Search
Search results
Chris Byers (4 KP) rated Ready Player One in Books
Mar 14, 2018
Great action (3 more)
Cool references
Engaging
Solid detail and character development
Some anti-Christian sentiment (1 more)
What happens after the ending- would love follow up info
A Christian Review Of Ready Player One
I just finished another entertaining romp into the fictional realm with Ernest Cline's, Ready Player One. This was particularly engaging for a former/current video gamer like myself. It also provided a setting that I feel is a potentially realistic outcome of our current technology boom and humanist outlook in society.
The plot centers around Wade and the online game OASIS. The OASIS has expanded such that nearly everyone in society is constantly jacked into the system, neglecting real-life in favor of virtual fantasy and role playing. The OASIS gives users the ability to level up a character (Similar to an MMO like World of Warcraft), and interact virtually with other "Avatars."
The sad reality is that the real world has become a shell of its former self after multiple wars, and no one really seems to mind as they are constantly jacked into the fantasy world of the OASIS.
The OASIS creator dies and leaves his money (multi-billion) to whomever can solve a set of obscure puzzles built into the OASIS, all linked to 1980s trivia.
While it sounds odd on the surface, the first-person narration style gives the feel that you are actually a part of this new reality. The descriptions of the game and Avatar functions are well done.
Spiritually, just like the Hunger Games Trilogy, it is lacking. In what I am calling post-apocalypic humanism, the world is obviously very anti-religion/Christianity in this setting.
My theory would be that the humanistic views that are permeating our society currently eventually led to the decline in civilization as man was not accountable to anyone but himself, and the world suffered for it.
It is clear from the beginning that the protagonist, Wade, has never believed in God (though his friendly neighbor is described as a Christian who spends time logged into the OASIS at a virtual church, worshipping). The way that this is expressed comes across much like the way humanists and atheists of our day express it. With much distaste and an inferior view of God. God is compared to the Easter Bunny and other childhood fantasies, and the characters in the book do not seek any higher power. Still Wade is not an entirely unlikable character, even in light of his lack of faith, and this mindset is not prominently mentioned enough to detract from the book as a whole. Christians will likely feel pity for the characters whose mere existence has no meaning.
For Christians, we know that through our relationship with Christ, this life has meaning, and we have a purpose. There is no randomness, but rather a carefully orchestrated plan for each of us by a God who loves us and longs for us to be with him eternally.
A post-apocalypic world viewed through Christian eyes would be much less dystopian, so I imagine that is why authors in this category of fiction stray from God when possible. It adds to the bleak outlook of characters whose only purpose is living day to day, and trying to get along with one another.
I think Christians who read this type of literature should be aware that it is far from the truth that we know in Christ Jesus. When we see the world through only human eyes, and every man does what is right in his own eyes, we can only expect such a derelict society to be the result.
Ready Player One is an entertaining, albeit bleak story with solid detail and character development. Most Christians can skip this one, but for any gamers or fans of the 1980s out there it could provide a good fiction read.
Discussion Questions for Christians:
Does our society seem to be heading down a path that would lead to this type of world?
How would the worldview in the book be different if the main characters had a focus on Christ?
Can a protagonist that is not Christian, but a "decent guy" be a good role model for us?
Would living in a virtual world the majority of the time give us a distorted view of reality?
The plot centers around Wade and the online game OASIS. The OASIS has expanded such that nearly everyone in society is constantly jacked into the system, neglecting real-life in favor of virtual fantasy and role playing. The OASIS gives users the ability to level up a character (Similar to an MMO like World of Warcraft), and interact virtually with other "Avatars."
The sad reality is that the real world has become a shell of its former self after multiple wars, and no one really seems to mind as they are constantly jacked into the fantasy world of the OASIS.
The OASIS creator dies and leaves his money (multi-billion) to whomever can solve a set of obscure puzzles built into the OASIS, all linked to 1980s trivia.
While it sounds odd on the surface, the first-person narration style gives the feel that you are actually a part of this new reality. The descriptions of the game and Avatar functions are well done.
Spiritually, just like the Hunger Games Trilogy, it is lacking. In what I am calling post-apocalypic humanism, the world is obviously very anti-religion/Christianity in this setting.
My theory would be that the humanistic views that are permeating our society currently eventually led to the decline in civilization as man was not accountable to anyone but himself, and the world suffered for it.
It is clear from the beginning that the protagonist, Wade, has never believed in God (though his friendly neighbor is described as a Christian who spends time logged into the OASIS at a virtual church, worshipping). The way that this is expressed comes across much like the way humanists and atheists of our day express it. With much distaste and an inferior view of God. God is compared to the Easter Bunny and other childhood fantasies, and the characters in the book do not seek any higher power. Still Wade is not an entirely unlikable character, even in light of his lack of faith, and this mindset is not prominently mentioned enough to detract from the book as a whole. Christians will likely feel pity for the characters whose mere existence has no meaning.
For Christians, we know that through our relationship with Christ, this life has meaning, and we have a purpose. There is no randomness, but rather a carefully orchestrated plan for each of us by a God who loves us and longs for us to be with him eternally.
A post-apocalypic world viewed through Christian eyes would be much less dystopian, so I imagine that is why authors in this category of fiction stray from God when possible. It adds to the bleak outlook of characters whose only purpose is living day to day, and trying to get along with one another.
I think Christians who read this type of literature should be aware that it is far from the truth that we know in Christ Jesus. When we see the world through only human eyes, and every man does what is right in his own eyes, we can only expect such a derelict society to be the result.
Ready Player One is an entertaining, albeit bleak story with solid detail and character development. Most Christians can skip this one, but for any gamers or fans of the 1980s out there it could provide a good fiction read.
Discussion Questions for Christians:
Does our society seem to be heading down a path that would lead to this type of world?
How would the worldview in the book be different if the main characters had a focus on Christ?
Can a protagonist that is not Christian, but a "decent guy" be a good role model for us?
Would living in a virtual world the majority of the time give us a distorted view of reality?
Lee (2222 KP) rated Castle Rock in TV
Jan 21, 2019
Sissy Spacek (1 more)
Bill Skarsgård
Fantastic story telling
Set in the Stephen King multiverse, the Maine town of Castle Rock is the setting for this psychological horror thriller spanning ten episodes. It utilises various characters and settings from the authors work, and even actors who have appeared in movie versions of his books, resulting in a unique and richly detailed story which has been clearly influenced by the great author.
The story begins with yet another Shawshank prison warden, Warden Lacy, committing suicide. When his successor Theresa Porter takes over, she begins plans to reopen an abandoned cell block within the prison in order to cater for the growing number of inmates. As guards investigate the old block, they discover a young man (Bill Skarsgård, as creepy without his 'It' makeup as he is in it!) locked in an underground cage, with no record as to who he is or why he was down there. The only words he utters when asked his name are Henry Deaver, the name of a lawyer who'd had a troubled childhood in Castle Rock (glimpsed in a flashback right at the start of the episode) and is now living in Texas. As the kid gets moved to the main prison cells while they try to figure out where he came from, mystery and death seem to follow him. We discover in flashbacks that Warden Lacy was the one responsible for caging him and keeping him alive all these years, claiming that god had instructed him to do it. Eventually Henry Deaver manages to get the kid released into the community, but bad things continue to happen wherever he goes and he also appears to be drawn to the childhood home of Henry Deaver, where his dementia suffering mother Ruth (Sissy Spacek) and her new partner Alan are. Is this mysterious stranger actually the devil? Why did Warden Lacy tell him before he committed suicide that he must ask for Henry Deaver if ever discovered? And why, as we discover later on, has this kid not aged one bit in the last 27 years?!
The remainder of the season continues to slowly add details and backstory, adding a few more interesting characters along the way with very few clues that may provide a full answer to these questions. It's wonderful story telling, continuing to provide mystery every step of the way and demanding that you pay close attention to absolutely everything. Towards the end of the season are two outstanding episodes which reward your attention, making you re-evaluate everything you've seen before and giving you a fresh perspective on the whole story. They focus on the two most interesting characters of the season, coincidentally played by actors who have previously starred in Stephen King movie adaptations. In 'The Queen', we focus on Ruth - walking us through conversations and scenes we've seen before in previous episodes but showing them the way she experiences them, which isn't necessarily the way they unfolded for others. It's an emotional representation of dementia, showing just how terrifying and tragic a deteriorating mind can be. Then, in the episode 'Henry Deaver', we focus on the kid and finally get to understand who he is, where he came from and the reason for everything that's happened so far. We get a lot of answers, and whether or not you'd already got a pretty good idea of what was going on (I hadn't), this is still a fantastic episode.
Overall, Castle Rock managed to keep me hooked, entertained, and at times confused, and I really can't ask for more than that in a show. I'm not a reader of books, so wouldn't have picked up on all of the Easter eggs dotted around the show for fans of Stephen King to enjoy. But I absolutely love the movies that are based on them, so I got a real kick out of revisiting the setting of Shawshank. I also love 'The Shining', so got an even bigger kick out of a final end credits scene where the niece of Jack Torrance, and an author herself, states that she's headed out west to dig deeper into her family history. If we're headed to the Overlook Hotel next, then I absolutely cannot wait for season 2!
The story begins with yet another Shawshank prison warden, Warden Lacy, committing suicide. When his successor Theresa Porter takes over, she begins plans to reopen an abandoned cell block within the prison in order to cater for the growing number of inmates. As guards investigate the old block, they discover a young man (Bill Skarsgård, as creepy without his 'It' makeup as he is in it!) locked in an underground cage, with no record as to who he is or why he was down there. The only words he utters when asked his name are Henry Deaver, the name of a lawyer who'd had a troubled childhood in Castle Rock (glimpsed in a flashback right at the start of the episode) and is now living in Texas. As the kid gets moved to the main prison cells while they try to figure out where he came from, mystery and death seem to follow him. We discover in flashbacks that Warden Lacy was the one responsible for caging him and keeping him alive all these years, claiming that god had instructed him to do it. Eventually Henry Deaver manages to get the kid released into the community, but bad things continue to happen wherever he goes and he also appears to be drawn to the childhood home of Henry Deaver, where his dementia suffering mother Ruth (Sissy Spacek) and her new partner Alan are. Is this mysterious stranger actually the devil? Why did Warden Lacy tell him before he committed suicide that he must ask for Henry Deaver if ever discovered? And why, as we discover later on, has this kid not aged one bit in the last 27 years?!
The remainder of the season continues to slowly add details and backstory, adding a few more interesting characters along the way with very few clues that may provide a full answer to these questions. It's wonderful story telling, continuing to provide mystery every step of the way and demanding that you pay close attention to absolutely everything. Towards the end of the season are two outstanding episodes which reward your attention, making you re-evaluate everything you've seen before and giving you a fresh perspective on the whole story. They focus on the two most interesting characters of the season, coincidentally played by actors who have previously starred in Stephen King movie adaptations. In 'The Queen', we focus on Ruth - walking us through conversations and scenes we've seen before in previous episodes but showing them the way she experiences them, which isn't necessarily the way they unfolded for others. It's an emotional representation of dementia, showing just how terrifying and tragic a deteriorating mind can be. Then, in the episode 'Henry Deaver', we focus on the kid and finally get to understand who he is, where he came from and the reason for everything that's happened so far. We get a lot of answers, and whether or not you'd already got a pretty good idea of what was going on (I hadn't), this is still a fantastic episode.
Overall, Castle Rock managed to keep me hooked, entertained, and at times confused, and I really can't ask for more than that in a show. I'm not a reader of books, so wouldn't have picked up on all of the Easter eggs dotted around the show for fans of Stephen King to enjoy. But I absolutely love the movies that are based on them, so I got a real kick out of revisiting the setting of Shawshank. I also love 'The Shining', so got an even bigger kick out of a final end credits scene where the niece of Jack Torrance, and an author herself, states that she's headed out west to dig deeper into her family history. If we're headed to the Overlook Hotel next, then I absolutely cannot wait for season 2!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mitchells vs The Machines (2021) in Movies
May 16, 2021
Brilliantly original animation (1 more)
Fantastic laugh-out-loud gags throughout, many with a movie nerd bias
Dog-Pig-Dog-Pig-Loaf of Bread… KERBOOM!
Katie Mitchell (voiced by Abbi Jacobson) dreams of being a great film director (joining her icons on her version of Mount Rushmore!). She's about to travel to a west-coast film college when her dad Rick (Danny Mcbride) decides to cancel her air ticket and try to re-engage with her through one last epic road trip. Together with wife Linda (Maya Rudolph), dinosaur-mad son Aaron (director Michael Rianda) and cross-eyed pug Monchi (Doug the Pug!) they set off on their journey.
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets: The Story of Iduna and Agnarr in Books
Dec 29, 2020
Dangerous Secrets is the greatly anticipated prequel to Frozen II which, for the first time in forever, shines the spotlight onto King Agnarr and Queen Iduna of Arendelle.
The 2019 film undoubtedly revealed some of these secrets, such as Iduna being Northuldra and saving Agnarr as a child as well as the two of them venturing to Ahtohallan to find the answers behind Elsa’s powers. Unfortunately, thanks to the film, we also know that they never completed their journey.
Cue Mari Mancusi who expertly bring the monarchs back to life through her writing and forms these little-known characters into best friends, young lovers and torn parents, always just trying to do the next right thing.
The back stories of Agnarr and Iduna are nothing short of brilliant: the reader meets both characters in the Enchanted Forest on the fateful day of the dam celebration and we experience the wonder of both worlds colliding, along with the following danger and confusion from a first-person perspective.
I thoroughly appreciated how Mari Mancusi didn’t have to explain what had happened between the Arendellian forces and the Northuldra: Mancusi knows that the reader already knows the true turn of events from the movie. All throughout Dangerous Secrets this “inside knowledge” is used beautifully: allowing us to experience events as our protagonists do, but without diluting the tension and excitement with explanations.
The reader grows up alongside the future King and Queen, seeing their friendship blossom and experiencing their respective heartbreaks and secrets. The Northuldra are widely believed to be enemies of Arendelle due to the King’s death and the rumours surrounding it. Iduna’s hardship of hiding her true identity is matched only by her grief of losing the only family she has ever known. Similarly, Agnarr has lost a father, his best friend General Matthias and now has to learn how to be a King. Even when they find solace in their friendship and the later romance that this grows into, Iduna is not royalty: their love is doomed from the start…isn’t it?
Regular readers of my reviews will know I loved Jen Calonita’s “Let it Go” but felt that towards the end the writing emulated the movie verbatim in places. I found Kamilla Benko’s “Forest of Shadows” interesting and unique but ultimately it tried too hard to insert different elements into the Frozen universe that we know and love.
In my opinion, Dangerous Secrets contains none of these criticisms.
Elements of the movie are included, of course they are! Agnarr and Iduna’s reading tree is taken straight out of Elsa’s/Ahtohallan’s ice memories; Oaken’s trading post and sauna is briefly mentioned as a rest stop during one of the couple’s adventures and the wonder of chocolate is something Elsa and Anna definitely inherited from their parents!
The difference with this novel is that any references to the movie are easter eggs: elements that we love to spot; they are not brash and in-your-face; they are subtle and add to the story rather than creating it entirely. For example, I loved the inclusion of Grand-Pabbie and the trolls. I also suspect we may have met Kristoff’s mother – perhaps opening the door to another book from Mari Mancusi?
Of course, Dangerous Secrets can only end with the fateful voyage made by the royal couple and, true to form, this made me cry my little heart out. I know from the author’s note that Mari Mancusi is a mother herself but I feel that I would have known this anyway through the sheer heartbreak she portrays through Iduna, and later Agnarr. From their first discovery of Elsa’s powers; to Anna’s accident; to acknowledging that they were endangering Elsa by asking her to “conceal, don’t feel” right up until the couple’s realisation that they will never see their daughters again: the writing is powerful, hard-hitting and, with Ahtohallan’s last gift, stunningly beautiful.
This is a five-star glimpse into the King and Queen of Arendelle and a must-read for any fan of Frozen.
Will Mancusi reveal the secret of the ice-gatherer woman’s identity next?
Only Ahtohallan knows.
The 2019 film undoubtedly revealed some of these secrets, such as Iduna being Northuldra and saving Agnarr as a child as well as the two of them venturing to Ahtohallan to find the answers behind Elsa’s powers. Unfortunately, thanks to the film, we also know that they never completed their journey.
Cue Mari Mancusi who expertly bring the monarchs back to life through her writing and forms these little-known characters into best friends, young lovers and torn parents, always just trying to do the next right thing.
The back stories of Agnarr and Iduna are nothing short of brilliant: the reader meets both characters in the Enchanted Forest on the fateful day of the dam celebration and we experience the wonder of both worlds colliding, along with the following danger and confusion from a first-person perspective.
I thoroughly appreciated how Mari Mancusi didn’t have to explain what had happened between the Arendellian forces and the Northuldra: Mancusi knows that the reader already knows the true turn of events from the movie. All throughout Dangerous Secrets this “inside knowledge” is used beautifully: allowing us to experience events as our protagonists do, but without diluting the tension and excitement with explanations.
The reader grows up alongside the future King and Queen, seeing their friendship blossom and experiencing their respective heartbreaks and secrets. The Northuldra are widely believed to be enemies of Arendelle due to the King’s death and the rumours surrounding it. Iduna’s hardship of hiding her true identity is matched only by her grief of losing the only family she has ever known. Similarly, Agnarr has lost a father, his best friend General Matthias and now has to learn how to be a King. Even when they find solace in their friendship and the later romance that this grows into, Iduna is not royalty: their love is doomed from the start…isn’t it?
Regular readers of my reviews will know I loved Jen Calonita’s “Let it Go” but felt that towards the end the writing emulated the movie verbatim in places. I found Kamilla Benko’s “Forest of Shadows” interesting and unique but ultimately it tried too hard to insert different elements into the Frozen universe that we know and love.
In my opinion, Dangerous Secrets contains none of these criticisms.
Elements of the movie are included, of course they are! Agnarr and Iduna’s reading tree is taken straight out of Elsa’s/Ahtohallan’s ice memories; Oaken’s trading post and sauna is briefly mentioned as a rest stop during one of the couple’s adventures and the wonder of chocolate is something Elsa and Anna definitely inherited from their parents!
The difference with this novel is that any references to the movie are easter eggs: elements that we love to spot; they are not brash and in-your-face; they are subtle and add to the story rather than creating it entirely. For example, I loved the inclusion of Grand-Pabbie and the trolls. I also suspect we may have met Kristoff’s mother – perhaps opening the door to another book from Mari Mancusi?
Of course, Dangerous Secrets can only end with the fateful voyage made by the royal couple and, true to form, this made me cry my little heart out. I know from the author’s note that Mari Mancusi is a mother herself but I feel that I would have known this anyway through the sheer heartbreak she portrays through Iduna, and later Agnarr. From their first discovery of Elsa’s powers; to Anna’s accident; to acknowledging that they were endangering Elsa by asking her to “conceal, don’t feel” right up until the couple’s realisation that they will never see their daughters again: the writing is powerful, hard-hitting and, with Ahtohallan’s last gift, stunningly beautiful.
This is a five-star glimpse into the King and Queen of Arendelle and a must-read for any fan of Frozen.
Will Mancusi reveal the secret of the ice-gatherer woman’s identity next?
Only Ahtohallan knows.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Aug 13, 2021
Some comedy action feels like a no-brainer really, and I do love a bit of Ryan Reynolds.
Guy is loving life in Free City, his goldfish, the amazing view from his apartment, getting to work with his best pal at the bank, it's all great. But when he meets the girl of his dreams, he starts to realise that there might be more to his world than he ever realised.
Well... this is exactly my sort of film, and yet, I'm really not feeling the excitement for it. The audience experience had me chuckling though, to my left... yawning, to my right... squeals of glee.
I think my main issue is that it felt very much like something I'd seen before. Almost instantly my brain said LEGO Movie and Truman Show, with some Ready Player One thrown in for good measure. Looking at the writers' back catalogue left no real surprises. Zak Penn wrote the screenplay for Ready Player One (one of his first credits on IMDb is for the story of Last Action Hero, and that feels like it gave some contributions too), and I had a mild recognition of bits from Matt Lieberman's Scoob and Playing With Fire.
Guy's initial evolution in the film is quite nice to watch with his days changing slightly each time. Everything then ramps up quite quickly once he steps out of his NPC programming properly for the first time... and this is where I thought I would be on board with it.
Once the video game elements kicked in I did have a bit of Easter egg spotting euphoria. Watching the background players jumping randomly, the generic but obviously named shops and locations. Much like Ready Player One, there were lots of things to discover in scenes outside of the storyline. But the style kept jumping between this "real life" video game and the video game that didn't know it was a video game. Admittedly there's a very fine line between those two realities. I did like that it replicates the way immersive play can feel when you forget that you are just playing a game, but even this, at times, felt a little forced.
As much as I love Ryan Reynolds, this wasn't a very challenging or original role for him. And just like the film overall, this felt like a mish-mash of his role that we've already seen on the big screen.
Comer's performance was great, and her online and real life personas had the subtle differences I'd expect to see... this does however, mildly highlight a slightly wider issue, and that's the stereotyping of gamers.
Computer nerds and gamers living in their mum's basements and being a little odd. That's a staple in media. Matty Cardarople's gamer, Kevin Smith's Warlock, Chris Reed's Todd Zarnecki. We love them, or we love to hate them, but it's getting a little tired.
One thing I couldn't fault the film for was the look of everything. Vibrant colours, a bit of fun with the costumes, and the effects throughout the action. It worked as a whole package, and for the most part, it balanced out the danger of the comedy getting a little too ridiculous.
I didn't overly notice an excess of IP/brand plugs, but there was one little cluster in Free Guy. One of the few things I truly enjoyed was where the Disney property merged into a fight scene towards the end. It amused me because I was expecting something like it to happen. It may have gone a smidge over the line of enjoyable, but I'm going to give it a pass. (And I do have a point that would have made this scene better, and I'm honestly disappointed that they didn't think to do it.)
I had been hoping that Free Guy would be a 4 star film, but I don't think I could give it more than a 3. It's watchable, but I don't feel any great need to own it or hunt it down before it's streaming. That being said, I am going to see it again. In the same vein as Ready Player One and 1917, I've watched it for the story, now I'm going back for the background detail.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/free-guy-movie-review.html
Guy is loving life in Free City, his goldfish, the amazing view from his apartment, getting to work with his best pal at the bank, it's all great. But when he meets the girl of his dreams, he starts to realise that there might be more to his world than he ever realised.
Well... this is exactly my sort of film, and yet, I'm really not feeling the excitement for it. The audience experience had me chuckling though, to my left... yawning, to my right... squeals of glee.
I think my main issue is that it felt very much like something I'd seen before. Almost instantly my brain said LEGO Movie and Truman Show, with some Ready Player One thrown in for good measure. Looking at the writers' back catalogue left no real surprises. Zak Penn wrote the screenplay for Ready Player One (one of his first credits on IMDb is for the story of Last Action Hero, and that feels like it gave some contributions too), and I had a mild recognition of bits from Matt Lieberman's Scoob and Playing With Fire.
Guy's initial evolution in the film is quite nice to watch with his days changing slightly each time. Everything then ramps up quite quickly once he steps out of his NPC programming properly for the first time... and this is where I thought I would be on board with it.
Once the video game elements kicked in I did have a bit of Easter egg spotting euphoria. Watching the background players jumping randomly, the generic but obviously named shops and locations. Much like Ready Player One, there were lots of things to discover in scenes outside of the storyline. But the style kept jumping between this "real life" video game and the video game that didn't know it was a video game. Admittedly there's a very fine line between those two realities. I did like that it replicates the way immersive play can feel when you forget that you are just playing a game, but even this, at times, felt a little forced.
As much as I love Ryan Reynolds, this wasn't a very challenging or original role for him. And just like the film overall, this felt like a mish-mash of his role that we've already seen on the big screen.
Comer's performance was great, and her online and real life personas had the subtle differences I'd expect to see... this does however, mildly highlight a slightly wider issue, and that's the stereotyping of gamers.
Computer nerds and gamers living in their mum's basements and being a little odd. That's a staple in media. Matty Cardarople's gamer, Kevin Smith's Warlock, Chris Reed's Todd Zarnecki. We love them, or we love to hate them, but it's getting a little tired.
One thing I couldn't fault the film for was the look of everything. Vibrant colours, a bit of fun with the costumes, and the effects throughout the action. It worked as a whole package, and for the most part, it balanced out the danger of the comedy getting a little too ridiculous.
I didn't overly notice an excess of IP/brand plugs, but there was one little cluster in Free Guy. One of the few things I truly enjoyed was where the Disney property merged into a fight scene towards the end. It amused me because I was expecting something like it to happen. It may have gone a smidge over the line of enjoyable, but I'm going to give it a pass. (And I do have a point that would have made this scene better, and I'm honestly disappointed that they didn't think to do it.)
I had been hoping that Free Guy would be a 4 star film, but I don't think I could give it more than a 3. It's watchable, but I don't feel any great need to own it or hunt it down before it's streaming. That being said, I am going to see it again. In the same vein as Ready Player One and 1917, I've watched it for the story, now I'm going back for the background detail.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/free-guy-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The 2nd best star wars film
The Star Wars universe just got a whole lot bigger. When Rogue One: A Star Wars Story was announced by Disney a couple of years ago, diehard fans of the sci-fi saga met the news with a huge dose of scepticism.
After all, the prequel trilogy was an unmitigated disaster, doing all it could to destroy not only the greatest villain in the history of film, but the series itself. Then Gareth Edwards was announced as director, whose film credits include the brilliant Monsters and Godzilla, which was critically praised but received a lukewarm reception publically.
THEN Disney announced the film was undergoing “heavy” reshoots to its first cut, reportedly due to executives being unhappy with the finished product’s tone.
So it’s clear that it’s not been plain sailing for Rogue One, but that headline isn’t a misprint – the finished article is just that damn good. But why?
In a time of conflict, a group of unlikely heroes band together on a mission to steal the plans to the Death Star, the Empire’s ultimate weapon of destruction. This key event in the Star Wars timeline brings together ordinary people who choose to do extraordinary things, and in doing so, become part of something greater than themselves.
If you cast your minds back to 1977 and the release of A New Hope, Rogue One takes place just before those events, acting as a stop-gap between the ending of Revenge of the Sith and the film that started it all.
A cast that includes Felicity Jones, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn and Mads Mikkelsen all gel together incredibly well to form one of the most coherent ensemble groups the galaxy has ever seen. Not since the introduction of Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia has the Star Wars franchise been so superbly kept afloat. Jones in particular is excellent and adds yet another leading lady to a franchise that loves putting women at the forefront, and rightly so.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is sublime. Director Gareth Edwards is renowned for his stunning shot choices and Rogue One is no exception. The intense variety of planets created from photo-realistic CGI and real landscapes adds an immersive quality that it has to be said, was lacking somewhat in The Force Awakens.
Then there is the much publicised return of Lord Vader. The aforementioned villain has been playing heavy on the minds of Star Wars fans for years after he was ridiculously robbed of any street cred at the climax of Revenge of the Sith. Mercifully, Edwards keeps his appearances to but a few, though he does loom heavy throughout the course of the film’s 133 minute running time, and returns to the dark presence he once was – it’s also nice to see James Earl Jones returning to the series.
There are Star Wars easter eggs abound, some only noticeable to diehards, whilst others smack you in the face with their lack of subtlety – though each and every one is placed at a point where the film feels better because of it. I’m not going to mention any by name, but a couple of old faces received cheers from the audience.
Any negatives? Well, Forest Whitaker’s Saw Gerrera fails to make a lasting impact and feels a little too much like executives wanted to shoehorn the Clone Wars television series into the film, and as much as it pains me to say, Michael Giacchino’s bombastic score, whilst brimming with nostalgia, doesn’t hit the right notes 100% of the time – with some musical elements feeling a little out of place with what is occurring on the screen.
Then there’s the dreaded reshoots. Well, they’re not noticeable… unless you’ve been watching the trailers, from which there are numerous scenes that aren’t included in the final cut. That’s a shame, though they’ll feature on the extended edition that will no doubt follow when the film is released on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Overall, Rogue One is better than anyone could have hoped. 2016 has been one of the worst years in decades for disappointing blockbusters and as it nears its end, we have one of the best yet. Smartly written with a heartfelt and engaging story, it adds a new and exciting layer to the Star Wars saga, and what’s even more impressive is its ability to make A New Hope a better film because of its existence.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/16/the-2nd-best-star-wars-film-rogue-one-review/
After all, the prequel trilogy was an unmitigated disaster, doing all it could to destroy not only the greatest villain in the history of film, but the series itself. Then Gareth Edwards was announced as director, whose film credits include the brilliant Monsters and Godzilla, which was critically praised but received a lukewarm reception publically.
THEN Disney announced the film was undergoing “heavy” reshoots to its first cut, reportedly due to executives being unhappy with the finished product’s tone.
So it’s clear that it’s not been plain sailing for Rogue One, but that headline isn’t a misprint – the finished article is just that damn good. But why?
In a time of conflict, a group of unlikely heroes band together on a mission to steal the plans to the Death Star, the Empire’s ultimate weapon of destruction. This key event in the Star Wars timeline brings together ordinary people who choose to do extraordinary things, and in doing so, become part of something greater than themselves.
If you cast your minds back to 1977 and the release of A New Hope, Rogue One takes place just before those events, acting as a stop-gap between the ending of Revenge of the Sith and the film that started it all.
A cast that includes Felicity Jones, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn and Mads Mikkelsen all gel together incredibly well to form one of the most coherent ensemble groups the galaxy has ever seen. Not since the introduction of Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia has the Star Wars franchise been so superbly kept afloat. Jones in particular is excellent and adds yet another leading lady to a franchise that loves putting women at the forefront, and rightly so.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is sublime. Director Gareth Edwards is renowned for his stunning shot choices and Rogue One is no exception. The intense variety of planets created from photo-realistic CGI and real landscapes adds an immersive quality that it has to be said, was lacking somewhat in The Force Awakens.
Then there is the much publicised return of Lord Vader. The aforementioned villain has been playing heavy on the minds of Star Wars fans for years after he was ridiculously robbed of any street cred at the climax of Revenge of the Sith. Mercifully, Edwards keeps his appearances to but a few, though he does loom heavy throughout the course of the film’s 133 minute running time, and returns to the dark presence he once was – it’s also nice to see James Earl Jones returning to the series.
There are Star Wars easter eggs abound, some only noticeable to diehards, whilst others smack you in the face with their lack of subtlety – though each and every one is placed at a point where the film feels better because of it. I’m not going to mention any by name, but a couple of old faces received cheers from the audience.
Any negatives? Well, Forest Whitaker’s Saw Gerrera fails to make a lasting impact and feels a little too much like executives wanted to shoehorn the Clone Wars television series into the film, and as much as it pains me to say, Michael Giacchino’s bombastic score, whilst brimming with nostalgia, doesn’t hit the right notes 100% of the time – with some musical elements feeling a little out of place with what is occurring on the screen.
Then there’s the dreaded reshoots. Well, they’re not noticeable… unless you’ve been watching the trailers, from which there are numerous scenes that aren’t included in the final cut. That’s a shame, though they’ll feature on the extended edition that will no doubt follow when the film is released on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Overall, Rogue One is better than anyone could have hoped. 2016 has been one of the worst years in decades for disappointing blockbusters and as it nears its end, we have one of the best yet. Smartly written with a heartfelt and engaging story, it adds a new and exciting layer to the Star Wars saga, and what’s even more impressive is its ability to make A New Hope a better film because of its existence.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/16/the-2nd-best-star-wars-film-rogue-one-review/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Under the Silver Lake (2018) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
In David Robert Mitchell’s (It Follows) Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield portrays a jobless and lethargic young man named Sam. Apart from his obsession with conspiracy theories and finding obscure messages in common pop culture, Sam typically spies on his topless and bird-loving neighbor. He also blatantly ignores the fact that he’s facing eviction in five days for unpaid rent. His current infatuation is a zine entitled Under the Silver Lake, which seems to mirror what’s currently transpiring in Los Angeles. Sam develops a crush on his new neighbor named Sarah (Riley Keough), who seems to disappear without a trace overnight. What begins as an investigation into Sarah’s current whereabouts evolves into something deeply rooted in the peculiar.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
More of the same
Who would have thought we would get to this? I certainly didn’t. After the right royal mess 20th Century Fox made of everyone’s favourite anti-hero, Deadpool, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine all those years ago, it felt like a solo outing would never be possible, never mind a sequel.
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Kids growing up today don’t have the experience of a true arcade like some of us old folks do. Arcades as I knew them were loud (often smoke filled) establishments lined from one end to the other with all types of video games. Arcades these days reside mainly in pizza parlors with giant animatronic mice and consist mostly of ticket giving, skill-based games like skeeball and flippy coin games. Well, we now get a little bit of a nostalgic flashback as the Disney juggernaut does it again with Ralph Breaks the Internet, a delightful story about friendship, self-confidence and of course arcade games.
Ralph (John C. Reilly) has come a long way from his time as an arcade villain. He now spends his days working in his video game “Fix-It Felix Jr.” and his nights having fun with his adorable and talented bestie Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Life just couldn’t be better, and Ralph is completely content living a structured and simple life. Vanellope, on the other hand, dreams of excitement and a change of pace, as she is growing tired of working in her game “Sugar Rush” since it’s always the same tracks and she wins every race. As the saying goes…be careful what you wish for. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Vanellope’s Sugar Rush game cabinet breaks causing mass upheaval in the world behind Litwak’s Arcade. The friends discover that the part to fix it can only be found on E-bay, so the two embark on a journey on the newly installed internet to find E-bay and get the part to fix the game.
Ralph and Vanellope find out that the internet is a vast and strange place and they quickly learn there is a much larger world outside their little arcade. On the internet there are new places to explore, new games to play and friends whose hearts are as large as the internet itself. The way the writers and animators portrayed how the actual websites work within the internet was simply spectacular. They nailed exactly how I believe E-bay works when I’m bidding on all those hard to find Disney items and I’m happy they finally confirmed that there is a Mr. KnowsMore behind the all-knowing Google search bar. They even gave purpose and heart to the ever-annoying internet pop-up ads and if that isn’t storytelling at its finest, I don’t know what is. The inner workings of the internet are brought to life in only a way that Disney could, and I loved every minute of it.
Not only did they superbly animate the World Wide Web, Ralph Breaks the Internet is also full of as much heart and charm as any Disney movie. The bond between Ralph and Vanellope is so strong that it sweetly radiates off the screen. There is also depth to the story as we get to see their relationship go through all the struggles and triumphs that form a true and lasting friendship. In pure Disney fashion, in the end there is a moral to the story where Ralph learns that a true friend is someone who is willing to let go, even when you don’t want to. The story was sweet as sugar and showed that things can always be fixed as long as you are true friends.
The animation is top-notch, with so many little nuances that I’m certain I didn’t catch them all the first time around. The animation in the scenes with the “casual” princesses and the little bit in the credits (you absolutely 100% must stay for the credits) with Fun Bun and Puddles make everything even more perfect. They also added little extra touches like when the friends go to Tapper’s bar to have a drink of Root Beer, the bartender’s movements are jerky and react exactly as he did in the actual arcade game. Speaking of characters there are so many represented, you may want to see this movie a couple of times just to see them all.
Ralph Breaks the Internet takes modern technology and blends it with memorable characters, an incredible story, and more Easter Eggs than you can shake a joystick at. Everyone from video game fans to Disney movie lovers will find something to enjoy. Disney definitely has another blockbuster on their hands and it will have no problem sitting proudly next to the likes of Beauty and the Beast or the epic Toy Story films. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you will be laughing one minute and crying the next and it once again shows us how Disney can take any topic and turn it into a timeless classic. Make sure to race to your nearest theater on November 21, 2018 when Ralph Breaks the Internet comes crashing into theaters everywhere. You’ll be happy that you did.
Ralph (John C. Reilly) has come a long way from his time as an arcade villain. He now spends his days working in his video game “Fix-It Felix Jr.” and his nights having fun with his adorable and talented bestie Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Life just couldn’t be better, and Ralph is completely content living a structured and simple life. Vanellope, on the other hand, dreams of excitement and a change of pace, as she is growing tired of working in her game “Sugar Rush” since it’s always the same tracks and she wins every race. As the saying goes…be careful what you wish for. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Vanellope’s Sugar Rush game cabinet breaks causing mass upheaval in the world behind Litwak’s Arcade. The friends discover that the part to fix it can only be found on E-bay, so the two embark on a journey on the newly installed internet to find E-bay and get the part to fix the game.
Ralph and Vanellope find out that the internet is a vast and strange place and they quickly learn there is a much larger world outside their little arcade. On the internet there are new places to explore, new games to play and friends whose hearts are as large as the internet itself. The way the writers and animators portrayed how the actual websites work within the internet was simply spectacular. They nailed exactly how I believe E-bay works when I’m bidding on all those hard to find Disney items and I’m happy they finally confirmed that there is a Mr. KnowsMore behind the all-knowing Google search bar. They even gave purpose and heart to the ever-annoying internet pop-up ads and if that isn’t storytelling at its finest, I don’t know what is. The inner workings of the internet are brought to life in only a way that Disney could, and I loved every minute of it.
Not only did they superbly animate the World Wide Web, Ralph Breaks the Internet is also full of as much heart and charm as any Disney movie. The bond between Ralph and Vanellope is so strong that it sweetly radiates off the screen. There is also depth to the story as we get to see their relationship go through all the struggles and triumphs that form a true and lasting friendship. In pure Disney fashion, in the end there is a moral to the story where Ralph learns that a true friend is someone who is willing to let go, even when you don’t want to. The story was sweet as sugar and showed that things can always be fixed as long as you are true friends.
The animation is top-notch, with so many little nuances that I’m certain I didn’t catch them all the first time around. The animation in the scenes with the “casual” princesses and the little bit in the credits (you absolutely 100% must stay for the credits) with Fun Bun and Puddles make everything even more perfect. They also added little extra touches like when the friends go to Tapper’s bar to have a drink of Root Beer, the bartender’s movements are jerky and react exactly as he did in the actual arcade game. Speaking of characters there are so many represented, you may want to see this movie a couple of times just to see them all.
Ralph Breaks the Internet takes modern technology and blends it with memorable characters, an incredible story, and more Easter Eggs than you can shake a joystick at. Everyone from video game fans to Disney movie lovers will find something to enjoy. Disney definitely has another blockbuster on their hands and it will have no problem sitting proudly next to the likes of Beauty and the Beast or the epic Toy Story films. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you will be laughing one minute and crying the next and it once again shows us how Disney can take any topic and turn it into a timeless classic. Make sure to race to your nearest theater on November 21, 2018 when Ralph Breaks the Internet comes crashing into theaters everywhere. You’ll be happy that you did.