal drug dealing ring with a new devasting drug on the market.
Thoughts on Zulu
Characters – Brian Epkeen is a washed-up police officer, he is great at solving crimes, he tends to have a different woman every night, which has made him distant from his son. He never looks professional but will always do the right thing for his team. Ali Sokhela is scared by his childhood in the racial torn country, now he is a captain in the police force which sees him needing to forgive the men his father fought against to work in the same team, he does have connections which helps him through the city, with his own demons he must locate the killer. Dan is a rookie officer that is part of the team, his innocence isn’t ready to be in the field with the seasoned vets. Ruby is Brian’s ex-wife that hates him and that Brian hassle when he feels like it.
Performances – Orlando Bloom does show us that he can still be a leading man, an edgy side to his character is a big plus too, we could happily watch more of his work here. Forest Whitaker is great too, he has the darker backstory which pushes him into his decisions and hits the accent. The rest of the cast don’t get as much screen time as he does, but you do feel like they hired a lot of local talent which helps make the film feel authentic.
Story – The story follows two cops, one with a dark past because of his skin colour as a child, the other lives in darkness because of his addiction that must use their skills to solve a crime which starts simple enough until things get out of hand to a much bigger problem running through the city. This does feel gritty with how we investigate things, it doesn’t hold back with what happens to the characters and shows us just how far the criminal underworld will go to keep a secret. While this doesn’t rely on twists to get the final outcome, it does show us just how far these two would go to solve a crime and bring the criminals to justice.
Crime – The crime world we enter here shows us just how both sides in a drug war are waging against each other, we get bodies piling up that will only increase the battle with a racial tension that just increases the tension between the twos.
Settings – The film is set in South Africa, we get to see how difficult the drug war is with the racial tension still between the people in the city.
Scene of the Movie – Brian’s escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The scene where the head turns up, there is such a pointless line here.
Final Thoughts – This is a gritty crime drama that shows us the harsh reality of the drug world, the two cops must overcome demons that will put them through a major test to get to the bottom of a crime.
Overall: Crime fans surprise.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Little Joe (2019) in Movies
Jun 15, 2020
Everyone knows a working Joe
Little Joe is a look into happiness and the lengths we will go to to achieve it while also delving deeply into the manipulation, the deprivation of freedom, greed and selfishness that can surround and alter that path too. After having a very limited cinema release in th Uk i decided to pre-order this on itunes. Today sees its release and after giving it a watch I can say I really did enjoy this movie despite a lot of other reviews saying its unwatchable due to its high pitched soundtrack. Little Joe most of the time is a very cold and clinically sterile looking film thats contrasted subtlety with bold pastle shades of colour in sets that almost have an art deco feel to them. This helps the film look constantly striking/beautiful but also adds a sense of unnatural uneasiness too it too. Combine this with a soundtrack made up of scratches, plucks, plinks and plonks woven together into a score that has an almost oriental sound to it which gives the film a constant chilling vibe and an unnerving/erie atmosphere. Its invokes intense stress on the senses thats for sure and it kept me feeling uncomfortable/stressed the entire movie and also leaving me ears ringing long after the film had had ended too. I wouldnt say its unbearable however and it definitely fits the film/adds to the atmosphere. Performances are great too feeling again very cold and focused with Ben Whishaw being the standout here as always playing a charcter so professional and confident when it comes to work yet so socially awkward when it comes to his relationships with other people. Theres running theme of happiness here thats for sure and the heights/lengths we as people will go to to just to achieve it. Primarily as a film it seems focused on questioning if drugs for conditions such as depression or dementia that are taken to make people feel happier/more 'normal' are worth the cost of losing personalities, emotions and in a sense freedom because like they say in the film "who cares if people are zombies as long as they are happy". Theres also a look at parents subduing childs behaviours for a quieter life which in a sence takes away all the traits youth and the joys of being a child bring, or partners that cant deal with thier other half being sad or having arguments all the time so they presure them onto drugs in a selfish/controlling way because to then its far easier and less time consuming than actually learning/undertsanding and putting in the effort in to helping them. Then theres how society mocks, neglects and fails to understand certain illnesses and also how companies profit from them making drugs with increasingly worse side effects but it doesnt phase them as long as they are meeting targets/company goals. Little Joe definitely contains a lot of very thought provoking stuff its just sadly all a bit messy when mixed in with all the films dark comedy and scifi horror elements and it does quite often lose its way or fall short on conclusions. That being said i found this film to be well worth the watch just be sure you know before you go in that its very slow, stressful and depressing with an intense score and a conclusion thats ultimately unrewarding but overall its great little look into the effects of drugs that are meant to help with making us all feel 'normal' and 'happy' in life.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) Jun 1, 2017