Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jul 25, 2017
Michael Fassbender (1 more)
Better than Prometheus
Well at least it's better than Prometheus...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'll be honest, I hated Prometheus. It had potential, but was completely ruined by nonsense and plot holes. Alien: Covenant is the film Prometheus should've been, but it still isn't anything to shout about.
There are still plot holes, although nowhere near as many as Prometheus, and some very dodgy action choices from supposedly expert characters. For example, going out onto an unknown planet without any sort of protective suit?! Advise anyone to hit up YouTube for more plot holes and stupidity if you didn't spot these yourself.
Character development was lacking. The CGI was surprisingly bad in parts. The first and last parts of the films were very similar to Alien and Aliens, which may not necessarily be bad. However there's a fine line between being an homage and being a carbon copy, and I don't think this film quite pulls it off.
Finally, the whole nonsense about David being the creator of the Xenomorphs? Utter nonsense. Personally I hate the idea of a homicidal android having created the Xenomorphs and I hate that Ridley Scott has gone down this route.
I also can't stand that Ridley has said there will be 2 more prequels before the events of these films link up to the events of Alien - is that really necessary?
There are still plot holes, although nowhere near as many as Prometheus, and some very dodgy action choices from supposedly expert characters. For example, going out onto an unknown planet without any sort of protective suit?! Advise anyone to hit up YouTube for more plot holes and stupidity if you didn't spot these yourself.
Character development was lacking. The CGI was surprisingly bad in parts. The first and last parts of the films were very similar to Alien and Aliens, which may not necessarily be bad. However there's a fine line between being an homage and being a carbon copy, and I don't think this film quite pulls it off.
Finally, the whole nonsense about David being the creator of the Xenomorphs? Utter nonsense. Personally I hate the idea of a homicidal android having created the Xenomorphs and I hate that Ridley Scott has gone down this route.
I also can't stand that Ridley has said there will be 2 more prequels before the events of these films link up to the events of Alien - is that really necessary?
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
I found 21 Bridges to be a pretty entertaining action flick, even if it is a relatively predictable straight shooter.
The narrative revolves around two small time criminals gunning down 8 police officers during an escalated robbery, causing the whole of Manhattan to shut down as the NYPD hunt them before they can flee the city.
Like any cop thriller worth it's salt, it's of course not that simple, and has some twists and turns along the way. This is probably the main issue I had with 21 Bridges - the twist is easy to see from a mile off, and the pretty standard action sequences means that it doesn't particularly elevate itself above the competition.
The strengths here lie in the cast. Chadwick Boseman is a brilliant lead as detective Andre Davis, who is heading up the entire investigation. Stephan James is also great as Michael, one of the robbers. He's a man completely out of his depth, and is a sympathetic "antagonist". There are also some decent turns from J.K. Simmons, Sienna Miller, Taylor Kitsch, and Keith David.
All of the performances keep 21 Bridges pretty grounded for an action film, it's more of a thriller in that respect.
I'd say it's worth a watch, you could certainly do a lot worse when it comes to New York cop dramas.
The narrative revolves around two small time criminals gunning down 8 police officers during an escalated robbery, causing the whole of Manhattan to shut down as the NYPD hunt them before they can flee the city.
Like any cop thriller worth it's salt, it's of course not that simple, and has some twists and turns along the way. This is probably the main issue I had with 21 Bridges - the twist is easy to see from a mile off, and the pretty standard action sequences means that it doesn't particularly elevate itself above the competition.
The strengths here lie in the cast. Chadwick Boseman is a brilliant lead as detective Andre Davis, who is heading up the entire investigation. Stephan James is also great as Michael, one of the robbers. He's a man completely out of his depth, and is a sympathetic "antagonist". There are also some decent turns from J.K. Simmons, Sienna Miller, Taylor Kitsch, and Keith David.
All of the performances keep 21 Bridges pretty grounded for an action film, it's more of a thriller in that respect.
I'd say it's worth a watch, you could certainly do a lot worse when it comes to New York cop dramas.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
No, not that one
Nordic noir is big business at the moment, but with the incredible scenery of the locations lending themselves perfectly to film, is there any wonder?
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A True successor to the original
Halloween 1978 and little-known director John Carpenter terrifies thousands of impressionable horror fans with the introduction of ‘The Shape’. Jamie Lee Curtis becomes the new ‘scream queen’ and all is well in the world of the slasher genre.
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated The Baggage Handler in Books
Nov 4, 2019
n a similar vein to The Travelers Gift by Andy Andrews or Dinner with a Perfect Stranger by David Gregory, The Baggage Handler is a contemporary story that explores one question: What baggage are you carrying?
Three people take a flight that will change their lives forever. Fresh off a run-in with his wife, harried businessman David disembarks the plane angry and impatient. Gillian thought she would be more excited about coming to her nieces wedding, but she is just hoping to survive. Malcolm has gambled everything on this trip to start his fledgling artistic career. To him, failure means working in hardware in what his father calls a real job. After each picks up the wrong suitcase, they make their way to a mysterious baggage depot in a deserted part of the city. There they meet the Baggage Handler, who shows them there is more in their baggage than what they have packed. A simple baggage mix-up at the airport is more than an inconvenience when it forces three people to face the baggage they are unknowingly carrying around.
My Thoughts: This was an eye-opening story about how we carry our troubles or "baggage" with us every day. This becomes such a habit that we can be so unaware that we are in truth carrying so much with us that we don't have to. Why not feel free and give it all to the one who says He will carry all our troubles and burdens?
This is a wonderful reminder from the author that we need not burden ourselves, that we can live the life we want. I really enjoyed this novel, it brought to my attention that we all need to look inside and take inventory and just let go anything that is bringing us down. I could completely relate to Michael and Gillian with the baggage they were carrying. This is a book that catches the readers' attention from beginning to end and can totally relate to in many aspects. The reader can identify with any of the characters in this novel. This is a novel I truly enjoyed and highly recommend it to others.
Three people take a flight that will change their lives forever. Fresh off a run-in with his wife, harried businessman David disembarks the plane angry and impatient. Gillian thought she would be more excited about coming to her nieces wedding, but she is just hoping to survive. Malcolm has gambled everything on this trip to start his fledgling artistic career. To him, failure means working in hardware in what his father calls a real job. After each picks up the wrong suitcase, they make their way to a mysterious baggage depot in a deserted part of the city. There they meet the Baggage Handler, who shows them there is more in their baggage than what they have packed. A simple baggage mix-up at the airport is more than an inconvenience when it forces three people to face the baggage they are unknowingly carrying around.
My Thoughts: This was an eye-opening story about how we carry our troubles or "baggage" with us every day. This becomes such a habit that we can be so unaware that we are in truth carrying so much with us that we don't have to. Why not feel free and give it all to the one who says He will carry all our troubles and burdens?
This is a wonderful reminder from the author that we need not burden ourselves, that we can live the life we want. I really enjoyed this novel, it brought to my attention that we all need to look inside and take inventory and just let go anything that is bringing us down. I could completely relate to Michael and Gillian with the baggage they were carrying. This is a book that catches the readers' attention from beginning to end and can totally relate to in many aspects. The reader can identify with any of the characters in this novel. This is a novel I truly enjoyed and highly recommend it to others.
Morgan Spurlock recommended Scanners (1981) in Movies (curated)
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
I wanted to like it.
Ignoring every entry other than Carpenter's original, 2018's Halloween attempts to reboot the Franchise in anew direction.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.
Natasha Khan recommended Bad by Michael Jackson in Music (curated)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 300 (2007) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There's a few Zack Snyder films that I genuinely like, and 300 is one of them. It's 100% style over substance, it's overly gratuitous in the sheer amount of slow motion, but it's pretty enjoyable.
Some of the shots are expertly crafted recreations of the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, and as such, is a damn faithful adaption of a cult classic comic series.
The visual effects are stunning at times, and the sepia tone it's draped in lends a lot to its overall feel (even if it's a subject of criticism from many)
Gerard Butler takes the lead as King Leonidas of Sparta, in what has arguably become his most well known roll in the years following. It's easy to look over his thick Scottish accent (in ancient Greece...) when he's playing the character with such enthusiasm. Most of his lines have become highly quotable, even familiar to those who have never seen the film. 300 would be a much lesser film without his involvement.
Rodrigo Santoro carves a striking figure as primary antagonist Xerxes, his androgynous look and demonic-like voice providing a memorable villain.
The cast is rounded out by the likes of Lena Headey, David Wenham, Dominic West, and an early role for Michael Fassbender, a sturdy ensemble cast.
The set pieces are pretty thrilling, and results in a movie that blurs the fantastical, with a real life historic battle. It's an interesting mix that works well.
300 is a film that throws big sloppy buckets of testosterone at its audience, whilst simultaneously flaunting a silly amount of homoerotic undertones and CGI pectoral muscles, and it's great.
Some of the shots are expertly crafted recreations of the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, and as such, is a damn faithful adaption of a cult classic comic series.
The visual effects are stunning at times, and the sepia tone it's draped in lends a lot to its overall feel (even if it's a subject of criticism from many)
Gerard Butler takes the lead as King Leonidas of Sparta, in what has arguably become his most well known roll in the years following. It's easy to look over his thick Scottish accent (in ancient Greece...) when he's playing the character with such enthusiasm. Most of his lines have become highly quotable, even familiar to those who have never seen the film. 300 would be a much lesser film without his involvement.
Rodrigo Santoro carves a striking figure as primary antagonist Xerxes, his androgynous look and demonic-like voice providing a memorable villain.
The cast is rounded out by the likes of Lena Headey, David Wenham, Dominic West, and an early role for Michael Fassbender, a sturdy ensemble cast.
The set pieces are pretty thrilling, and results in a movie that blurs the fantastical, with a real life historic battle. It's an interesting mix that works well.
300 is a film that throws big sloppy buckets of testosterone at its audience, whilst simultaneously flaunting a silly amount of homoerotic undertones and CGI pectoral muscles, and it's great.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Walking Dead - Season 3 in TV
Aug 16, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
The third season of The Walking Dead is fairly up and down.
It's not as consistent as the first two for sure.
It's still pretty decent television however.
There's a large Shane shaped hole left after the finale of season 2 - filled by none other than The Governor. He's a piece of work for sure.
I enjoyed The Governor throughout season 3, although a lot of my friends who are fans of the comic protest that he's a far cry from the source material. As someone who is yet to catch up with the comic series, this wasn't a problem for me. He's played with aplomb by David Morrissey, who's obviously having a great time. On the surface, he's a nice guy, who's trying to help his people thrive in a post apocalyptic world - but there's certainly something sinister underneath.
We're also given back Merle, which is great because Michael Rooker. No other reason needed!
After a very brief appearance at the end of season 2, we also get a lot of fan favourite Michonne here, one of my favourite characters in the whole show, played by Danai Gurira.
As in the first two seasons, the cast are pretty great all round. No complaints from me in that respect.
It's the story which takes a bit of a hit. The majority of the season is set in a Prison, and the Governor's story is pretty slow burning as he grows to hate Rick. Some of the episodes feel like filler, with some really strong episodes dotted throughout (the fourth episode in particular is a blinder)
This is an issue that becomes more obvious as the series draw on but at this point isn't severe enough to make a huge impact.
It's still good, gory, bleak, fun? I guess?
#Justice4HershelsFoot
It's not as consistent as the first two for sure.
It's still pretty decent television however.
There's a large Shane shaped hole left after the finale of season 2 - filled by none other than The Governor. He's a piece of work for sure.
I enjoyed The Governor throughout season 3, although a lot of my friends who are fans of the comic protest that he's a far cry from the source material. As someone who is yet to catch up with the comic series, this wasn't a problem for me. He's played with aplomb by David Morrissey, who's obviously having a great time. On the surface, he's a nice guy, who's trying to help his people thrive in a post apocalyptic world - but there's certainly something sinister underneath.
We're also given back Merle, which is great because Michael Rooker. No other reason needed!
After a very brief appearance at the end of season 2, we also get a lot of fan favourite Michonne here, one of my favourite characters in the whole show, played by Danai Gurira.
As in the first two seasons, the cast are pretty great all round. No complaints from me in that respect.
It's the story which takes a bit of a hit. The majority of the season is set in a Prison, and the Governor's story is pretty slow burning as he grows to hate Rick. Some of the episodes feel like filler, with some really strong episodes dotted throughout (the fourth episode in particular is a blinder)
This is an issue that becomes more obvious as the series draw on but at this point isn't severe enough to make a huge impact.
It's still good, gory, bleak, fun? I guess?
#Justice4HershelsFoot