Search
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Four Lions (2010) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
The fine between comedy and tragedy...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I can remember first hearing about this early in 2010, and was unsure as what to expect. On one hand this could have been a nasty hate film, mocking the wave of Muslim extremism which is taking a firm hold in this country, merely for the entertainment value, or this could be one of the important satires on the subject to date.
It was by far, without a shadow of doubt, the latter. Four Lions follows five amateur, lackluster Muslims from Sheffield who all believe that they are a primed terror cell on the frontline of the war against the infidels. Unfortunately for them, they are bunglers, whilst achieving the ability to create explosives, they have failed to control how and when it explodes! The plot culminates with an attempt to attack the London Marathon but it is a long road, taking our protagonists to the terror camps of Pakistan, and the town halls of Sheffield. This film is written and directed so expertly, it is literally frightening.
Morris and his pitch perfect cast deliver a film which so perfectly walks the razor wire tightrope between comedy and tragedy that every laugh is tinged with sadness or pity and every dark moment, seemingly comedic.
Is this a comedy? Decidedly not, but is this funny, and intentionally so? Yes. It's almost as if the laughs are out of sheer relief, as moments which should shock are delivered or followed up by some of the most profoundly realistic and yet ridiculous conversions.
The Lion King explanation for the war against the west; The almost horrifically callous 'Honey Monster' exchange as a police sniper may well have just shot an innocent civilian will stick in your mind. Let alone more simple humour, such as the eating of the sim cards to prevent tracking, which resembled the Catholic method of taking of the bread at mass.
But this was also about grooming: Grooming the audience to sympathise with a terror cell plotting in our midst was genius, whist having to watch the various methods employed within the group itself, leading to some of the films most poignant and tragic moments.
The disenfranchised Muslim population of this country have been captured so well, though portrayed on one hand as been dimwitted 'wanna-be terrorists', but on the other as real people, miss led with some of the most ridiculous concepts designed to reduce their lives to that of mediocrity in order to convince them to take so many others. This is a sympathetic peace movie in a time of great confusion and conflict.
Until now, United 93 was the film which had most summed up the dark times in which we live, following 9/11, but this is at least on par with it and is a great addition to a long and significant catalogue of topical anti-establishment films, such as M.A.S.H. and Dr. Strangelove.
Not just highly recommended, but a MUST SEE!
It was by far, without a shadow of doubt, the latter. Four Lions follows five amateur, lackluster Muslims from Sheffield who all believe that they are a primed terror cell on the frontline of the war against the infidels. Unfortunately for them, they are bunglers, whilst achieving the ability to create explosives, they have failed to control how and when it explodes! The plot culminates with an attempt to attack the London Marathon but it is a long road, taking our protagonists to the terror camps of Pakistan, and the town halls of Sheffield. This film is written and directed so expertly, it is literally frightening.
Morris and his pitch perfect cast deliver a film which so perfectly walks the razor wire tightrope between comedy and tragedy that every laugh is tinged with sadness or pity and every dark moment, seemingly comedic.
Is this a comedy? Decidedly not, but is this funny, and intentionally so? Yes. It's almost as if the laughs are out of sheer relief, as moments which should shock are delivered or followed up by some of the most profoundly realistic and yet ridiculous conversions.
The Lion King explanation for the war against the west; The almost horrifically callous 'Honey Monster' exchange as a police sniper may well have just shot an innocent civilian will stick in your mind. Let alone more simple humour, such as the eating of the sim cards to prevent tracking, which resembled the Catholic method of taking of the bread at mass.
But this was also about grooming: Grooming the audience to sympathise with a terror cell plotting in our midst was genius, whist having to watch the various methods employed within the group itself, leading to some of the films most poignant and tragic moments.
The disenfranchised Muslim population of this country have been captured so well, though portrayed on one hand as been dimwitted 'wanna-be terrorists', but on the other as real people, miss led with some of the most ridiculous concepts designed to reduce their lives to that of mediocrity in order to convince them to take so many others. This is a sympathetic peace movie in a time of great confusion and conflict.
Until now, United 93 was the film which had most summed up the dark times in which we live, following 9/11, but this is at least on par with it and is a great addition to a long and significant catalogue of topical anti-establishment films, such as M.A.S.H. and Dr. Strangelove.
Not just highly recommended, but a MUST SEE!
Alice (12 KP) rated Skullsworn (Chronicle of the Unhewn Throne #0.5) in Books
Jul 3, 2018
<i>Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review</i>
<i>Skullsworn</i> was the first book by Brian Staveley that I’ve read and it has made me want to read his others for definite - I’ve got the <i>Chronicles of the Unhewn Throne</i> already lined up but this review is about Skullsworn. From what I’ve gathered over the internet this is a standalone prequel to the Chronicles as the main character Pyrre is featured in the original trilogy.
Skullsworn follows Pyrre, a priestess-in-training to the god Ananshael, a god of death. The whole concept of the story is Pyrre’s Trial to become a fully-fledged priestess of Ananshael – she has to kill 7 people in 14 days, all of whom are tied to a song including “the one you love/who will not come again.” Failure to complete all seven deaths will result in her own death at the hands of her two witnesses Ela and Kossal.
I’m going to on about Ela and Kossal for a little bit here – Ela is an incredibly motivated, true-believer in life, love and death, skilled fighter and devout priestess of her faith to her God; she’s comfortbale with all levels of intimacy and she has got a laidback view of everything which is in stark contrast to her counterpart Kossal – an aging priest with stooped shoulders and a gruff demeanour who says what he means and means what he says; he plays his flute to stop himself from killing patrons but gets irritated at their applause – it’s a catch 22 like no other. The two of these together shouldn’t work in any way, shape or form but Brian Staveley has made it work to greatness.
Pyrre’s story is one of conflict all throughout and her biggest road block is going to be that she’s never been in love. She travels back to Dombang in order to try to fall in love with Ruc Lan Lac who becomes her target – a pit fighter from her past who has been given command of the Greenshirts by the Annurian leaders. He’s a staunch disbeliever in all things myth and legend and has no patience for spiritual leanings and prefers to focus on the reality of any situation.
Pyrre doesn’t feel that she is worthy of being a priestess of Ananshael but her journey to Dombang from Rassumbur and through the Trial shows that really, she is. We get a big blast from the past in that Pyrre recounts her first meeting with Ruc Lan Lac to Ela who finds great joy in teasing Pyrre mercilessly about the situation and about her supposed inability to love.
The writing style is perfectly bleak but brilliantly enjoyable with great humour in the banter between Ela and Kossal but they’ve also got a great dryness to their humour which gives a stark contrast. The descriptions of the delta and the Csestriim and Nevariim were full of otherworldly fear and ancient horrors, a dark fantasy of epic proportions!
The ending had twists and turns that I didn’t expect in the slightest, gave Skullsworn a perfect ending and it has made me want to get into the world of The Annurian Empire even more; the epilogue was fantastic!
Expertly written and highly recommended.
<i>Skullsworn</i> was the first book by Brian Staveley that I’ve read and it has made me want to read his others for definite - I’ve got the <i>Chronicles of the Unhewn Throne</i> already lined up but this review is about Skullsworn. From what I’ve gathered over the internet this is a standalone prequel to the Chronicles as the main character Pyrre is featured in the original trilogy.
Skullsworn follows Pyrre, a priestess-in-training to the god Ananshael, a god of death. The whole concept of the story is Pyrre’s Trial to become a fully-fledged priestess of Ananshael – she has to kill 7 people in 14 days, all of whom are tied to a song including “the one you love/who will not come again.” Failure to complete all seven deaths will result in her own death at the hands of her two witnesses Ela and Kossal.
I’m going to on about Ela and Kossal for a little bit here – Ela is an incredibly motivated, true-believer in life, love and death, skilled fighter and devout priestess of her faith to her God; she’s comfortbale with all levels of intimacy and she has got a laidback view of everything which is in stark contrast to her counterpart Kossal – an aging priest with stooped shoulders and a gruff demeanour who says what he means and means what he says; he plays his flute to stop himself from killing patrons but gets irritated at their applause – it’s a catch 22 like no other. The two of these together shouldn’t work in any way, shape or form but Brian Staveley has made it work to greatness.
Pyrre’s story is one of conflict all throughout and her biggest road block is going to be that she’s never been in love. She travels back to Dombang in order to try to fall in love with Ruc Lan Lac who becomes her target – a pit fighter from her past who has been given command of the Greenshirts by the Annurian leaders. He’s a staunch disbeliever in all things myth and legend and has no patience for spiritual leanings and prefers to focus on the reality of any situation.
Pyrre doesn’t feel that she is worthy of being a priestess of Ananshael but her journey to Dombang from Rassumbur and through the Trial shows that really, she is. We get a big blast from the past in that Pyrre recounts her first meeting with Ruc Lan Lac to Ela who finds great joy in teasing Pyrre mercilessly about the situation and about her supposed inability to love.
The writing style is perfectly bleak but brilliantly enjoyable with great humour in the banter between Ela and Kossal but they’ve also got a great dryness to their humour which gives a stark contrast. The descriptions of the delta and the Csestriim and Nevariim were full of otherworldly fear and ancient horrors, a dark fantasy of epic proportions!
The ending had twists and turns that I didn’t expect in the slightest, gave Skullsworn a perfect ending and it has made me want to get into the world of The Annurian Empire even more; the epilogue was fantastic!
Expertly written and highly recommended.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Red Rising in Books
Feb 1, 2018
I did not immediately fall in love with Red Rising. Rather the storyline slowly built over the first third of the book and then I found myself wanting to know what happens next. Darrows life as a Red is important to experience so you know what made him the man he is today, but didnt captivate my attention.
The world that he knows is a lie. He is not the sacrificing pioneer his society led him to believe, but rather little more than a slave. His entire outlook and being is altered so that he may fight his way to the top, and maybe change the Society.
Darrow is filled with love for his people and his family, but does not understand the world at large. He must learn, and quickly, to fit into this new world without losing himself in the process. Each character in the book is unique and contributes differently to the story. Some force Darrow to question his resolve to the cause, others show him a different side of humanity, while a rare few make him wonder if all Golds are bad.
Mustang and Sevro are probably my two favourite supporting characters. Mustang is smart, strategic and caring even though she was not raised to be that way. Her father is the leader on Mars, so she led a sheltered but harsh childhood. Sevro is a strange human, but he grows on you over the novel and his dark humour is infectious.
The most fascinating parts of the book were when he was attending the Institute and proving that he had what it took to become a Peerless Scarred. It was almost a study on the absolute lowest that humanity can sink to, the darkness they can embrace when there are no consequences to their actions and the leaders that can rise despite it. It was disgusting and horrifying at times, but you cant put it down.
Relationships form and are torn asunder, lies build and fester, and humanity sinks lower. The book was well written and I kept picking it up, needing to know what happened next, despite the darkness. I would recommend it to older young adult/teen readers, or adults, who enjoy science fiction novels.
The world that he knows is a lie. He is not the sacrificing pioneer his society led him to believe, but rather little more than a slave. His entire outlook and being is altered so that he may fight his way to the top, and maybe change the Society.
Darrow is filled with love for his people and his family, but does not understand the world at large. He must learn, and quickly, to fit into this new world without losing himself in the process. Each character in the book is unique and contributes differently to the story. Some force Darrow to question his resolve to the cause, others show him a different side of humanity, while a rare few make him wonder if all Golds are bad.
Mustang and Sevro are probably my two favourite supporting characters. Mustang is smart, strategic and caring even though she was not raised to be that way. Her father is the leader on Mars, so she led a sheltered but harsh childhood. Sevro is a strange human, but he grows on you over the novel and his dark humour is infectious.
The most fascinating parts of the book were when he was attending the Institute and proving that he had what it took to become a Peerless Scarred. It was almost a study on the absolute lowest that humanity can sink to, the darkness they can embrace when there are no consequences to their actions and the leaders that can rise despite it. It was disgusting and horrifying at times, but you cant put it down.
Relationships form and are torn asunder, lies build and fester, and humanity sinks lower. The book was well written and I kept picking it up, needing to know what happened next, despite the darkness. I would recommend it to older young adult/teen readers, or adults, who enjoy science fiction novels.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A soft reboot that actually works
1987; feels like a long time ago doesn’t it? In fact, most of you reading this I imagine weren’t even born way back in the late 80s. I mean, I was only a twinkle in my parents’ eyes at that time. But I digress.
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Asiza Tait (139 KP) rated The Testament of Gideon Mack in Books
Jun 16, 2019
Complex, interesting characters (2 more)
Thought provoking
Extremely well written
A Preacher’s Son
Contains spoilers, click to show
Gideon Mack is a preachers son who doesn’t believe in God, but decides to become a minister anyway.
His lack of belief can be easily explained by his narrow minded, strict, sad and unloving upbringing. The reason why he decides to become a minister anyway hints at his dark humour, which you see here and there throughout the book.
He marries a woman that he is not in love with, simply because he can’t have the woman he actually wants (that woman marries his best friend).
He comes across as a man who doesn’t actually know what he wants, will accept second best or will settle for what he thinks is ok...and then spend his life living in regret and unhappiness. Causing confusion and unhappiness to others in the process.
Where he didn’t believe in God at all...he does end up believing completely in the Devil. He falls into a treacherous river and is found 3 days later. He should be dead...but he isn’t. Depending on whether you believe in the supernatural or not, he was either fished out the first day by a smuggler or he was saved by the Devil and he bonded so well with the Devil he then spends a great deal of time and effort to be able to spend the rest of his life with him.
In order to leave with a clean slate he tells everyone what happened to him, including his sins...committing adultery with the very woman he is still in love with. He only confesses to this happening once, while helping him pack up his late wife’s clothes she takes pity on him and they sleep together. In actual fact, that summer they had a full blown affair as confirmed by the woman in question. Why lie? Perhaps he simply couldn’t see her as an adulterous woman as she is the epitome of perfection in his eyes, or it again displays his unique ability to lie to himself.
This book is a very detailed account of how a person can live a lie, how they can convince themselves completely into believing a lie, and then finally freeing themselves to believing what they genuinely believe is true...even though it could be complete codswallop. Who knows?
His lack of belief can be easily explained by his narrow minded, strict, sad and unloving upbringing. The reason why he decides to become a minister anyway hints at his dark humour, which you see here and there throughout the book.
He marries a woman that he is not in love with, simply because he can’t have the woman he actually wants (that woman marries his best friend).
He comes across as a man who doesn’t actually know what he wants, will accept second best or will settle for what he thinks is ok...and then spend his life living in regret and unhappiness. Causing confusion and unhappiness to others in the process.
Where he didn’t believe in God at all...he does end up believing completely in the Devil. He falls into a treacherous river and is found 3 days later. He should be dead...but he isn’t. Depending on whether you believe in the supernatural or not, he was either fished out the first day by a smuggler or he was saved by the Devil and he bonded so well with the Devil he then spends a great deal of time and effort to be able to spend the rest of his life with him.
In order to leave with a clean slate he tells everyone what happened to him, including his sins...committing adultery with the very woman he is still in love with. He only confesses to this happening once, while helping him pack up his late wife’s clothes she takes pity on him and they sleep together. In actual fact, that summer they had a full blown affair as confirmed by the woman in question. Why lie? Perhaps he simply couldn’t see her as an adulterous woman as she is the epitome of perfection in his eyes, or it again displays his unique ability to lie to himself.
This book is a very detailed account of how a person can live a lie, how they can convince themselves completely into believing a lie, and then finally freeing themselves to believing what they genuinely believe is true...even though it could be complete codswallop. Who knows?
Big Little Lies
8.6
Rate It
Book
Don't want Big Little Lies to end? Then why not order Liane Moriarty's new hit, Truly Madly...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Utterly preposterous
Thor is arguably one of Marvel’s strongest characters. Played by the superb Chris Hemsworth since 2011, the God of thunder is one of the MCUs most popular assets.
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman Begins‘ ending was a brilliant nod towards the things that were to come, as Gary Oldman’s, newly promoted Lieutenant Jim Gordon flashes The Joker’s calling card, Batman’s revival had now well and truly begun. A film with lesser known villains was about to retread more familiar ground with the introduction of The Joker and Harvey Dent/Two Face.
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?