Search
Search results
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
In the early 1980s, author Alvin Schwartz created a book of short horror stories titled Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark that would go on to terrorize a whole generation of curious young readers. Combined with its morbid and ghastly illustrations by artist Stephen Gammell, the book would serve as an introduction to horror for many. Over the next ten years, Schwartz wrote two more books in the Scary Stories series, and now, nearly forty years later, it has finally been adapted into a major motion picture. Produced by Academy Award-winning director Guillermo Del Toro and directed by André Øvredal, the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark film constructs a new narrative around several of the iconic short stories from the book series, and brings them to life to haunt the movie’s teenage characters.
In Mill Valley, Pennsylvania in 1968, a group of teenage friends fleeing from a band of bullies hide out in an abandoned haunted house on Halloween night. They know the story of this house well, whose folklore is rooted in the origins of their own small town. It was once owned by the wealthy Bellows Family, who according to urban legend, locked away their own daughter, Sarah Bellows, inside the cellar of their home. Sarah had been accused of killing the town’s children, and so her family kept her hidden away and attempted to erase her from existence, even removing her from their own family portraits. According to legend, Sarah wrote a book of horror stories and would read them aloud through the walls of her room to frighten the local townspeople.
While inside this haunted house, our group of protagonists; Stella (Zoe Colletti), Ramón (Michael Garza), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), discover the room Sarah had spent her life trapped in. Stella, an amateur horror writer herself, finds the rumored book that was written by Sarah. Upon opening it she sees that a new page is somehow being written in blood right before her very eyes, and it happens to be about the bully that chased them into the house. The next day, they realize that it seems as though the story actually came true, and that the book itself may be haunted. This establishes the basic premise of the film, in which new stories are being written in the book and they appear to be targeting Stella and everyone else that entered the Bellows’ house that night.
It’s an interesting set-up that cleverly mixes horror with mystery, as the characters are not only trying to survive these stories as they come to life, but are also trying to figure out how to stop them from happening. The film features five different stories from the series, most of which come from the third and final book, and a sixth story centered around Stella and Sarah Bellows that is at least in part inspired by one of the original tales. To give an example without giving too much away, one story for instance, involves a haunted scarecrow, whereas another is about a walking corpse in search of its severed big toe. The stories themselves are much more dark and grotesque than I had anticipated. I was expecting something more along the lines of Goosebumps, which was a series of children’s horror books that I personally loved and grew up with as a child, but these are much more disturbing than that. While I only found the first story of the film, “Harold”, to actually be scary, I do imagine this movie might be a little too frightening for some teenagers.
I should clarify that I’m not familiar with the original written source material of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, and I had truthfully never even heard of the books prior to the movie’s announcement. I don’t have any personal stake in these stories, but I do admire the thoughtfulness and creativity that went into building the film around them. I thought the film started out really strong with a likable cast of characters, and with most of its best moments featured early on. I loved the introduction to the haunted house and the legend of the Bellows Family. I enjoyed the playful nature of our group of young protagonists, who in the beginning felt reminiscent of the fun and crazy kids you might find in an 80s movie like The Goonies. Additionally, I liked the mystery of Sarah Bellows that the kids were trying to uncover, all the while struggling to survive the dangers of her haunting stories that had come to life.
Unfortunately, as the movie went on, I found myself less and less invested in it with each passing story, all of which I would argue are weaker than the previous one before it. The Pale Lady storyline was particularly dull and underwhelming. The final act itself, although smartly designed with its use of parallels, wound up feeling poorly executed and unsatisfying overall.
Similarly, in regards to the acting, I liked the performances even less by the end as well. Early on I had been impressed with Zoe Colletti as Stella, but I found her to be annoying in the later parts of the movie. The same goes for Austin Zajur as Chuck. The cast for the most part was decent, but everything about the movie began to drop in quality as it dragged on, which is especially unfortunate given how well it starts out.
The special effects are mostly quite good and adequately disturbing, but on the same token, I wish they were more clearly visible at times. A lot of the horror settings take place in dark rooms, so at times it can be hard to see the monsters with much clarity. Still, I love the design of Harold the Scarecrow, as well as The Jangly Man, who is played by contortionist Troy James whose extreme flexibility allows the character to move in unnatural and disturbing looking ways.
To conclude, I’m left with some mixed feelings on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. For me, it almost hits the mark, but unfortunately it isn’t a movie that I think I’d bother to watch again. It made a solid first impression with its rich atmosphere and creepy first act, but it failed to maintain its momentum and level of quality. In the end, my favorite thing about the whole movie is actually the excellent cover song of “Season of the Witch” by Lana Del Rey that plays during the credits. However that’s not in any way to say the movie is so bad that the credits were my favorite part. It’s just a great song by an artist I very much enjoy. If you grew up with the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark series, then by all means, I recommend that you at least check it out. If you like horror and have any troublesome teenaged kids, this may be a perfect opportunity to have some fun scaring the heck out of them.
In Mill Valley, Pennsylvania in 1968, a group of teenage friends fleeing from a band of bullies hide out in an abandoned haunted house on Halloween night. They know the story of this house well, whose folklore is rooted in the origins of their own small town. It was once owned by the wealthy Bellows Family, who according to urban legend, locked away their own daughter, Sarah Bellows, inside the cellar of their home. Sarah had been accused of killing the town’s children, and so her family kept her hidden away and attempted to erase her from existence, even removing her from their own family portraits. According to legend, Sarah wrote a book of horror stories and would read them aloud through the walls of her room to frighten the local townspeople.
While inside this haunted house, our group of protagonists; Stella (Zoe Colletti), Ramón (Michael Garza), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), discover the room Sarah had spent her life trapped in. Stella, an amateur horror writer herself, finds the rumored book that was written by Sarah. Upon opening it she sees that a new page is somehow being written in blood right before her very eyes, and it happens to be about the bully that chased them into the house. The next day, they realize that it seems as though the story actually came true, and that the book itself may be haunted. This establishes the basic premise of the film, in which new stories are being written in the book and they appear to be targeting Stella and everyone else that entered the Bellows’ house that night.
It’s an interesting set-up that cleverly mixes horror with mystery, as the characters are not only trying to survive these stories as they come to life, but are also trying to figure out how to stop them from happening. The film features five different stories from the series, most of which come from the third and final book, and a sixth story centered around Stella and Sarah Bellows that is at least in part inspired by one of the original tales. To give an example without giving too much away, one story for instance, involves a haunted scarecrow, whereas another is about a walking corpse in search of its severed big toe. The stories themselves are much more dark and grotesque than I had anticipated. I was expecting something more along the lines of Goosebumps, which was a series of children’s horror books that I personally loved and grew up with as a child, but these are much more disturbing than that. While I only found the first story of the film, “Harold”, to actually be scary, I do imagine this movie might be a little too frightening for some teenagers.
I should clarify that I’m not familiar with the original written source material of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, and I had truthfully never even heard of the books prior to the movie’s announcement. I don’t have any personal stake in these stories, but I do admire the thoughtfulness and creativity that went into building the film around them. I thought the film started out really strong with a likable cast of characters, and with most of its best moments featured early on. I loved the introduction to the haunted house and the legend of the Bellows Family. I enjoyed the playful nature of our group of young protagonists, who in the beginning felt reminiscent of the fun and crazy kids you might find in an 80s movie like The Goonies. Additionally, I liked the mystery of Sarah Bellows that the kids were trying to uncover, all the while struggling to survive the dangers of her haunting stories that had come to life.
Unfortunately, as the movie went on, I found myself less and less invested in it with each passing story, all of which I would argue are weaker than the previous one before it. The Pale Lady storyline was particularly dull and underwhelming. The final act itself, although smartly designed with its use of parallels, wound up feeling poorly executed and unsatisfying overall.
Similarly, in regards to the acting, I liked the performances even less by the end as well. Early on I had been impressed with Zoe Colletti as Stella, but I found her to be annoying in the later parts of the movie. The same goes for Austin Zajur as Chuck. The cast for the most part was decent, but everything about the movie began to drop in quality as it dragged on, which is especially unfortunate given how well it starts out.
The special effects are mostly quite good and adequately disturbing, but on the same token, I wish they were more clearly visible at times. A lot of the horror settings take place in dark rooms, so at times it can be hard to see the monsters with much clarity. Still, I love the design of Harold the Scarecrow, as well as The Jangly Man, who is played by contortionist Troy James whose extreme flexibility allows the character to move in unnatural and disturbing looking ways.
To conclude, I’m left with some mixed feelings on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. For me, it almost hits the mark, but unfortunately it isn’t a movie that I think I’d bother to watch again. It made a solid first impression with its rich atmosphere and creepy first act, but it failed to maintain its momentum and level of quality. In the end, my favorite thing about the whole movie is actually the excellent cover song of “Season of the Witch” by Lana Del Rey that plays during the credits. However that’s not in any way to say the movie is so bad that the credits were my favorite part. It’s just a great song by an artist I very much enjoy. If you grew up with the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark series, then by all means, I recommend that you at least check it out. If you like horror and have any troublesome teenaged kids, this may be a perfect opportunity to have some fun scaring the heck out of them.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Nov 27, 2017
Decent cast performances (1 more)
Good fun
Varying quality of SFX (1 more)
Painfully safe
Justice At Last For DC Fans?
Last weekend, a movie dropped that most comic book fans have been hotly anticipating for the last few decades. The follow up to the disappointment that was Dawn of Justice, Justice League had a lot to live up to. I’m not going to try and convince you that it is a perfect movie, but I enjoyed it. If I was judging the movie on it’s own I would probably be much harsher with my rating etc, but in the context of other DCEU movies, it’s a breath of fresh air.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isn’t really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as he’s been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think that’s more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but it’s nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I don’t hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but it’s not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, it’s not the worst movie in the world; it’s not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, ‘okay,’ it’s the Justice League for Christssake. This film isn’t even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avenger’s solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isn’t really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as he’s been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think that’s more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but it’s nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I don’t hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but it’s not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, it’s not the worst movie in the world; it’s not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, ‘okay,’ it’s the Justice League for Christssake. This film isn’t even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avenger’s solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
Lee (2222 KP) rated A Series of Unfortunate Events - Season 1 in TV
Jul 26, 2017
The latest adaptation of the thirteen books comprising ‘A Series of Unfortunate Events’ makes its way onto Netflix, the last being the 2004 film starring Jim Carrey. I haven’t read any of the books, or seen the movie. However my daughter has, and she loves them (the books, not so much the movie). So, we sat down together to watch season 1, which covers the first four books in the series, with two episodes devoted to each book.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Feb 5, 2019 (Updated Feb 5, 2019)
Natasha Lyonne carries this entire series phenomenally (2 more)
Good, tight script full of quick, witty dialogue
Short and sweet
Death Becomes Her
I watched Netflix's latest series Russian Doll over the past weekend and I loved it. Natasha Lyonne stars as a woman who on the night of her 36th birthday party, is suddenly hit by a car and dies. She then comes to and finds herself again standing in the bathroom in front of the sink back at her birthday party without a scratch. Then after dying a few more times and returning to the same spot in the bathroom, she realises that she is unable to stay dead and is going to be stuck in this loop indefinitely.
I had no clue what to expect going into this one. I was a fan of Natasha Lyonne from her role in Orange Is The New Black and had heard that she had co-wrote this project and even had a hand in directing it. This peaked my curiosity enough to give it a shot, and I'm glad that I did because, (although it is only February,) this is my favourite show of this year so far.
There is of course the presence of the obvious 'Groundhog Day,' trope, but thankfully the show uses this mechanic to it's benefit and manages to tell a fairly unique story based on a pretty unoriginal story-telling device. The show was co-written by Lyonne, Amy Poehler and Leslye Headland and the writing is brilliant. The show is comedic in all of the right places while managing to achieve and maintain a more serious tone when it wants to for certain moments, especially towards the end of the series.
Consisting of eight episodes all around 30 minutes in duration, the series moves at an extremely brisk pace and it is a pace that matches the quick dialogue and editing style that the series adopts during many of the death montage sequences. This all gels together to ensure that the show never feels stagnant or dragging in any sense. The score and cinematography are also great and compliment the other aspects of the show very nicely. All of this together is what gives this show it's unique, quirky feel.
Though, none of this would work without having a reliable lead protagonist to tie the whole thing together and Natasha Lyonne pulls off this difficult task flawlessly. I have always enjoyed seeing Lyonne pop up in several projects as a solid supporting actress, but this is the first time that I have seen her in the lead role and she is phenomenal through the entire eight episodes that Russian Doll consists of. Match that with the writing and directing credits that she claims on this series and you realise that we are watching an artist with incredible talent getting to realise her vision through this project and it is a joy to witness the whole thing unfold.
Overall, Russian Doll is a fantastic series that is enjoyable from start to finish. It features brilliant writing, fantastic performances and plenty of laughs. Due to the oddball nature and tone of this wonderful series, I am not sure if I want to see a second season. However, I am very much looking forward to seeing wherever Lyonne goes from here and what she plans to do next, both as an actress and as an auteur.
I had no clue what to expect going into this one. I was a fan of Natasha Lyonne from her role in Orange Is The New Black and had heard that she had co-wrote this project and even had a hand in directing it. This peaked my curiosity enough to give it a shot, and I'm glad that I did because, (although it is only February,) this is my favourite show of this year so far.
There is of course the presence of the obvious 'Groundhog Day,' trope, but thankfully the show uses this mechanic to it's benefit and manages to tell a fairly unique story based on a pretty unoriginal story-telling device. The show was co-written by Lyonne, Amy Poehler and Leslye Headland and the writing is brilliant. The show is comedic in all of the right places while managing to achieve and maintain a more serious tone when it wants to for certain moments, especially towards the end of the series.
Consisting of eight episodes all around 30 minutes in duration, the series moves at an extremely brisk pace and it is a pace that matches the quick dialogue and editing style that the series adopts during many of the death montage sequences. This all gels together to ensure that the show never feels stagnant or dragging in any sense. The score and cinematography are also great and compliment the other aspects of the show very nicely. All of this together is what gives this show it's unique, quirky feel.
Though, none of this would work without having a reliable lead protagonist to tie the whole thing together and Natasha Lyonne pulls off this difficult task flawlessly. I have always enjoyed seeing Lyonne pop up in several projects as a solid supporting actress, but this is the first time that I have seen her in the lead role and she is phenomenal through the entire eight episodes that Russian Doll consists of. Match that with the writing and directing credits that she claims on this series and you realise that we are watching an artist with incredible talent getting to realise her vision through this project and it is a joy to witness the whole thing unfold.
Overall, Russian Doll is a fantastic series that is enjoyable from start to finish. It features brilliant writing, fantastic performances and plenty of laughs. Due to the oddball nature and tone of this wonderful series, I am not sure if I want to see a second season. However, I am very much looking forward to seeing wherever Lyonne goes from here and what she plans to do next, both as an actress and as an auteur.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 14, 2019
Oh...hell, no!
HELLBOY?!? HELL NO!
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Only The Brave (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
One of the year's best films
Films based on true events are ten-a-penny these days. From 2015s stunning American Sniper and 2016s breath-taking Deepwater Horizon to the critically acclaimed Patriots Day, there seems to be no stopping the ‘true to life’ variety of movies that has suddenly become very popular.
The trouble is, getting the films right is trickier than for any other genre. Not only do you have to please the audience with bombastic spectacle, you have to respect the events that caused them to exist in the first place. The new kid on the block is Only the Brave. But does this tale of the Granite Mountain Hotshots do their incredibly tragic story justice?
Through hope, determination, sacrifice and the drive to protect families and communities, the Granite Mountain Hotshots become one of the most elite firefighting teams in the country. While most people run from danger, they run toward it — watching over lives, homes and everything people hold dear, forging a unique brotherhood that comes into focus with one fateful fire in Yarnell, Arizona.
With a cast that includes the likes of Jeff Bridges, Miles Teller, Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connelly and Andie MacDowell to name but a few, there’s no denying there is some seriously good talent on offer here. After researching the people these characters are based on, it appears that director Joseph Kosinski – who just so happens to be directing the long-awaited Top Gun sequel – has picked the perfect group of actors to portray them.
Teller is frankly, outstanding as troubled Brendan McDonough, joining the Hotshots after leaving his life of crime and addiction behind him. Josh Brolin is his ever-magnetic self as group leader Eric Marsh and the legendary Jeff Bridges really needs no introduction. The cast ooze class in every frame.
Cinematography wise, the lush landscapes of Arizona lend themselves perfectly to a beautifully shot film that features intense CGI and tasteful practical effects. Make no mistake though, this is not an action film and it feels all the better for it. While the fires themselves are mightily impressive and rendered with magnificent detail and precision, the real action here is in the human drama, of which there is an abundance.
The fact that this touching story is based on true events means that the subject matter needs to be handled as sensitively as possible and in that respect, Only the Brave has succeeded on every level. The touching tribute to these incredible men before the end credits proves to be a final emotional gut-punch after 2 hours of absolute excellence.
The script is good at making us feel for these people through their daily personal lives and their professional mentalities. In fact, it’s so well written, it may just be one of the best scripts I’ve had the pleasure of watching come to life all year and coupled with the glorious airborne shots, it makes for a deeply immersive film.
Only the Brave isn’t a film that shouts about any one thing it does well. Instead Joseph Kosinski rallies a phenomenal cast in a film that is beautifully written, exquisitely acted and is a fitting but perhaps most importantly, touching, tribute to the men who desperately tried to protect those around them.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/11/only-the-brave-review/
The trouble is, getting the films right is trickier than for any other genre. Not only do you have to please the audience with bombastic spectacle, you have to respect the events that caused them to exist in the first place. The new kid on the block is Only the Brave. But does this tale of the Granite Mountain Hotshots do their incredibly tragic story justice?
Through hope, determination, sacrifice and the drive to protect families and communities, the Granite Mountain Hotshots become one of the most elite firefighting teams in the country. While most people run from danger, they run toward it — watching over lives, homes and everything people hold dear, forging a unique brotherhood that comes into focus with one fateful fire in Yarnell, Arizona.
With a cast that includes the likes of Jeff Bridges, Miles Teller, Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connelly and Andie MacDowell to name but a few, there’s no denying there is some seriously good talent on offer here. After researching the people these characters are based on, it appears that director Joseph Kosinski – who just so happens to be directing the long-awaited Top Gun sequel – has picked the perfect group of actors to portray them.
Teller is frankly, outstanding as troubled Brendan McDonough, joining the Hotshots after leaving his life of crime and addiction behind him. Josh Brolin is his ever-magnetic self as group leader Eric Marsh and the legendary Jeff Bridges really needs no introduction. The cast ooze class in every frame.
Cinematography wise, the lush landscapes of Arizona lend themselves perfectly to a beautifully shot film that features intense CGI and tasteful practical effects. Make no mistake though, this is not an action film and it feels all the better for it. While the fires themselves are mightily impressive and rendered with magnificent detail and precision, the real action here is in the human drama, of which there is an abundance.
The fact that this touching story is based on true events means that the subject matter needs to be handled as sensitively as possible and in that respect, Only the Brave has succeeded on every level. The touching tribute to these incredible men before the end credits proves to be a final emotional gut-punch after 2 hours of absolute excellence.
The script is good at making us feel for these people through their daily personal lives and their professional mentalities. In fact, it’s so well written, it may just be one of the best scripts I’ve had the pleasure of watching come to life all year and coupled with the glorious airborne shots, it makes for a deeply immersive film.
Only the Brave isn’t a film that shouts about any one thing it does well. Instead Joseph Kosinski rallies a phenomenal cast in a film that is beautifully written, exquisitely acted and is a fitting but perhaps most importantly, touching, tribute to the men who desperately tried to protect those around them.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/11/only-the-brave-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Turning the beloved Ghost in the Shell manga franchise into a Hollywood film that’ll please picky Western audiences was always going to be a tough job for director Rupert Sanders (Snow White & the Huntsman).
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Chappie (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A little rough around the edges
District 9 was a tough act to follow for first-time director Neill Blomkamp. His follow up to 2009’s sci-fi sleeper hit was the mediocre Elysium that whilst having a gargantuan budget and the likes of Jodie Foster and Matt Damon, failed on the most basic of levels – storytelling.
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers Revenge of the Fallen (2009) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The good, the bad, and the down right ugly return in the sequel to Michael Bay’s 2007 summer blockbuster, Transformers. Revenge of the Fallen picks up 2 years after the events of the first film and really shows why Michael Bay was again the perfect choice to helm this franchise. Speculation about how long the film was going to be has finally been answered. 2 and a half hours for the uninitiated would seem a terrifying prospect as characters are introduced from all corners; but for fans of the bots, it’s a thrill ride from the very start, right up until the end credits role. Shia Le Beouf and Megan Foxx return as Sam Witwicky and love interest Mikeala in a sequel that’s as loud and obnoxious as it is long. As with the first film, the story is a little thin on the ground, but thankfully there is enough here to satisfy even the hardest to please. The Decepticons (the bad guys) are mobilizing once again to take control of Earth, while the Autobots (the good guys) working together with human intelligence try to destroy their feared rivals. It’s based on plastic toy figures, so you can’t expect much more.
Special effects are again outstanding with a finish on them that not even the first movie could hold a candle to, the transformers once more look 100% realistic in their presence, though with a $200m budget, outstanding was the least to be expected. Regrettably, the action sequences sometimes can look messy, with a mash of metal making it hard to distinguish who is attacking who or who has fallen; one heart wrenching scene in particular makes this point even more evident. Acting from all corners is sublime, Le Beouf certainly knows how to do that cocky teenager and Megan Foxx provides a nice bit of lustre to place on the horizon. But, by far the standout is Julie White as Mrs. Witwicky, her performance in the first film was brilliant, but she has exceeded that by a mile in this instalment; utterly hilarious is the only way to describe her acting. Of the robotic kind, Peter Cullen does an excellent job as the voice of Autobot leader Optimus Prime, with the same gravely texture that made him such a hit for the cartoon series in the first place. Hugo Weaving also returns as the voice of arch nemesis Megatron. Bay packs on the slapstick in this sequel, perhaps going a little too far with the humour; after all, it isn’t supposed to be an outright comedy, though some of the funny touches are out-and-out hilarious. The finale is, as with its predecessor a little short and to the point, though many would say it was ‘succinct’, but any longer and the film would have started to drag, Bay obviously learning his lesson from the mess that was Pearl Harbour. Overall then, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is an excellent sequel to what promises to be an exciting future for the franchise. Whilst it may not match its predecessor in terms of story and plot, it is a must watch for all action cravers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-2009/
Special effects are again outstanding with a finish on them that not even the first movie could hold a candle to, the transformers once more look 100% realistic in their presence, though with a $200m budget, outstanding was the least to be expected. Regrettably, the action sequences sometimes can look messy, with a mash of metal making it hard to distinguish who is attacking who or who has fallen; one heart wrenching scene in particular makes this point even more evident. Acting from all corners is sublime, Le Beouf certainly knows how to do that cocky teenager and Megan Foxx provides a nice bit of lustre to place on the horizon. But, by far the standout is Julie White as Mrs. Witwicky, her performance in the first film was brilliant, but she has exceeded that by a mile in this instalment; utterly hilarious is the only way to describe her acting. Of the robotic kind, Peter Cullen does an excellent job as the voice of Autobot leader Optimus Prime, with the same gravely texture that made him such a hit for the cartoon series in the first place. Hugo Weaving also returns as the voice of arch nemesis Megatron. Bay packs on the slapstick in this sequel, perhaps going a little too far with the humour; after all, it isn’t supposed to be an outright comedy, though some of the funny touches are out-and-out hilarious. The finale is, as with its predecessor a little short and to the point, though many would say it was ‘succinct’, but any longer and the film would have started to drag, Bay obviously learning his lesson from the mess that was Pearl Harbour. Overall then, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is an excellent sequel to what promises to be an exciting future for the franchise. Whilst it may not match its predecessor in terms of story and plot, it is a must watch for all action cravers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-2009/