Search
Search results
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The People at Number 9 in Books
Mar 15, 2018
From this synopsis of this book, you imagine this is going to be a bit dark and a bit twisty, but its not. Its simply a domestic thriller about people with a lot of money and connections in high up places flirting, changing life paths and having resentments. I understand that this was a novel about middle-class suburban life, which can be dull, but why did nothing happen? <i>But those changes will come at a price."</i> Im sorry, but I must have missed something
What changes? What price?
I didnt like the way this was set out, and maybe thats because it was an ARC copy, but this was really choppy and changey, with no indication that a longish time period (a few hours to a whole afternoon) had passed. The writing was fine, I have no faults with that, but it wasnt anything special.
There are four main characters in this book. Sara and Neil and Lou and Gavin. While each of the characters were well developed and in depth, it didnt stop them from being lacklustre and 2D. I couldnt connect with any of them on a personal level. Even though I would get annoyed at certain things Lou said or did, I wasnt getting annoyed on Saras behalf, because I thought Sara was whiny and she got on my nerves too.
One of my issues with this book, other than it being boring as heck, was the pretentious conversations going on, all the time. I know this book was a satire piece on the middle class, I get it, but dont bore us to death with long conversations that are eye rollingly posh and uninteresting. You can create a satire piece without making your readers fall asleep. There is very little description in this book, youll find that 80% of all the writing is speech, so it really did my head in after a while.
Now, this point is completely down to personal preference, but another reason I couldnt get on with this book was because of all the out-of-marriage flirting. It makes me really uncomfortable and squirmy reading that kind of stuff, so, since it was heavily featured in this, I disliked the book even more.
This is going to be a controversial book in terms of opinions, most definitely, and it would probably be a great book to read for a discussion, because youd have lots of differing opinions on the characters, but, heres my two-cents:
Ultimately, this novel is a story about over indulged middle class suburban families doing things a little bit risky like sex in a tent or smoking weed, and worrying about things only unrealistic well-off people could worry about, like home-schooling and arts and crafts. Not worth the time it takes to read.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and HQ for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
I didnt like the way this was set out, and maybe thats because it was an ARC copy, but this was really choppy and changey, with no indication that a longish time period (a few hours to a whole afternoon) had passed. The writing was fine, I have no faults with that, but it wasnt anything special.
There are four main characters in this book. Sara and Neil and Lou and Gavin. While each of the characters were well developed and in depth, it didnt stop them from being lacklustre and 2D. I couldnt connect with any of them on a personal level. Even though I would get annoyed at certain things Lou said or did, I wasnt getting annoyed on Saras behalf, because I thought Sara was whiny and she got on my nerves too.
One of my issues with this book, other than it being boring as heck, was the pretentious conversations going on, all the time. I know this book was a satire piece on the middle class, I get it, but dont bore us to death with long conversations that are eye rollingly posh and uninteresting. You can create a satire piece without making your readers fall asleep. There is very little description in this book, youll find that 80% of all the writing is speech, so it really did my head in after a while.
Now, this point is completely down to personal preference, but another reason I couldnt get on with this book was because of all the out-of-marriage flirting. It makes me really uncomfortable and squirmy reading that kind of stuff, so, since it was heavily featured in this, I disliked the book even more.
This is going to be a controversial book in terms of opinions, most definitely, and it would probably be a great book to read for a discussion, because youd have lots of differing opinions on the characters, but, heres my two-cents:
Ultimately, this novel is a story about over indulged middle class suburban families doing things a little bit risky like sex in a tent or smoking weed, and worrying about things only unrealistic well-off people could worry about, like home-schooling and arts and crafts. Not worth the time it takes to read.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and HQ for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Meet the Robinsons (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The magicians at Disney have done it again in crafting one of the most enjoyable family films in recent memory. In Meet the Robinsons, audiences are introduced to Lewis, a young orphan who spends his time between adoption interviews tinkering away with all manner of strange inventions.
Lewis is approaching his 13th Birthday, and has given up hope of being adopted, after 150+ adoption interviews have failed to find him a family. In a desire to learn why his mother put him up for adoption, Lewis crafts a new invention that he hopes will not only answer this question, but also win him a prize at the school science fair.
As Lewis is preparing his memory scanner for the show, he is approached by a boy named Wilbur Robinson who tells him to watch out for a man in a bowler hat, as he has designs on the memory scanner.
Lewis and Wilbur are unaware that the Man in the Bowler Hat has indeed already arrived, and has sabotaged the memory scanner causing Lewis to be humiliated when his experiment goes horribly wrong.
Unknown to Lewis, a dastardly plan is underway and while Lewis attempts to make sense of his misfortune and lack of a family, Wilbur whisks Lewis into the future via a time machine in an effort to thwart the Bowler Hat Guy from changing the future for the worse.
During the arrival in the future, the time machine is damaged, and since it is one of only two known to exist, Lewis is forced to make repairs to the ship in order to return to his own time.
It is learned that Wilbur’s father has invented the time machines, and when the Man in the Bowler Hat stole one of the machines, Wilbur took the other one in an attempt to set things right, and is not able to ask for help from his father, less he suffer punishment.
With the very future he knows in danger, Wilbur agrees to help Lewis see his real mother if he is able to fix the time machine, but they both have to deal with The Man in the Bowler Hat and Wilbur’s quirky family if they are to save the day.
The film is a real joy, and the amazing animation was made even better by seeing the film in Direct 3D. I highly suggest seeing the film in this format if there is a theater near you showing the film in 3D.
Many family films strive to offer something that viewers of all ages can enjoy, but few have done as well as “Robinsons“ as the laughs were easily enjoyed by all ages, without being cutesy or forced.
My wife and I really enjoyed the T-Rex character, and hope that should there be future installments of this series, that he gets a larger part in the future.
The film was well paced and never seemed to drag or have a lull in rich visuals to feast your eyes upon while you enjoy a well rounded story and interesting characters.
My advice, put the Robinsons in your future.
Lewis is approaching his 13th Birthday, and has given up hope of being adopted, after 150+ adoption interviews have failed to find him a family. In a desire to learn why his mother put him up for adoption, Lewis crafts a new invention that he hopes will not only answer this question, but also win him a prize at the school science fair.
As Lewis is preparing his memory scanner for the show, he is approached by a boy named Wilbur Robinson who tells him to watch out for a man in a bowler hat, as he has designs on the memory scanner.
Lewis and Wilbur are unaware that the Man in the Bowler Hat has indeed already arrived, and has sabotaged the memory scanner causing Lewis to be humiliated when his experiment goes horribly wrong.
Unknown to Lewis, a dastardly plan is underway and while Lewis attempts to make sense of his misfortune and lack of a family, Wilbur whisks Lewis into the future via a time machine in an effort to thwart the Bowler Hat Guy from changing the future for the worse.
During the arrival in the future, the time machine is damaged, and since it is one of only two known to exist, Lewis is forced to make repairs to the ship in order to return to his own time.
It is learned that Wilbur’s father has invented the time machines, and when the Man in the Bowler Hat stole one of the machines, Wilbur took the other one in an attempt to set things right, and is not able to ask for help from his father, less he suffer punishment.
With the very future he knows in danger, Wilbur agrees to help Lewis see his real mother if he is able to fix the time machine, but they both have to deal with The Man in the Bowler Hat and Wilbur’s quirky family if they are to save the day.
The film is a real joy, and the amazing animation was made even better by seeing the film in Direct 3D. I highly suggest seeing the film in this format if there is a theater near you showing the film in 3D.
Many family films strive to offer something that viewers of all ages can enjoy, but few have done as well as “Robinsons“ as the laughs were easily enjoyed by all ages, without being cutesy or forced.
My wife and I really enjoyed the T-Rex character, and hope that should there be future installments of this series, that he gets a larger part in the future.
The film was well paced and never seemed to drag or have a lull in rich visuals to feast your eyes upon while you enjoy a well rounded story and interesting characters.
My advice, put the Robinsons in your future.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Outlaw King (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
After more than eight years of war with King Edward I of England (Stephen Dillane) the Scottish Nobles swear allegiance to the crown, ending the brutal. This includes Robert Bruce (Chris Pine) who is one of two men in line to be King of Scots. But by pledging his loyalty to they agree to be under the supervision of the Earl of Pembroke, Aymer de Valence (Sam Spruell). Robert’s father, Robert Bruce Senior (James Cosmo), had pushed for the peace with England but when he dies and the younger Robert is in charge a new fight for independence seems eminent. When the last remaining outlaw, William Wallace, is killed by the English Robert knows the time to fight is now. He decides to meet with his rival for the crown, John Comyn (Callan Mulvey), to have a united Scotland fighting for freedom. When Comyn denies Robert’s request and tells him he will use the information to be named King by Edward I, Robert kills him. This proves costly as it divides the Scottish Lords. Robert is determined and will take a small group loyal to him and fight one of the largest and most feared armies in the world.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
If I had a pound for every time someone said they wanted a live-action Power Rangers reboot, I’d have exactly… nothing. The popular television series isn’t the first franchise that comes to mind when imagining films that’ll draw in the crowds, especially considering its era was very much the 90s.
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
No Big Bloomers?
Bridget Jones’s Diary is a classic example of the perfect British rom-com. Upon its release in 2001, yes 15 years ago, it catapulted Renée Zellweger into the public eye and made household names of its other stars.
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 16, 2021
Works well enough - despite a weak villain
The Daniel Craig James Bond films are a different breed of Bond films. Instead of each one being a “one-off, fun romp” filled with Gadgets, Villains, Beautiful Ladies and Wild Stunts, the 5 films of the “Daniel Craig era” of Bond films was something else…gritty, serious and serialized, each film standing on it’s own but also building on the previous one to tell one long story.
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Arctic (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
This week has been one of the coldest on record across much of the United States. The “polar vortex” has brought with it sub-zero temps complete with snow and ice. It seems only fitting that Arctic a survival movie co-written and directed by YouTube star Joe Penna would be releasing the very same week. In his first feature film directorial debut Penna brings both the beauty and the dangers of the Arctic (Iceland in this case) to the big screen.
A lone man identified only as Overgård (Mads Mikkelsen) has crashed his cargo plane somewhere in the arctic. We don’t know how long he has been stranded there, but long enough for him to have carved out a giant S.O.S in the snow. He has converted his downed plane into his new home and goes about the same routine every day. He sets his watch alarm to keep his schedule, which involves catching fish through the ice, and setting out in a different direction each day to manually wind his transponder in the hopes that a rescue will finally come.
One day, a day like countless days before it, Overgård’s transponder turns from red to green and in the distance a helicopter appears. His lucky day soon turns into tragedy as the harsh winds of the Arctic toss the helicopter around like a kite in a hurricane, crashing it to the ground. Overgård quickly runs to the crash site only to find that one of the pilots has died in the crash, and the other (Maria Thelma Smáradôttir) is barely conscious and has a gaping wound in her side. In a scene that could almost be described as humorous (if it wasn’t for the dire situation itself), Overgård crafts a sled out of the helicopter’s sliding door to carry the woman back to the safety of his plane, only to find out the next day that inside the helicopter was an actual rescue sled.
Sadly, it isn’t long before the young pilot’s wound begins to fester that Overgård must make a choice. Stay in the little slice of heaven that he has carved up for himself or risk the forces of nature in an effort to save the woman’s life. With a map he recovered from the downed helicopter, Overgård is able to identify an outpost and carefully plots out the journey that will take them there. The journey he plans for will take several days and has numerous obstacles to overcome. Yet, with a heart that clearly is as large as the vastness of the arctic itself, he realizes he has no choice.
Arctic is a movie with very little dialog, other than an occasional comment to himself or an attempt to rouse his unconscious guest. For a movie that says so little it’s the atmosphere that says so much. The film attempts to capture the harsh conditions that Overgård faces along his journey and does it so brilliantly that you can almost feel the icy weight as it bears down. The audience struggles with every wintery step as if they are not only spectators, but active participants in the journey. The scenery is as awe inspiring as it is deadly. The music seamlessly blends into the environment to a point where you are aware it’s there but doesn’t break the immersion.
Arctic could almost be mistaken as a documentary, a film about one mans survival in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. Its pacing is deliberate, even if it is a bit slow at times. There is little need to add extra flair or danger into the mix, because nature alone provides it in spades. Arctic is not a movie that will appeal to those looking for non-stop action. At its heart it is really a movie about man vs nature, and nature can be a beast all its own. Arctic is certainly a movie for those looking for something a bit different. For those who are looking for a survival movie that doesn’t take place on a deserted isle, then this is right up your alley. Arctic shows that sometimes realism is far more interesting than fiction.
A lone man identified only as Overgård (Mads Mikkelsen) has crashed his cargo plane somewhere in the arctic. We don’t know how long he has been stranded there, but long enough for him to have carved out a giant S.O.S in the snow. He has converted his downed plane into his new home and goes about the same routine every day. He sets his watch alarm to keep his schedule, which involves catching fish through the ice, and setting out in a different direction each day to manually wind his transponder in the hopes that a rescue will finally come.
One day, a day like countless days before it, Overgård’s transponder turns from red to green and in the distance a helicopter appears. His lucky day soon turns into tragedy as the harsh winds of the Arctic toss the helicopter around like a kite in a hurricane, crashing it to the ground. Overgård quickly runs to the crash site only to find that one of the pilots has died in the crash, and the other (Maria Thelma Smáradôttir) is barely conscious and has a gaping wound in her side. In a scene that could almost be described as humorous (if it wasn’t for the dire situation itself), Overgård crafts a sled out of the helicopter’s sliding door to carry the woman back to the safety of his plane, only to find out the next day that inside the helicopter was an actual rescue sled.
Sadly, it isn’t long before the young pilot’s wound begins to fester that Overgård must make a choice. Stay in the little slice of heaven that he has carved up for himself or risk the forces of nature in an effort to save the woman’s life. With a map he recovered from the downed helicopter, Overgård is able to identify an outpost and carefully plots out the journey that will take them there. The journey he plans for will take several days and has numerous obstacles to overcome. Yet, with a heart that clearly is as large as the vastness of the arctic itself, he realizes he has no choice.
Arctic is a movie with very little dialog, other than an occasional comment to himself or an attempt to rouse his unconscious guest. For a movie that says so little it’s the atmosphere that says so much. The film attempts to capture the harsh conditions that Overgård faces along his journey and does it so brilliantly that you can almost feel the icy weight as it bears down. The audience struggles with every wintery step as if they are not only spectators, but active participants in the journey. The scenery is as awe inspiring as it is deadly. The music seamlessly blends into the environment to a point where you are aware it’s there but doesn’t break the immersion.
Arctic could almost be mistaken as a documentary, a film about one mans survival in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. Its pacing is deliberate, even if it is a bit slow at times. There is little need to add extra flair or danger into the mix, because nature alone provides it in spades. Arctic is not a movie that will appeal to those looking for non-stop action. At its heart it is really a movie about man vs nature, and nature can be a beast all its own. Arctic is certainly a movie for those looking for something a bit different. For those who are looking for a survival movie that doesn’t take place on a deserted isle, then this is right up your alley. Arctic shows that sometimes realism is far more interesting than fiction.
Mothergamer (1520 KP) rated the PC version of The Elder Scrolls Online Tamriel Unlimited in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
Many of my friends kept telling me I should play Elder Scrolls Online because it was a lot of fun and set before the events of Skyrim. I told them I didn't have it yet, but eventually I would check it out. I liked that they followed in the steps of Guild Wars 2 by not having a monthly subscription, once you buy the game it's yours to play to your heart's content. I waited until it went on sale on Steam and got the collector's edition which included three DLCs and a horse mount. I was excited to create a new character and explore the world of Elder Scrolls Online. I actually made two characters both in the Nightblade job class a Dark Elf and a Wood Elf. You can have 8 character slots which is pretty nice. I may go and try out a Khajiit character later.
One of the many Khajit characters in the game.
The character creation is very user friendly with a variety of options. However, I once again wondered why there so many different variations of bald for the female characters. I suppose that just gives you a lot of options if that's your thing. I did like that there were plenty of longer hair options for the characters. Once my character creation was complete, I could not wait to start my adventure. I also had to pick which server to play on North American or European. I went with North American as the time difference doesn't really let me play with my European friends. Depending on which character you pick: Dark Elf, Wood Elf, High Elf, Khajit, Argonian, Nord, Breton, Redguard, or Orc you start the game that gives you a tutorial introduction for the game controls and then you have racial origin quests you can play. I play the game on PC so my controls were for the PC, but you can also play the game on PS4 and XboxOne. Once I finished the tutorial quest I was able to really begin exploring the world of Tamriel.
My Dark Elf ready for adventure!
One great thing that stands out is how easy the controls are to map and use. The user menu for items and quest logs is incredibly user friendly making the game feel nicely streamlined. There is literally tons to see and do in Elder Scrolls Online ranging from a myriad of side quests to origin story quests as well as the main story quests. Another thing I like is the dungeon system. While I like Final Fantasy 14, the one thing I really do not like is how many forced dungeon crawls there are. Elder Scrolls Online has made it so that if you want to do a dungeon you can or you can just skip it if it's not your thing.
There are actually seven different types of dungeons. You have the public dungeons which if you have the right character build, you can solo very easily. This dungeon is open to everyone so solo players can come in and explore and team up with people who are in there if they wish. Public dungeons are a bit more challenging than the other dungeons so in general a group definitely helps. Delves are solo dungeons pertinent to whichever quest you're on. Non-Veteran group dungeons are instanced dungeons that require a group of four and are normal mode and scale to the level of the group leader. Veteran dungeons are instanced as well, but they don't unlock until you're level 50 and they are a higher difficulty than the other dungeons. Trials are 12 person instances that are mainly for endgame content and require a solid group and teamwork. Craglorn delves are instanced dungeons that have you kill a specific bosses inside. Finally, there is the Dragonstar Arena which is a 4 person instance PVE (Player versus event) arena. This has 10 different levels where you work together to fight 5 waves of monsters in each level and a final boss at the end. This is a difficult level dungeon for experienced players.
Battling in a Delve.
There is chat of course and for the most part it's alright in the fact that you can learn about events or people looking for groups so you can team up for quests and dungeons. This also lets you know what guilds are out there recruiting. Other times I tend to turn off zone chat because there's only so many sexual innuendo and dick jokes I can take. For the most part I run around by myself doing quests and I always have fun doing them and I have done a few group dungeons which are fun as well. The community in Elder Scrolls Online is quite friendly from what I've experienced and there are a lot of players who are willing to help if you need it and give advice about the game and class builds. I've even had a few players trade gear with me to help my Nightblade characters be even better which was so nice of them. That alone has made my experience with Elder Scrolls Online even more enjoyable.
The different areas that I've explored so far are beautiful. Just exploring is a lot of fun in itself because each area is completely different so it's a lot of fun to just look around at everything. The music in the game is fantastic as well and sets a great atmosphere for the story and quests. The battles are fun and easy to navigate. Leveling doesn't feel like a chore and unlocking skills is simple to do and with enough skill points you can even morph your skills into more powerful abilities. Traveling is great too because once you unlock a way shrine you can fast travel to those spots that you have unlocked. It does cost some gold when you fast travel however, but with all the quests you get under your belt it's not that big a deal. Traveling on a mount is easy, you can just use a command that has your character whistle and your mount will appear so you can head to where you need to go.
My Wood Elf admiring the beautiful scenery.
There is PVP (player versus player) in the game. You can fight in Cyrodiil from level 10 and above. You can also challenge other players to a duel anywhere in Tamriel. If the person accepts your duel challenge, a flag appears and you fight in the designated area marked by the flag, if you leave that area it results in a forfeit. I tried it out once just to see what it was like (PVP is not my thing) and it was alright. For those who love PVP it is one more fun adventure thing you can do in the game.
You can do crafting in the game as well. There is an introductory quest to crafting that you get so you can learn about the craft you choose. There are six crafts to choose from: Blacksmith, Clothier, Alchemy, Enchanting, Provisioning, and Woodworking. The tutorial on how to do the crafts is easy to follow and once you get started it's easy to do. This is also a terrific way to make a bit of extra coin in the game for all the things you need such as gear and healing potions.
The one issue I have with Elder Scrolls Online is that there is no cross platform gaming. This means if you play on the PC, but your friends play on the PS4 or XboxOne consoles you can't play together. This means that PC players are on their own server and the console players are on their own separate server. I can understand a bit why they did it that way, but it kind of sucks that I can't play with my friends who are on the console platforms. In that regard, Final Fantasy 14 is winning because you can play with your friends across all platforms. Perhaps that may change in the future, but for now that's not the case.
Lack of cross platform gaming aside, Elder Scrolls Online is a great game. It's a fun adventure with a ton of content to explore and plenty of things to see and do. I'm glad I was able to check it out and I'm enjoying playing by myself and with other people. It's an MMORPG that offers a lot of great things in its game and gives a huge amount of freedom to the different play styles that people have allowing everyone to enjoy the game the way they wish. Now, I'm off to do some more adventuring in Tamriel!
One of the many Khajit characters in the game.
The character creation is very user friendly with a variety of options. However, I once again wondered why there so many different variations of bald for the female characters. I suppose that just gives you a lot of options if that's your thing. I did like that there were plenty of longer hair options for the characters. Once my character creation was complete, I could not wait to start my adventure. I also had to pick which server to play on North American or European. I went with North American as the time difference doesn't really let me play with my European friends. Depending on which character you pick: Dark Elf, Wood Elf, High Elf, Khajit, Argonian, Nord, Breton, Redguard, or Orc you start the game that gives you a tutorial introduction for the game controls and then you have racial origin quests you can play. I play the game on PC so my controls were for the PC, but you can also play the game on PS4 and XboxOne. Once I finished the tutorial quest I was able to really begin exploring the world of Tamriel.
My Dark Elf ready for adventure!
One great thing that stands out is how easy the controls are to map and use. The user menu for items and quest logs is incredibly user friendly making the game feel nicely streamlined. There is literally tons to see and do in Elder Scrolls Online ranging from a myriad of side quests to origin story quests as well as the main story quests. Another thing I like is the dungeon system. While I like Final Fantasy 14, the one thing I really do not like is how many forced dungeon crawls there are. Elder Scrolls Online has made it so that if you want to do a dungeon you can or you can just skip it if it's not your thing.
There are actually seven different types of dungeons. You have the public dungeons which if you have the right character build, you can solo very easily. This dungeon is open to everyone so solo players can come in and explore and team up with people who are in there if they wish. Public dungeons are a bit more challenging than the other dungeons so in general a group definitely helps. Delves are solo dungeons pertinent to whichever quest you're on. Non-Veteran group dungeons are instanced dungeons that require a group of four and are normal mode and scale to the level of the group leader. Veteran dungeons are instanced as well, but they don't unlock until you're level 50 and they are a higher difficulty than the other dungeons. Trials are 12 person instances that are mainly for endgame content and require a solid group and teamwork. Craglorn delves are instanced dungeons that have you kill a specific bosses inside. Finally, there is the Dragonstar Arena which is a 4 person instance PVE (Player versus event) arena. This has 10 different levels where you work together to fight 5 waves of monsters in each level and a final boss at the end. This is a difficult level dungeon for experienced players.
Battling in a Delve.
There is chat of course and for the most part it's alright in the fact that you can learn about events or people looking for groups so you can team up for quests and dungeons. This also lets you know what guilds are out there recruiting. Other times I tend to turn off zone chat because there's only so many sexual innuendo and dick jokes I can take. For the most part I run around by myself doing quests and I always have fun doing them and I have done a few group dungeons which are fun as well. The community in Elder Scrolls Online is quite friendly from what I've experienced and there are a lot of players who are willing to help if you need it and give advice about the game and class builds. I've even had a few players trade gear with me to help my Nightblade characters be even better which was so nice of them. That alone has made my experience with Elder Scrolls Online even more enjoyable.
The different areas that I've explored so far are beautiful. Just exploring is a lot of fun in itself because each area is completely different so it's a lot of fun to just look around at everything. The music in the game is fantastic as well and sets a great atmosphere for the story and quests. The battles are fun and easy to navigate. Leveling doesn't feel like a chore and unlocking skills is simple to do and with enough skill points you can even morph your skills into more powerful abilities. Traveling is great too because once you unlock a way shrine you can fast travel to those spots that you have unlocked. It does cost some gold when you fast travel however, but with all the quests you get under your belt it's not that big a deal. Traveling on a mount is easy, you can just use a command that has your character whistle and your mount will appear so you can head to where you need to go.
My Wood Elf admiring the beautiful scenery.
There is PVP (player versus player) in the game. You can fight in Cyrodiil from level 10 and above. You can also challenge other players to a duel anywhere in Tamriel. If the person accepts your duel challenge, a flag appears and you fight in the designated area marked by the flag, if you leave that area it results in a forfeit. I tried it out once just to see what it was like (PVP is not my thing) and it was alright. For those who love PVP it is one more fun adventure thing you can do in the game.
You can do crafting in the game as well. There is an introductory quest to crafting that you get so you can learn about the craft you choose. There are six crafts to choose from: Blacksmith, Clothier, Alchemy, Enchanting, Provisioning, and Woodworking. The tutorial on how to do the crafts is easy to follow and once you get started it's easy to do. This is also a terrific way to make a bit of extra coin in the game for all the things you need such as gear and healing potions.
The one issue I have with Elder Scrolls Online is that there is no cross platform gaming. This means if you play on the PC, but your friends play on the PS4 or XboxOne consoles you can't play together. This means that PC players are on their own server and the console players are on their own separate server. I can understand a bit why they did it that way, but it kind of sucks that I can't play with my friends who are on the console platforms. In that regard, Final Fantasy 14 is winning because you can play with your friends across all platforms. Perhaps that may change in the future, but for now that's not the case.
Lack of cross platform gaming aside, Elder Scrolls Online is a great game. It's a fun adventure with a ton of content to explore and plenty of things to see and do. I'm glad I was able to check it out and I'm enjoying playing by myself and with other people. It's an MMORPG that offers a lot of great things in its game and gives a huge amount of freedom to the different play styles that people have allowing everyone to enjoy the game the way they wish. Now, I'm off to do some more adventuring in Tamriel!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
All hail the Titans
2014’s Godzilla was a thrilling and somewhat underrated return to form for the king of the kaiju. Directed by visionary film-maker Gareth Edwards, Godzilla’s return to the big screen was beautifully filmed with some of the best set pieces ever seen on celluloid. It certainly made up for the Roland Emmerich monstrosity that shall remain nameless here.
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/