Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An Exhausting Thrill Ride
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been delighting fans of the comics and thrilling moviegoers since 2008 when Iron Man steamrolled itself onto the big screen in an epic fashion. From the special effects to the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, it was the complete package.
The culmination of all those films through Phase One, Phase Two and Three has come to a head in this, Avengers: Infinity War. It promises to be the biggest, baddest and most epic Marvel movie to date, but is it actually any good? Read on to find out.
Directed by Antony and Joe Russo, the masterminds behind the fantastic Captain America sequels, Infinity War picks up just after the end of Thor: Ragnarok. This starting place seems fitting and not jumping too far ahead of the finale of that film is perfect to reintroduce our beloved heroes.
The cast form one of the best ensembles ever put to screen, though from each of their solo outings, this is really no surprise. Seeing Black Panther, Black Widow, Captain America et al come back together is frankly, a joy and the film works best when there are as many heroes on screen together as possible.
A highlight in this instance is Benedict Cumberbatch’s Dr. Strange – prepare to jump on the Steven Strange bandwagon. After a relatively lacklustre solo outing, his character pops on the screen and really benefits from the Russo brothers zingy direction.
As is the case with many films involving such a large cast, much of the 149 minute runtime is spent following a few of them at once, each going about their own mission in relation to stopping Thanos and his possession of the Infinity stones. If I count correctly, there are 3 quests going on at once, but only two are really successful.
Special effects wise, this is a $400million movie, so you know what to expect. For the most part, the CGI from Industrial Light & Magic is seamless and really rather beautiful. The motion capture work done on Josh Brolin to turn him into Thanos is exquisite and the end result is a truly menacing villain. Elsewhere however, there are a few corners cut if you look closely enough, but I’ll leave it down to you to try and spot them.
Focussing on Thanos himself, he proves to be a fitting villain for a film this gargantuan in scale. His towering presence and almost demonic sense of entitlement completely does away with the stereotypical Marvel bad-guy problem that the MCU has been suffering with. Obviously helped massively by Brolin’s incredible performance, Thanos is up there with Loki in terms of sheer entertainment value.
Nevertheless, Avengers: Infinity War is not a perfect film and it would be wrong of me to pretend it was. Despite its massive length, elements do feel rushed from time-to-time and cramming 20+ characters into a film was never going to be a slam dunk. Some moments that should have deep resonance really don’t reach the emotion they were clearly intended to do, and that’s because of the film’s need to tie up as much of the plot as possible. Thankfully, from a tonal perspective, the Russo brothers manage to keep the balance almost perfect and it’s a vast improvement over Joss Whedon’s disjointed Age of Ultron.
My biggest issue with the film however, is the ending. Avengers: Infinity War is not a film you come to the end of and applaud. In fact, the main response from the entire screening of the film I was watching was a collective groan as the end credits begin to roll. Despite the promise that Infinity War would work as a standalone movie; it just doesn’t. It’s very much a starting chapter for what comes next in Avengers 4. But we need to wait just over a year for the concluding chapter to arrive in UK cinemas, and that is incredibly infuriating.
Overall, Avengers: Infinity War is a culmination of everything Marvel has been working towards for a decade. In its favour are an incredible cast, that trademark MCU humour and some stunning action sequences but these are offset by an infuriating ending and a lack of emotional heft to the film’s inevitable darker moments.
This may definitely be the biggest movie in the MCU and it’s definitely the 2nd best Avengers movie, but it’s not quite up there with the very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/26/avengers-infinity-war-review-an-exhausting-thrill-ride/
The culmination of all those films through Phase One, Phase Two and Three has come to a head in this, Avengers: Infinity War. It promises to be the biggest, baddest and most epic Marvel movie to date, but is it actually any good? Read on to find out.
Directed by Antony and Joe Russo, the masterminds behind the fantastic Captain America sequels, Infinity War picks up just after the end of Thor: Ragnarok. This starting place seems fitting and not jumping too far ahead of the finale of that film is perfect to reintroduce our beloved heroes.
The cast form one of the best ensembles ever put to screen, though from each of their solo outings, this is really no surprise. Seeing Black Panther, Black Widow, Captain America et al come back together is frankly, a joy and the film works best when there are as many heroes on screen together as possible.
A highlight in this instance is Benedict Cumberbatch’s Dr. Strange – prepare to jump on the Steven Strange bandwagon. After a relatively lacklustre solo outing, his character pops on the screen and really benefits from the Russo brothers zingy direction.
As is the case with many films involving such a large cast, much of the 149 minute runtime is spent following a few of them at once, each going about their own mission in relation to stopping Thanos and his possession of the Infinity stones. If I count correctly, there are 3 quests going on at once, but only two are really successful.
Special effects wise, this is a $400million movie, so you know what to expect. For the most part, the CGI from Industrial Light & Magic is seamless and really rather beautiful. The motion capture work done on Josh Brolin to turn him into Thanos is exquisite and the end result is a truly menacing villain. Elsewhere however, there are a few corners cut if you look closely enough, but I’ll leave it down to you to try and spot them.
Focussing on Thanos himself, he proves to be a fitting villain for a film this gargantuan in scale. His towering presence and almost demonic sense of entitlement completely does away with the stereotypical Marvel bad-guy problem that the MCU has been suffering with. Obviously helped massively by Brolin’s incredible performance, Thanos is up there with Loki in terms of sheer entertainment value.
Nevertheless, Avengers: Infinity War is not a perfect film and it would be wrong of me to pretend it was. Despite its massive length, elements do feel rushed from time-to-time and cramming 20+ characters into a film was never going to be a slam dunk. Some moments that should have deep resonance really don’t reach the emotion they were clearly intended to do, and that’s because of the film’s need to tie up as much of the plot as possible. Thankfully, from a tonal perspective, the Russo brothers manage to keep the balance almost perfect and it’s a vast improvement over Joss Whedon’s disjointed Age of Ultron.
My biggest issue with the film however, is the ending. Avengers: Infinity War is not a film you come to the end of and applaud. In fact, the main response from the entire screening of the film I was watching was a collective groan as the end credits begin to roll. Despite the promise that Infinity War would work as a standalone movie; it just doesn’t. It’s very much a starting chapter for what comes next in Avengers 4. But we need to wait just over a year for the concluding chapter to arrive in UK cinemas, and that is incredibly infuriating.
Overall, Avengers: Infinity War is a culmination of everything Marvel has been working towards for a decade. In its favour are an incredible cast, that trademark MCU humour and some stunning action sequences but these are offset by an infuriating ending and a lack of emotional heft to the film’s inevitable darker moments.
This may definitely be the biggest movie in the MCU and it’s definitely the 2nd best Avengers movie, but it’s not quite up there with the very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/26/avengers-infinity-war-review-an-exhausting-thrill-ride/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Alison Brie recommended Alien (1979) in Movies (curated)
Rickey A. Mossow Jr. (689 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Aug 27, 2019
Another unnecessary remake of a childhood classic.
When I originally saw the trailer for this pop up on YouTube, my heart swelled with happiness and the child in me grinned from ear to ear. So many memories came back and flooded my heart and mind. Then, I actually watched this movie. It struggled for me from the beginning as it was instantly clear the star wasn't the elephant with big ears, but rather a typecast Danny Devito, Collin Farrell with a terrible southern accent, his women empowerment staple daughter, and his son that is just kinda there. The anthropomorphism of the animated film is gone, and without it, the key scenes lifted from the original don't carry the emotional weight they did. Much of the story makes little to no sense, including the climax and tie everything up in a neat bow ending. All the PC nonsense and making a statement about current social and political issues isn't needed. It's a kids movie. Once it was clear that this was Disney making a movie about evil corporations buying up small entities to make a monopoly, I checked out mentally from the obvious irony. As the credits rolled, I was just left with an empty feeling, my swollen heart shrunk and my grin gone. Memories from my childhood had been stamped out by Disney Inc. in search of the almighty dollar with yet another unnecessary and bad remake.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aftermath (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Is there a period piece that Keira Knightley has ever turned down? After seeing her in Colette I retrieved her from the Nutcracker trash can I'd thrown her into and actually looked forward to whatever I was going to see her in next. I sort of wish it hadn't been this film though.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jul 10, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Spoilers
In the 9th instalment of the the 'Fast and Furious' franchise we have; backstory, fun with magnets, brothers who have never been mentioned before, the return of dead characters, plenty of set up for spin offs, doggy English accents and cars in space.
Fast and Furious 9 is a big film, with a lot going on, it acts as Dom's back story, continuation of the franchise and (possibly) a set up for some spinoffs. The latter is not a surprise as Vin Diesel has already said that, including F9 there are only 3 more films left, but that there will be more spin offs, like Hobbs and Shaw (There is a rumoured 'Cipher ' spin off in the works as well as Hobbs and Shaw 2).
A large part of Fast 9 is Dom's back story. We get to see the incident where Dom kills a man, as mentioned in Fast 1 and the impact this has on his biological family. We also get flash backs/more story to 'Tokyo Drift' which they tie into the main franchise a bit more.
Fast 9 seems to bring the cars back to the franchise, although the 7 & 8 did have cars they seemed to be loosing there way in favour of the action but 9 has both cars and action.
There are a lot of call backs to the other films with almost every past family member returning in a original scene, we even almost get to see the return of Brian, however this does make Hobbs' absents more obvious.
There were a couple of points that niggled at me a bit, the being that, in the flashbacks, young Dom and young Jakob were played by different actors (because it would be hard for Vin Diesel and John Cena to play their younger selves) but the actors (especially young Dom) didn't feel right. This isn't a criticism of the actors but there was just something that didn't quite Jell between the present and past characters.
Over all Fast and furious 9 is a good addition to an increasingly over blown film franchise although you do have to suspend reality a few times and you can see why the main franchise is coming to an end soon otherwise the 'Family' would probably end up colonising Mars or slipping into another reality.
In the 9th instalment of the the 'Fast and Furious' franchise we have; backstory, fun with magnets, brothers who have never been mentioned before, the return of dead characters, plenty of set up for spin offs, doggy English accents and cars in space.
Fast and Furious 9 is a big film, with a lot going on, it acts as Dom's back story, continuation of the franchise and (possibly) a set up for some spinoffs. The latter is not a surprise as Vin Diesel has already said that, including F9 there are only 3 more films left, but that there will be more spin offs, like Hobbs and Shaw (There is a rumoured 'Cipher ' spin off in the works as well as Hobbs and Shaw 2).
A large part of Fast 9 is Dom's back story. We get to see the incident where Dom kills a man, as mentioned in Fast 1 and the impact this has on his biological family. We also get flash backs/more story to 'Tokyo Drift' which they tie into the main franchise a bit more.
Fast 9 seems to bring the cars back to the franchise, although the 7 & 8 did have cars they seemed to be loosing there way in favour of the action but 9 has both cars and action.
There are a lot of call backs to the other films with almost every past family member returning in a original scene, we even almost get to see the return of Brian, however this does make Hobbs' absents more obvious.
There were a couple of points that niggled at me a bit, the being that, in the flashbacks, young Dom and young Jakob were played by different actors (because it would be hard for Vin Diesel and John Cena to play their younger selves) but the actors (especially young Dom) didn't feel right. This isn't a criticism of the actors but there was just something that didn't quite Jell between the present and past characters.
Over all Fast and furious 9 is a good addition to an increasingly over blown film franchise although you do have to suspend reality a few times and you can see why the main franchise is coming to an end soon otherwise the 'Family' would probably end up colonising Mars or slipping into another reality.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Thoughts on Toy Story 4
Characters – Woody is struggling with not being in control of the room anymore, he still wants to help make Bonnie happy, which sees him acting selfishly, he does try to fix his own mistakes which will see him facing a second chance, meeting an old friend and distancing himself from his current friends. Woody is the key figure in this film, this is very much his story. Forky is the newly created toy out of a spork and is learning everything as it unfolds even though he believes he is trash. Buzz Lightyear is trying to step up when Woody goes off, he does feel like a bigger idiot than we are used to, using his voice commands to help him, which seems like a huge step back on his character. Bo Peep coming back to the franchise is fun, she shows Woody a new life away from kids, where she helps toys, she is Woody’s big love in life too, kick ass fighter too. Gabby Gabby is an older toy like Woody, she has been damaged and is searching for something to hope she can be taken home one day, she is painted as the villain, though she is the weakest villain in the franchise. Duke Caboom is the best addition to the film a stuntman that has failed as a toy, he is always up for trying something new and is filled with confidence.
Story – The story here follows Woody trying to find himself a place in the world after becoming a smaller part in the life of his new owner Bonnie, he gets too involved and spends most of the story trying to make up for his mistake of letting Bonnie create a new toy, caught in the middle saving the day or breaking free. Now this is the 4th part of the franchise which did tie up nicely after the third one. The supporting characters do take a big back burner in the story which even sees Buzz getting less screen time, this is a full Woody story trying to figure out where his life is going on next. We do try to play on the heart strings, though it just doesn’t get to the levels it could have and has been there before. The new characters to bring the bright spark to the story, but we do end up going down the road, where this is becoming too unbelievable that these toys are acting like this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of this film comes from the idea that Woody will need to go on a new adventure to save Forky, only to see Buzz on his own adventure which does cross paths with Woody, only his feels like a simple side to everything. the comedy from the new characters hits very well, its just old character seem to fall short.
Settings – Having the film use an Antique story is great idea because we get to see known toys that could add comedy in places, the carnival also adds potential new characters too.
Animation – The animation is Pixar at its very best, it looks perfect like we know they are used to bring us, bringing us larger scale environment to everything going on.
Scene of the Movie – Duke Caboom.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Buzz seems to be dumber.
Final Thoughts – This does end up feeling like a cash grab sequel, it doesn’t have the heart the previous films do and fails to use the original characters well enough.
Overall: By the book sequel.
Characters – Woody is struggling with not being in control of the room anymore, he still wants to help make Bonnie happy, which sees him acting selfishly, he does try to fix his own mistakes which will see him facing a second chance, meeting an old friend and distancing himself from his current friends. Woody is the key figure in this film, this is very much his story. Forky is the newly created toy out of a spork and is learning everything as it unfolds even though he believes he is trash. Buzz Lightyear is trying to step up when Woody goes off, he does feel like a bigger idiot than we are used to, using his voice commands to help him, which seems like a huge step back on his character. Bo Peep coming back to the franchise is fun, she shows Woody a new life away from kids, where she helps toys, she is Woody’s big love in life too, kick ass fighter too. Gabby Gabby is an older toy like Woody, she has been damaged and is searching for something to hope she can be taken home one day, she is painted as the villain, though she is the weakest villain in the franchise. Duke Caboom is the best addition to the film a stuntman that has failed as a toy, he is always up for trying something new and is filled with confidence.
Story – The story here follows Woody trying to find himself a place in the world after becoming a smaller part in the life of his new owner Bonnie, he gets too involved and spends most of the story trying to make up for his mistake of letting Bonnie create a new toy, caught in the middle saving the day or breaking free. Now this is the 4th part of the franchise which did tie up nicely after the third one. The supporting characters do take a big back burner in the story which even sees Buzz getting less screen time, this is a full Woody story trying to figure out where his life is going on next. We do try to play on the heart strings, though it just doesn’t get to the levels it could have and has been there before. The new characters to bring the bright spark to the story, but we do end up going down the road, where this is becoming too unbelievable that these toys are acting like this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of this film comes from the idea that Woody will need to go on a new adventure to save Forky, only to see Buzz on his own adventure which does cross paths with Woody, only his feels like a simple side to everything. the comedy from the new characters hits very well, its just old character seem to fall short.
Settings – Having the film use an Antique story is great idea because we get to see known toys that could add comedy in places, the carnival also adds potential new characters too.
Animation – The animation is Pixar at its very best, it looks perfect like we know they are used to bring us, bringing us larger scale environment to everything going on.
Scene of the Movie – Duke Caboom.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Buzz seems to be dumber.
Final Thoughts – This does end up feeling like a cash grab sequel, it doesn’t have the heart the previous films do and fails to use the original characters well enough.
Overall: By the book sequel.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018 (Updated Mar 24, 2018)
What? Why? How?
Right, quick disclaimer - this is going to be less of a review of the movie and more of a rant on how this movie ruins any Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hitman: Agent 47 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Clinical and incomprehensible
The transition from video game to movie is notoriously difficult to get right. From box-office disasters like Super Mario Bros. to the poorly received Resident Evil franchise, it appears no film is spared from either financial woe or critically panning.
Hitman has become one of the most popular game series’ ever but the 2007 film of the same name failed to kick-start the franchise’s transition to the silver screen. Now, eight years later, Rupert Friend stars as the red tie-wearing assassin in Hitman: Agent 47, but does it succeed as a reboot?
Friend stars as the titular character, an emotionless killer hell-bent on tracking down the creator of the ‘Agent Program’ from which he was created. Alongside him for the ride is Hannah Ware’s Katia Van Dees, a young fearful woman searching for a man she does not know.
The usually excellent Zachary Quinto (Star Trek) also stars as a clichéd villain in a thankless role blighted by stilted dialogue and cardboard emotions. This most certainly isn’t his finest work.
The story is incredibly simple, barely fitting into the film’s slender 96 minute running time and the clinical filming style of director Aleksander Bach really doesn’t help. Beautiful locations like Berlin and Singapore are wasted in favour of sleek office sets, populated by one-dimensional characters that we couldn’t care less about.
Nevertheless, Friend plays the emotionless Agent 47 with ease and is one of the highlights in a film lacking in any real punch – it’s all been done before, and better.
Ware is disappointingly wooden, though her veneer seems to crack towards the finale and we get to see the character she could have played. It’s a shame that for the majority of Hitman’s running time we see no real prowess in her performance.
The action sequences are slick and nicely choreographed but Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation did them only last month and in a more detailed and ultimately successful style.
However, clever gun-work is mixed nicely with the film’s 15 certificate and each barrel discharge feels much more real. It’s certainly more interesting than the two sequels to Taken and many other action thrillers that sport the 12A rating.
The climax leaves things wide open for a sequel, but the ending is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t played the games and leaves a bad taste in the mouth – probably not a great thing when trying to get audiences excited for a follow up.
Overall, Hitman: Agent 47 is much like its titular character. A slick outer shell hides not a lot underneath with a cast of wasted talent and a been-there-done-that attitude to the stunts. There’s some great sequences, but you’ll have to dig deep to find any real merit here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/30/clinical-and-incomprehensible-hitman-agent-47-review/
Hitman has become one of the most popular game series’ ever but the 2007 film of the same name failed to kick-start the franchise’s transition to the silver screen. Now, eight years later, Rupert Friend stars as the red tie-wearing assassin in Hitman: Agent 47, but does it succeed as a reboot?
Friend stars as the titular character, an emotionless killer hell-bent on tracking down the creator of the ‘Agent Program’ from which he was created. Alongside him for the ride is Hannah Ware’s Katia Van Dees, a young fearful woman searching for a man she does not know.
The usually excellent Zachary Quinto (Star Trek) also stars as a clichéd villain in a thankless role blighted by stilted dialogue and cardboard emotions. This most certainly isn’t his finest work.
The story is incredibly simple, barely fitting into the film’s slender 96 minute running time and the clinical filming style of director Aleksander Bach really doesn’t help. Beautiful locations like Berlin and Singapore are wasted in favour of sleek office sets, populated by one-dimensional characters that we couldn’t care less about.
Nevertheless, Friend plays the emotionless Agent 47 with ease and is one of the highlights in a film lacking in any real punch – it’s all been done before, and better.
Ware is disappointingly wooden, though her veneer seems to crack towards the finale and we get to see the character she could have played. It’s a shame that for the majority of Hitman’s running time we see no real prowess in her performance.
The action sequences are slick and nicely choreographed but Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation did them only last month and in a more detailed and ultimately successful style.
However, clever gun-work is mixed nicely with the film’s 15 certificate and each barrel discharge feels much more real. It’s certainly more interesting than the two sequels to Taken and many other action thrillers that sport the 12A rating.
The climax leaves things wide open for a sequel, but the ending is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t played the games and leaves a bad taste in the mouth – probably not a great thing when trying to get audiences excited for a follow up.
Overall, Hitman: Agent 47 is much like its titular character. A slick outer shell hides not a lot underneath with a cast of wasted talent and a been-there-done-that attitude to the stunts. There’s some great sequences, but you’ll have to dig deep to find any real merit here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/30/clinical-and-incomprehensible-hitman-agent-47-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Jesus' Son (1999) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Terrible Ending to a Bad Movie
Jesus’ Son is a collection of stories revolving around main character FH. A great concept with poor execution, this movie reminds me more of a wannabe Tarantino movie.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
I could never latch on to what the movie was about or where things were ultimately heading. As a result, there never felt like there was any true conflict that I needed to care about. Most of the scenes felt like they weren’t of much consequence if they had been taken out or left in. This made it really hard to give two craps about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 7
I love the way director Alison Maclean approached the film. The way things are shot in story fashion with flashbacks and rewinds is very creative. While the execution didn’t deliver on the story I was hoping for, I applaud the attempt to be different.
Pace: 6
The movie isn’t overly long, there is just a little more fluff than what is needed. Again, not understanding the concept of what’s happening definitely makes it feel like time is moving slower. A better story would have alleviated this issue.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 4
About the best thing about the ending was that the movie was ending. Didn’t really tie anything up. Didn’t make me any more fulfilled for seeing the movie. No bueno.
Overall: 63
The reason why I enjoy my rating system so much is because you can come up short in some areas and still pass as a quality movie. Too much of a dip in multiple categories and you strike out. Jesus’ Son suffers from weak characters, minor conflict, and little “wow” quality. Not recommended.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
I could never latch on to what the movie was about or where things were ultimately heading. As a result, there never felt like there was any true conflict that I needed to care about. Most of the scenes felt like they weren’t of much consequence if they had been taken out or left in. This made it really hard to give two craps about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 7
I love the way director Alison Maclean approached the film. The way things are shot in story fashion with flashbacks and rewinds is very creative. While the execution didn’t deliver on the story I was hoping for, I applaud the attempt to be different.
Pace: 6
The movie isn’t overly long, there is just a little more fluff than what is needed. Again, not understanding the concept of what’s happening definitely makes it feel like time is moving slower. A better story would have alleviated this issue.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 4
About the best thing about the ending was that the movie was ending. Didn’t really tie anything up. Didn’t make me any more fulfilled for seeing the movie. No bueno.
Overall: 63
The reason why I enjoy my rating system so much is because you can come up short in some areas and still pass as a quality movie. Too much of a dip in multiple categories and you strike out. Jesus’ Son suffers from weak characters, minor conflict, and little “wow” quality. Not recommended.