Search
Toca Blocks
Education and Entertainment
App
Toca Blocks is a unique world-building app that lets you create worlds, play in them and share them...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A New Classic
There’s an old saying; “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and that was the kind of reaction many people had towards Disney’s live-action remake of The Jungle Book.
Helmed by Iron Man director, Jon Favreau, it certainly garnered a mixed response come its first trailer release late last year. But what is the finished product like? And are we looking at a new classic?
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is one of the most recognisable tales ever, despite its wafer thin plot, and the 1967 Disney animation is faithful to the first, and unfortunately also the latter.
We join this film in the midst of the action, as our young hero Mowgli (played by an unbelievably good Neel Sethi) learns how to run with his family – an adoptive pack of wolves. As the story progresses, Mowgli meets a whole host of friendly, and not so friendly, jungle animals as he strives to find just who he is.
This is a much darker interpretation of the classic story than we have been used to. There are scenes here that are genuinely terrifying, helped in part by the breath-taking CGI used to render the animals, with one infamous tiger in particular being the stuff of nightmares.
Speaking of which, an all-star cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Idris Elba, Christopher Walken and Lupita Nyong’o lend their voices to fan favourites like Bagheera, Baloo, Kaa, Shere Khan, King Louie and Raksha. The vocal performances from each are sublime with Murray being a particular highlight with his comedic persona fitting perfectly with Baloo.
The jungle is brought to the screen in such detail that each frame is brimming with creatures, plants and life. In 3D, it is one of the most magnificent settings ever put to film as vibrant colours make the eyes dance with excitement. It lives and breathes right before your very eyes.
Then there’s the soundtrack. It’s true that the majority of the animation’s songs failed to make the cut, but looking back, it was only Bare Necessities that made any sort of impact and thankfully this survives, receiving a thundering orchestral backing track in the process. Christopher Walken’s gangster-like singing gives I Wanna Be Like You a whole new edge.
Nevertheless, it does, at times feel like Jon Favreau is going through the motions with the rest of the story – setting Mowgli up for one big set piece after another, though a few nice additions keep the plot flowing right up until the harrowing and beautifully filmed finale.
Overall, Disney has another classic on their hands. The Jungle Book is one of the most spectacular and breath-taking films ever put to the big screen. From a magnificent score to exceptional voice acting, it’s practically perfect in every way.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/16/a-new-classic-the-jungle-book-review/
Helmed by Iron Man director, Jon Favreau, it certainly garnered a mixed response come its first trailer release late last year. But what is the finished product like? And are we looking at a new classic?
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is one of the most recognisable tales ever, despite its wafer thin plot, and the 1967 Disney animation is faithful to the first, and unfortunately also the latter.
We join this film in the midst of the action, as our young hero Mowgli (played by an unbelievably good Neel Sethi) learns how to run with his family – an adoptive pack of wolves. As the story progresses, Mowgli meets a whole host of friendly, and not so friendly, jungle animals as he strives to find just who he is.
This is a much darker interpretation of the classic story than we have been used to. There are scenes here that are genuinely terrifying, helped in part by the breath-taking CGI used to render the animals, with one infamous tiger in particular being the stuff of nightmares.
Speaking of which, an all-star cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Idris Elba, Christopher Walken and Lupita Nyong’o lend their voices to fan favourites like Bagheera, Baloo, Kaa, Shere Khan, King Louie and Raksha. The vocal performances from each are sublime with Murray being a particular highlight with his comedic persona fitting perfectly with Baloo.
The jungle is brought to the screen in such detail that each frame is brimming with creatures, plants and life. In 3D, it is one of the most magnificent settings ever put to film as vibrant colours make the eyes dance with excitement. It lives and breathes right before your very eyes.
Then there’s the soundtrack. It’s true that the majority of the animation’s songs failed to make the cut, but looking back, it was only Bare Necessities that made any sort of impact and thankfully this survives, receiving a thundering orchestral backing track in the process. Christopher Walken’s gangster-like singing gives I Wanna Be Like You a whole new edge.
Nevertheless, it does, at times feel like Jon Favreau is going through the motions with the rest of the story – setting Mowgli up for one big set piece after another, though a few nice additions keep the plot flowing right up until the harrowing and beautifully filmed finale.
Overall, Disney has another classic on their hands. The Jungle Book is one of the most spectacular and breath-taking films ever put to the big screen. From a magnificent score to exceptional voice acting, it’s practically perfect in every way.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/16/a-new-classic-the-jungle-book-review/
Solar Family: Planets for Kids
Education, Games and Stickers
App
**LEARN interesting facts about the PLANETS in the SOLAR SYSTEM with INTERACTIVE STORY and FUN...
100 PICS Quiz
Games and Entertainment
App
The world's greatest picture trivia game ● Over 10,000 pictures to play ● Play over 100 quiz...
Pocket Universe - 3D Gravity Sandbox
Games and Education
9.0
Rate It
App
If you had the power, how would you create the solar system? What would be the size of each planet...
Boomerang
Entertainment
8.0
Rate It
App Watch
START THE FUN WITH YOUR BOOMERANG FREE TRIAL Subscribe now on your iPhone or iPad and watch all...
entertainment
Matt Geiger (15 KP) rated Cars (2006) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
There really is no such thing as a perfect film. Ergo, there really is no such thing as a perfect film studio. After 11 years of winning the world over, Pixar was due for a slip-up at some point. Enter this lowbrow, highly unremarkable passion project from Pixar creative giant John Lasseter. CARS is admittedly a highly nostalgic film, not just in the sense that it pays tribute to the quaint, remote, and practically undiscovered sections of the world we wish had more notoriety in the face of progress, but its swelling commercialism reflects an entire generation of young boys who had nothing better to do than play with their matchbox cars and Hot Wheels all day long. Just think: this trilogy has made more moolah from their merchandise than a franchise that has the word “toy” in its frickin’ title. As a narrative, in the same vein as the franchise’s final installment, there really is nothing abhorrently wrong with CARS. It adds onto its aura of nostalgia by remaining consistently harmless and humorous thanks to its well-chosen cast, with Paul Newman standing out in his cinematic swan song, one of the most underrated vocal performances in animation history. Though CARS often feels like the first Pixar film targeting a specific target audience, Newman’s gruff, yet somber voice resonates with older viewers, the thought of what could’ve been and now is always on his mind. Then again, how ironic it is that a film that very much centralizes the concept of missed opportunities is itself a missed opportunity. CARS is a predictable, if not enjoyable, family-friendly romp that doesn’t have the unforeseeable on its mind. While it is quite literally the most inhuman of Pixar films, it at least is not quite as inhuman on a metaphorical and emotional level. And hey, stock car racing is not as accessible as other sports, but this film manages to make it look more entertaining, especially for younger viewers. What more do you really need?
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated AVP - Alien Vs. Predator (2004) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
A missed opportunity
More than anything, AVP just pisses me off, usually when thinking about what could have been.
Why on earth is it PG-13, and why oh why was this historic meeting of two of cinemas most iconic aliens entrusted to Paul WS Anderson!?
I mean, in all honesty, both series had run out of gas at this point, so by the time AVP finally rolled around (14 years after the conflict had been teased at the end of Predator 2), it was never going to be much more than a gimmick, a shameless cash grab to get people in the cinema, hence the family friendly blockbuster nature of the film.
In terms of a big blockbuster, it's not terrible. There are some relatively entertaining moments here and there. The first clash between the titular monsters about 30 minutes in is undeniably surrounded by a sense of child like glee.
In terms of cast, it was a great touch to have Lance Henrikson involved, and Sanaa Lathan is a likeable enough badass-female lead, but everyone else is typical forgettable mercenary cannon fodder.
The effects work is pretty decent for the most part as well.
I can't help but feel that AVP is indeed a missed opportunity. The lack of tension, scares, or viscera just doesn't cut it when it comes to these franchises (although the piss poor sequel proved that more violence doesn't always improve a films quality), but I would have gladly accepted just one of the above mentioned features, but it lacks all of it.
There's a brief flashback which shows a handful of Predators fighting waves upon waves of xenomorphs, and whilst it's a great visual, it serves to remind you that there could have been a much better film produced.
I know that I sound like a miserable bastard and that's a fair enough assumption, and for what it's worth, AVP is watchable - easy Hollywood trash to digest, which is the exact opposite of what I feel an Alien film should be.
Why on earth is it PG-13, and why oh why was this historic meeting of two of cinemas most iconic aliens entrusted to Paul WS Anderson!?
I mean, in all honesty, both series had run out of gas at this point, so by the time AVP finally rolled around (14 years after the conflict had been teased at the end of Predator 2), it was never going to be much more than a gimmick, a shameless cash grab to get people in the cinema, hence the family friendly blockbuster nature of the film.
In terms of a big blockbuster, it's not terrible. There are some relatively entertaining moments here and there. The first clash between the titular monsters about 30 minutes in is undeniably surrounded by a sense of child like glee.
In terms of cast, it was a great touch to have Lance Henrikson involved, and Sanaa Lathan is a likeable enough badass-female lead, but everyone else is typical forgettable mercenary cannon fodder.
The effects work is pretty decent for the most part as well.
I can't help but feel that AVP is indeed a missed opportunity. The lack of tension, scares, or viscera just doesn't cut it when it comes to these franchises (although the piss poor sequel proved that more violence doesn't always improve a films quality), but I would have gladly accepted just one of the above mentioned features, but it lacks all of it.
There's a brief flashback which shows a handful of Predators fighting waves upon waves of xenomorphs, and whilst it's a great visual, it serves to remind you that there could have been a much better film produced.
I know that I sound like a miserable bastard and that's a fair enough assumption, and for what it's worth, AVP is watchable - easy Hollywood trash to digest, which is the exact opposite of what I feel an Alien film should be.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
Another fantastic entry into Tarantino's legacy
If there's one thing that springs to mind after watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, is that's it's not particularly user friendly, it's not easily consumed.
It's a loooong film (perhaps a little too long), and I feel that even some proper Tarantino fans may struggle to get along with it.
The film feels like a full on love letter to Hollywood during the late 60s, and Tarantino's passion for this period is obvious.
The audience are spoiled with gorgeous shots throughout, set to a backdrop of great music (as per usual).
The cast are fantastic - I've mentioned before on here that I'm an unashamed Brad Pitt fanboy, and nothing here changes that. Leonardo DiCaprio is also great (just as he was in Django Unchained) as the two of them stick by each other as Rick Dalton's (DiCaprio) acting career starts to waver.
Living just up the road from Rick are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (played by a hugely charming Margot Robbie).
As the film progresses, I found myself wondering what story was trying to be told, but it does all tie up in a very Tarantino way. It's pretty glorious (no spoilers here).
The plot certainly benefits from the viewer having prior knowledge to the horrific Manson family/Tate murder.
The final 20 minutes is where things ramp up, after a very slow burning 2 hours... and after Tarantino's last 3 movies, which I found more action heavy than some of his early work, it's a different approach, and a reason why I think some people may struggle with it.
The pacing is, weirdly, most akin to Death Proof - an extremely dialogue heavy movie with a crazy final act.
But the huge amount of dialogue we're subjected to is pretty much perfect. It's a real treat if you have the patience.
Once Upon a Time... can proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Tarantino's portfolio.
It's a loooong film (perhaps a little too long), and I feel that even some proper Tarantino fans may struggle to get along with it.
The film feels like a full on love letter to Hollywood during the late 60s, and Tarantino's passion for this period is obvious.
The audience are spoiled with gorgeous shots throughout, set to a backdrop of great music (as per usual).
The cast are fantastic - I've mentioned before on here that I'm an unashamed Brad Pitt fanboy, and nothing here changes that. Leonardo DiCaprio is also great (just as he was in Django Unchained) as the two of them stick by each other as Rick Dalton's (DiCaprio) acting career starts to waver.
Living just up the road from Rick are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (played by a hugely charming Margot Robbie).
As the film progresses, I found myself wondering what story was trying to be told, but it does all tie up in a very Tarantino way. It's pretty glorious (no spoilers here).
The plot certainly benefits from the viewer having prior knowledge to the horrific Manson family/Tate murder.
The final 20 minutes is where things ramp up, after a very slow burning 2 hours... and after Tarantino's last 3 movies, which I found more action heavy than some of his early work, it's a different approach, and a reason why I think some people may struggle with it.
The pacing is, weirdly, most akin to Death Proof - an extremely dialogue heavy movie with a crazy final act.
But the huge amount of dialogue we're subjected to is pretty much perfect. It's a real treat if you have the patience.
Once Upon a Time... can proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Tarantino's portfolio.
Running Cats - Survive The Free Kitty Cat Simulator
Games and Entertainment
9.0
Rate It
App
This a game about love and cats! Little puppy cats and cute kitties are always fun to play with....