Search
Search results
Hidden in Smoke
5.0
Rate It
Book
When the crimes of a serial arsonist lead to murder, Sharpe and Walker need detective Eve Ronin to...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Terminator Genisys (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Not a complete disaster
Sequels and reboots are making up the bulk of 2015’s cinematic offerings. With films added to franchises like Jurassic Park, Star Wars and James Bond, it was always going to be tough for others to make much of a dent.
It’s been six years since Christian Bale took over lead billing from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series in the critically panned Terminator Salvation. But director Alan Taylor (Thor: the Dark World), a newcomer to the sci-fi adventure series, resurrects the franchise with Terminator Genisys. But is it worth a watch?
Acting as a reboot and a sequel, the film follows the story of a young Kyle Reece (Jai Courtney), sent back in time by John Connor (Jason Clarke) to protect his mother Sarah, played by Game of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke. His aim is to stop the war before it even begins.
The duo are joined on their travels by the naturally charismatic Arnold Schwarzenegger who is one of the only highlights in a film full of soulless set-pieces, meaningless dialogue and a sickening sense of nostalgia.
Genisys constantly reminds you of the brilliance radiating from James Cameron’s first two films. Herein lies the problem, this sequel has none of the soul or charm of its predecessors with the homages coming across as insulting attempts to cash in on the series.
Even the iconic “I’ll be back” phrase is shoehorned into an awkward position where it doesn’t really make much sense.
And there we move onto the second issue. It makes hardly any sense at all. With continuity errors abound, Genisys relies on your knowledge of Terminator and Judgement Day being in tip-top shape, and after more than two decades it’s safe to say the majority of people will need a refresher course first.
The set pieces are, on the whole, glorious and despite being slightly overlong at 126 minutes, Genisys is a well-paced film without a boring moment to its name. It’s just a shame the plot doesn’t make more of an impact.
It feels like the characters are stuck in a video game, with a climactic action piece signalling the next level, moving on up until the obligatory big-boss fight that makes a further sequel seem incredibly likely.
Emilia Clarke is well-worth noting however. Despite being more used to being in the company of dragons rather than robots, she plays her character well and steps into Linda Hamilton’s shoes with ease. The casting is spot on here with Clarke having more than a whiff of Hamilton in her appearance.
The rest of the cast, bar Schwarzenegger fail to make an impression with Jai Courtney’s character proving particularly dull.
Overall, Terminator Genisys isn’t a complete disaster but comes close to being a write off. The action pieces are thrilling but a lack of soul, comprehension and individuality ensures it’ll end up being forgotten once 2015 is over.
With a sequel almost definitely on the cards, all fans of the franchise can hope for is a film worthy of James Cameron’s brilliant original – and this is not it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/05/not-a-complete-disaster-terminator-genisys-review/
It’s been six years since Christian Bale took over lead billing from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series in the critically panned Terminator Salvation. But director Alan Taylor (Thor: the Dark World), a newcomer to the sci-fi adventure series, resurrects the franchise with Terminator Genisys. But is it worth a watch?
Acting as a reboot and a sequel, the film follows the story of a young Kyle Reece (Jai Courtney), sent back in time by John Connor (Jason Clarke) to protect his mother Sarah, played by Game of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke. His aim is to stop the war before it even begins.
The duo are joined on their travels by the naturally charismatic Arnold Schwarzenegger who is one of the only highlights in a film full of soulless set-pieces, meaningless dialogue and a sickening sense of nostalgia.
Genisys constantly reminds you of the brilliance radiating from James Cameron’s first two films. Herein lies the problem, this sequel has none of the soul or charm of its predecessors with the homages coming across as insulting attempts to cash in on the series.
Even the iconic “I’ll be back” phrase is shoehorned into an awkward position where it doesn’t really make much sense.
And there we move onto the second issue. It makes hardly any sense at all. With continuity errors abound, Genisys relies on your knowledge of Terminator and Judgement Day being in tip-top shape, and after more than two decades it’s safe to say the majority of people will need a refresher course first.
The set pieces are, on the whole, glorious and despite being slightly overlong at 126 minutes, Genisys is a well-paced film without a boring moment to its name. It’s just a shame the plot doesn’t make more of an impact.
It feels like the characters are stuck in a video game, with a climactic action piece signalling the next level, moving on up until the obligatory big-boss fight that makes a further sequel seem incredibly likely.
Emilia Clarke is well-worth noting however. Despite being more used to being in the company of dragons rather than robots, she plays her character well and steps into Linda Hamilton’s shoes with ease. The casting is spot on here with Clarke having more than a whiff of Hamilton in her appearance.
The rest of the cast, bar Schwarzenegger fail to make an impression with Jai Courtney’s character proving particularly dull.
Overall, Terminator Genisys isn’t a complete disaster but comes close to being a write off. The action pieces are thrilling but a lack of soul, comprehension and individuality ensures it’ll end up being forgotten once 2015 is over.
With a sequel almost definitely on the cards, all fans of the franchise can hope for is a film worthy of James Cameron’s brilliant original – and this is not it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/05/not-a-complete-disaster-terminator-genisys-review/
Andrew Leatherbarrow’s Chernobyl 01:23:40: The Incredible True Story of the World’s Worst Nuclear Disaster is an excellent starting point for readers new to the history of nuclear power. When I’m at home, I am just barely outside the fallout range for Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO). While I’m at work, I’m in the reactor’s back yard. As a result, I figured there was no better time to learn a thing or two about nuclear energy. I was not disappointed.
Chernobyl 01:23:40 is the product of a spontaneous trip Leatherbarrow took to visit the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and Pripyat. In this book, he details his experience in Chernobyl, explains nuclear energy in easy to grasp terms, and discusses the incidents leading up to and after the disaster. For those that know little to nothing about nuclear energy, this book is a must-read.
Despite our close proximity to ANO, I cannot recall learning about nuclear energy. As children, our teachers explained what to do in case of an incident at the plant and nothing else. As expected, due to lack of education about reactors and their failsafes, I grew up with an unnecessary fear of ANO. For this reason, I am grateful for Leatherbarrow’s book. What happened at Chernobyl is the product of failure to follow protocol; it is also the result of improper training. Because there are so many safety precautions, the chance of incident is actually fairly small. (Also, ANO is not an RBMK-1000 reactor like Chernobyl.)
In addition to this fear, I have a vested interest in Chernobyl. It’s haunting photos, like all ghost towns, leave me in awe. There is no doubt in my mind that Leatherbarrow spent a long time conducting research. Using various sources, he has crafted a detailed narrative of what happened at Chernobyl. His book also gives voice to some of the reactor’s victims.
Nuclear energy is dangerous. I will not deny that. However, it is also our cleanest resource. While Chernobyl 01:23:40 is only a glimpse into the world of nuclear power, it is a truly eye-opening account brimming with facts.
Chernobyl 01:23:40 is the product of a spontaneous trip Leatherbarrow took to visit the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and Pripyat. In this book, he details his experience in Chernobyl, explains nuclear energy in easy to grasp terms, and discusses the incidents leading up to and after the disaster. For those that know little to nothing about nuclear energy, this book is a must-read.
Despite our close proximity to ANO, I cannot recall learning about nuclear energy. As children, our teachers explained what to do in case of an incident at the plant and nothing else. As expected, due to lack of education about reactors and their failsafes, I grew up with an unnecessary fear of ANO. For this reason, I am grateful for Leatherbarrow’s book. What happened at Chernobyl is the product of failure to follow protocol; it is also the result of improper training. Because there are so many safety precautions, the chance of incident is actually fairly small. (Also, ANO is not an RBMK-1000 reactor like Chernobyl.)
In addition to this fear, I have a vested interest in Chernobyl. It’s haunting photos, like all ghost towns, leave me in awe. There is no doubt in my mind that Leatherbarrow spent a long time conducting research. Using various sources, he has crafted a detailed narrative of what happened at Chernobyl. His book also gives voice to some of the reactor’s victims.
Nuclear energy is dangerous. I will not deny that. However, it is also our cleanest resource. While Chernobyl 01:23:40 is only a glimpse into the world of nuclear power, it is a truly eye-opening account brimming with facts.
Sheridan (209 KP) rated All I See Is You (2017) in Movies
Feb 3, 2019
Decent acting (1 more)
Beautiful visuals
Confusing storyline (3 more)
Doesn't deliver
A lot is implied
Weird sexual parts that make no sense
A Poor Attempt at a Romantic Thriller
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'd never heard of this until it popped up on my Stan account. The summary sounded like it was going to be a gritty romantic thriller - boy was I wrong! While the acting was decent and the 'blind' effects were gorgeous, the storyline left something to be desired. Their marriage was clearly a disaster, the husband is needy and posessive and her complete personality change when she was able to see with one eye was jarring to say the least. The doctor was able to restore her sight in her right eye, but not once did they touch on how difficult it is to just see with one eye. Your balance is off, your perception is off - it's a complete disaster until you become used to it, yet they gave her the ease and impression that she could see with both eyes again. A lot is heavily implied (him messing with her eyedrops to cause blindness again, him staging a break in to get rid of her dog Ginger, her cheating on him with Daniel, her lying about being able to see etc.), there is never a confrontation between the pair about any of it. At the end you get the impression he's dead and she has the baby, but none of it is actually confirmed. It's just an utter mess. Nothing comes together and the story falls flat. There's also a lot of very unsettling sexual overtones from the get go which are never explained or understood. It feels like these were added as part of the story that was never revealed - maybe left on the editing floor - so they don't make much sense. The movie could have easily happened without them so why have them there when they didn't serve an actual purpose? Overall, it was a confusing, slightly disturbing mess that just - didn't work. It had a lot of potential but just didn't deliver. I wouldn't bother with it if you're looking for something good to watch, it just isn't there with this one.
BookwormLea (3034 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Predictable but entertaining.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I love disaster films. 2012, Day After Tomorrow, San Andreas, I can't get enough. So of course I had to watch this film. Gérard Butler? Yes please!
The thing I liked about this one in particular was how believable it was. Of course in a global disaster, governments weren't going to save everyone. Of course they are going to pick the strongest most useful bunch. And obviously they would turn away the sick because why save someone who could die in a week when you could save a healthy teen that was probably going to solve world hunger? I also liked that they added the kidnapping. Not going to lie, if it was my one shot at survival, I would probably try too.
Now what I didnt love. If you know your husband has gone to the car, and would more than likely go back to the car if he found out you had left. Stay at the car!!! If you also know you are very likely to end up at the same destination, does it really matter that he's not on your plane? Its all her fault they got kicked out the facility. Its also his fault the plane got blew up and everyone had lost their chance. Also if one random guy knew there was a plane in Canada going to the bunker, how did nobody else know? And also, everyone knew if you had a wristband, you had a code. Of course you couldn't steal someone elses...
And then towards the end when they had wormed their way to the safety of the Canadian plane, I said to my sister 'I bet they get there, and even though they shouldn't they are let in, and in probably 6 weeks or soemthing, they will open the doors and a bird will fly past or soemthing and everything is happy.' Low and behold, I was right about everything except the time. They spent 9 month in a bunker they didn't think they would use? Yeah right.
But overall, an okay film. I am just really good at guessing movie twists and endings!
The thing I liked about this one in particular was how believable it was. Of course in a global disaster, governments weren't going to save everyone. Of course they are going to pick the strongest most useful bunch. And obviously they would turn away the sick because why save someone who could die in a week when you could save a healthy teen that was probably going to solve world hunger? I also liked that they added the kidnapping. Not going to lie, if it was my one shot at survival, I would probably try too.
Now what I didnt love. If you know your husband has gone to the car, and would more than likely go back to the car if he found out you had left. Stay at the car!!! If you also know you are very likely to end up at the same destination, does it really matter that he's not on your plane? Its all her fault they got kicked out the facility. Its also his fault the plane got blew up and everyone had lost their chance. Also if one random guy knew there was a plane in Canada going to the bunker, how did nobody else know? And also, everyone knew if you had a wristband, you had a code. Of course you couldn't steal someone elses...
And then towards the end when they had wormed their way to the safety of the Canadian plane, I said to my sister 'I bet they get there, and even though they shouldn't they are let in, and in probably 6 weeks or soemthing, they will open the doors and a bird will fly past or soemthing and everything is happy.' Low and behold, I was right about everything except the time. They spent 9 month in a bunker they didn't think they would use? Yeah right.
But overall, an okay film. I am just really good at guessing movie twists and endings!
VoiceTra(Voice Translator)
Travel and Utilities
App
VoiceTra is a speech translation app that translates your speech into different languages. VoiceTra...
Thoughtful thriller
If a book has "apocalypse" somewhere, anywhere, in the description, I'm pretty much guaranteed to at least attempt to read it. The Polar ice caps are a bit of a buzzword (buzz phrase?) at the moment, and this centres around an impending environmental disaster. Business vs. Ecology.
In The Ice, everyone wants to exploit the land under what was once protected by ice. Tom and Sean both love the Arctic: Tom is an environmental campaigner, Sean is a businessman who wants to make lots of money and get a Knighthood. This follows the accident that causes Tom's death and the Coroners investigation that occurs three years after his death.
I loved the story and the characters were easy to like (or dislike!). I especially liked the little excerpts from the books written by Polar explorers at the beginning of each chapter. These were largely written by the trailblazers: the men who made the first journeys in to the arctic in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This was a lovely touch, I felt. Well worth reading.
In The Ice, everyone wants to exploit the land under what was once protected by ice. Tom and Sean both love the Arctic: Tom is an environmental campaigner, Sean is a businessman who wants to make lots of money and get a Knighthood. This follows the accident that causes Tom's death and the Coroners investigation that occurs three years after his death.
I loved the story and the characters were easy to like (or dislike!). I especially liked the little excerpts from the books written by Polar explorers at the beginning of each chapter. These were largely written by the trailblazers: the men who made the first journeys in to the arctic in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This was a lovely touch, I felt. Well worth reading.
tonidavis (353 KP) rated Before I Fall (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2017
Mystery fail due to film media
Sometimes book to film adaptations work sometimes there a disaster this fell in the in-between. Whilst the film followed the story premise it wasn't that captivating and I think the reasons because it it doesn't work as well in the film medium. In the book the first accident is heightened and where all left guessing the events but are that much more involved because we know what she shouts before the accident we wonder why she shouts it int he film they cant do that because you would see what responsible. I dont think it was the film makers fault just that the suspense that made the book just doesn't transfer over. I mean as a teenager chick flick its okay but the books is deep powerful and meaningful and enraptures you in this mystery of teenage life and leaves you wondering the meaning why she yell what she does. The film doesn't
Awix (3310 KP) rated Crack in the World (1965) in Movies
May 5, 2019 (Updated May 5, 2019)
Decent sci-fi / disaster movie hybrid doesn't dwell on its limited special effects budget or somewhat shaky grasp of geology and concentrates on solid characterisation and storytelling basics. Scientists meddle with forces they do not fully understand (again), it all goes pear-shaped, a large chunk of the Indian Ocean winds up being launched into space while Janette Scott's costume disintegrates in a suspiciously rapid and unprovoked manner.
I always get this one mixed up with The Day the Earth Caught Fire and When the Earth Cracked Open, which is some achievement considering the latter film was never even made. The storyline with the crack is kind of predictable and suffers because the movie doesn't have the budget to actually show towns being wiped out or islands crumbling into the sea; characters just hear about it over the phone. The human interest B-story is really a melodrama, but it's written and played just well enough to keep the film credible and engaging. Well-mounted climax even if it really comes out of nowhere.
I always get this one mixed up with The Day the Earth Caught Fire and When the Earth Cracked Open, which is some achievement considering the latter film was never even made. The storyline with the crack is kind of predictable and suffers because the movie doesn't have the budget to actually show towns being wiped out or islands crumbling into the sea; characters just hear about it over the phone. The human interest B-story is really a melodrama, but it's written and played just well enough to keep the film credible and engaging. Well-mounted climax even if it really comes out of nowhere.