Search
Search results
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/
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
James Franco (1 more)
The tone
Far from a disaster
If you haven't seen The Room, then I urge you to do so at once. It's a bemusing, confusing, unintentionally hilarious 90 odd minutes that fully deserves all the cult screenings and bewildered wonder that it has garnered over the years. It's without question a perfect awful movie. And here with The Disaster Artist, based on the book of the same name, we get to see the story of just went on to get this film made.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a> at the end of November).
I came across this book on Amazon when I was adding books to my wishlist, and I thought it sounded interesting. I also had quite a few credits on Audible to use, so I thought I'd use one to purchase this book. I wasn't disappointed.
The title had me intrigued. It made me want to read the blurb.
I'm not really a big fan of the cover if I'm honest although I don't know what I'd like to see on the cover. Maybe I'd put Clay on the cover as well. I'm not really sure.
I enjoyed the world building. I find it hard to believe that no one would follow the instructions left on the tapes that Hannah made, but I suppose it could happen. The world building fits with what high school was like, at least when I was a teenager.
I found the pacing to be done well. I couldn't wait to find out what was going to happen on the next tape. There were only a few times where the pacing slowed a bit, but it didn't stay slow for very long.
The plot is an interesting one. Hannah make a cassette tape for each of the thirteen people that she felt contributed to her committing suicide. Clay is trying to think of all the times he was around Hannah and wondering why he'd be on the tapes. It was interesting to find out the way certain people contributed to Hannah's depression. I also think the plot sends a great message about how we shouldn't judge anyone because we don't know what that person has gone through or is going through.
I think the characters were written fairly well. At first, I felt a bad for Hannah. However, as time went on, I felt that Hannah became too selfish, not because of her suicide, but just by what she said on the tapes. Clay came across as a nice guy (and Hannah even said he was), but I just would've liked to know more about him.
The dialogue worked for a young adult book. The characters actually sounded their age and not like an adult trying to write YA characters. The dialogue flows freely and smoothly as well. Being that this is a book about a girl's suicide, the dialogue does mention that as well as rape and another sexual situation. There is a few swear words, but the swearing is only mild.
Usually, the narrator's of audiobooks tend to annoy me, but Debra Wiseman and Joel Johnstone did an excellent job. Debra Wiseman really brings the character of Hannah alive, and Joel Johnstone does the same for Clay. I think they both portrayed emotions really well. However, I had imagined Clay to sound a bit different. Johnstone's voice sounded just a tad bit too old for Clay's age in my opinion. Other then that, Wiseman and Johnstone were superb!
Overall, Thirteen Reasons Why is a very different but interesting book. I felt that even though it deals with suicide, it does send out a positive message.
Due to the major theme and some sexual scenes, I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something realistic.
I came across this book on Amazon when I was adding books to my wishlist, and I thought it sounded interesting. I also had quite a few credits on Audible to use, so I thought I'd use one to purchase this book. I wasn't disappointed.
The title had me intrigued. It made me want to read the blurb.
I'm not really a big fan of the cover if I'm honest although I don't know what I'd like to see on the cover. Maybe I'd put Clay on the cover as well. I'm not really sure.
I enjoyed the world building. I find it hard to believe that no one would follow the instructions left on the tapes that Hannah made, but I suppose it could happen. The world building fits with what high school was like, at least when I was a teenager.
I found the pacing to be done well. I couldn't wait to find out what was going to happen on the next tape. There were only a few times where the pacing slowed a bit, but it didn't stay slow for very long.
The plot is an interesting one. Hannah make a cassette tape for each of the thirteen people that she felt contributed to her committing suicide. Clay is trying to think of all the times he was around Hannah and wondering why he'd be on the tapes. It was interesting to find out the way certain people contributed to Hannah's depression. I also think the plot sends a great message about how we shouldn't judge anyone because we don't know what that person has gone through or is going through.
I think the characters were written fairly well. At first, I felt a bad for Hannah. However, as time went on, I felt that Hannah became too selfish, not because of her suicide, but just by what she said on the tapes. Clay came across as a nice guy (and Hannah even said he was), but I just would've liked to know more about him.
The dialogue worked for a young adult book. The characters actually sounded their age and not like an adult trying to write YA characters. The dialogue flows freely and smoothly as well. Being that this is a book about a girl's suicide, the dialogue does mention that as well as rape and another sexual situation. There is a few swear words, but the swearing is only mild.
Usually, the narrator's of audiobooks tend to annoy me, but Debra Wiseman and Joel Johnstone did an excellent job. Debra Wiseman really brings the character of Hannah alive, and Joel Johnstone does the same for Clay. I think they both portrayed emotions really well. However, I had imagined Clay to sound a bit different. Johnstone's voice sounded just a tad bit too old for Clay's age in my opinion. Other then that, Wiseman and Johnstone were superb!
Overall, Thirteen Reasons Why is a very different but interesting book. I felt that even though it deals with suicide, it does send out a positive message.
Due to the major theme and some sexual scenes, I'd recommend this book to those aged 16+ who want to read something realistic.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Aug 23, 2018
You don't have to be a CRA to enjoy this film
I am not Crazy (debatable), Rich (not even close) or Asian (not going to touch that one). So, it was an interesting test to see if I would be entertained by CRAZY RICH ASIANS, a RomCom focused on groups that I am not a part of.
Surprisingly, the answer is not just "yes", it's "heck, yes!"
Based on the bestselling book by Kevin Kwan, Crazy Rich Asians (CRA from hereout) tells the story of Asian-American College Economics Professor Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) who heads to Singapore for a wedding with her boyfriend, Nick Young (Henry Golding) unknowingly heading into the "belly of the beast" of his ultra-rich family and the various relatives, friends and hangers-on who are not shy about letting Rachel know if they approve of her.
This film is being hailed as a landmark in Cinema, for a mainstream movie is filled with nothing by Asian actors and actresses, and it acquits itself nicely not just as a mainstream film filled with Asian actors and actresses, but as a GOOD film regardless of the nationalities of the people portrayed and the actors portraying them.
For the most part, Director Jon M. Chu has crafted a beautiful, funny film that sends a message and brings the viewer into a world that is, heretofore, not seen on the screen. And he brings this to the viewer with a loving eye and deep, soulful heart that shines throughout.
As the lead couple, Wu and Golding are charming, charismatic and VERY GOOD TO LOOK AT, they are an easy pair of people to spend some time with. Most of the other actors on the screen are very well cast and some standouts include Nico Santos as Oliver and good ol' Ken Jeong as Wye Mun Goh.
But it is the work of three very good, very different, but very PROFESSIONAL actresses that caught my eye. The first is Awkwafina (OCEAN'S 8) as an old College roommate of Rachel's who is the funniest thing in the film (think Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids) she brings a much needed level of irreverence to the stodginess of Nick's family. Gemma Chan (TV's HUMANS) carries a good deal of the dramatic and emotional weight of this film as Nick's Sister - a "cool on the outside, emotionally troubled on the inside" soul who steals any scene she is in. I think we have a real star in the making with her.
And then there is Michelle Yeoh (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON) as Nick's "Tiger Mom" who disapproves of his girlfriend and her "American ways". She's a traditionalist who gave up quite a bit for her family and expects the same level of familiar commitment from her children. It would be easy to make this character one-dimensional, but in Yeoh's capable hands, it is anything but.
It's not a perfect film - I felt it dragged a bit in the middle - but the beginning and (especially) the last 1/2 hour of this film is funny, poignant and emotional (bring your hankies - you're gonna need them).
Oh...and stay through the first part of the credits, there is a scene about 2 minutes in that sets up the sequel (there are 3 books in this series).
This is a good film for EVERYONE - whether your are a CRA or not!
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Surprisingly, the answer is not just "yes", it's "heck, yes!"
Based on the bestselling book by Kevin Kwan, Crazy Rich Asians (CRA from hereout) tells the story of Asian-American College Economics Professor Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) who heads to Singapore for a wedding with her boyfriend, Nick Young (Henry Golding) unknowingly heading into the "belly of the beast" of his ultra-rich family and the various relatives, friends and hangers-on who are not shy about letting Rachel know if they approve of her.
This film is being hailed as a landmark in Cinema, for a mainstream movie is filled with nothing by Asian actors and actresses, and it acquits itself nicely not just as a mainstream film filled with Asian actors and actresses, but as a GOOD film regardless of the nationalities of the people portrayed and the actors portraying them.
For the most part, Director Jon M. Chu has crafted a beautiful, funny film that sends a message and brings the viewer into a world that is, heretofore, not seen on the screen. And he brings this to the viewer with a loving eye and deep, soulful heart that shines throughout.
As the lead couple, Wu and Golding are charming, charismatic and VERY GOOD TO LOOK AT, they are an easy pair of people to spend some time with. Most of the other actors on the screen are very well cast and some standouts include Nico Santos as Oliver and good ol' Ken Jeong as Wye Mun Goh.
But it is the work of three very good, very different, but very PROFESSIONAL actresses that caught my eye. The first is Awkwafina (OCEAN'S 8) as an old College roommate of Rachel's who is the funniest thing in the film (think Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids) she brings a much needed level of irreverence to the stodginess of Nick's family. Gemma Chan (TV's HUMANS) carries a good deal of the dramatic and emotional weight of this film as Nick's Sister - a "cool on the outside, emotionally troubled on the inside" soul who steals any scene she is in. I think we have a real star in the making with her.
And then there is Michelle Yeoh (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON) as Nick's "Tiger Mom" who disapproves of his girlfriend and her "American ways". She's a traditionalist who gave up quite a bit for her family and expects the same level of familiar commitment from her children. It would be easy to make this character one-dimensional, but in Yeoh's capable hands, it is anything but.
It's not a perfect film - I felt it dragged a bit in the middle - but the beginning and (especially) the last 1/2 hour of this film is funny, poignant and emotional (bring your hankies - you're gonna need them).
Oh...and stay through the first part of the credits, there is a scene about 2 minutes in that sets up the sequel (there are 3 books in this series).
This is a good film for EVERYONE - whether your are a CRA or not!
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)