Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Tomorrow War (2021) in Movies
Aug 1, 2021
A rather impulsive watch on this one, other than one of those pre-Prime adverts I hadn't seen anything about it. But it looked intriguing.
The future arrives in the present in an event that's never been seen before, but it brings news of a war raging 30 years in the future.
Tomorrow War has an interesting idea behind it, but I decided early on that I would stop trying to think about the ramifications of everything happening. We watch the events unfold along with the characters, I found that annoying at the beginning as I was keen to get into the nitty gritty and it was taking its sweet time.
I felt that some of the interactions took shortcuts. A character will ask a question, get refused, but instantly be told the answer after a second half arsed enquiry. Yes it moves the story along, but not in a very satisfying way. At the same time, it throws in a selection of completely unnecessary interactions like it doesn't know exactly what it wants to achieve.
I would like to say that there was some acting that helped redeem the rollercoaster of Tomorrow War's story, but everything is "they were working with what they got". There wasn't always a lot.
Despite the opportunity for Chris Pratt to be a strong action lead, the set up doesn't really allow for it. Initially we get presented with him being a scientist, when the action begins we're given the soldier angle. I'm not saying people can't have to sides to them, but it felt very strange to swap it up. It seemed entirely based off the need to have a scientific element later in the story, but with so many characters, it felt odd to have those elements in one person when there was plenty of scope to have two different people, one for each role.
With all these characters it's hard to differentiate between them... but don't worry, the costume department have a solution to that... I don't want to ruin the surprise, but it's truly ridiculous. There's very little sense to it, and I can't fathom how anyone signed it off.
The effects didn't really bother me, it all seemed to work, nothing stood out for negative reasons. With so many other questionable things happening, that was a bit of a relief really. The creatures were kind of familiar and just creepy enough to work, their movement helped with that, but overall there really didn't feel like enough of them in the film to warrant the effort.
I liked the idea behind Tomorrow War, but while I tried to switch my brain off, I came out with questions... so many questions. They just popped in there. And if it wasn't questions, it was predictions that were often right. With all of this I haven't even dealt with the ending. Everything before the conclusion wasn't bad, the ending was rushed and didn't fit with what had come before. The balance was definitely off, and I think with some changes this could really have knocked it out of the park.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-tomorrow-war-movie-review.html
The future arrives in the present in an event that's never been seen before, but it brings news of a war raging 30 years in the future.
Tomorrow War has an interesting idea behind it, but I decided early on that I would stop trying to think about the ramifications of everything happening. We watch the events unfold along with the characters, I found that annoying at the beginning as I was keen to get into the nitty gritty and it was taking its sweet time.
I felt that some of the interactions took shortcuts. A character will ask a question, get refused, but instantly be told the answer after a second half arsed enquiry. Yes it moves the story along, but not in a very satisfying way. At the same time, it throws in a selection of completely unnecessary interactions like it doesn't know exactly what it wants to achieve.
I would like to say that there was some acting that helped redeem the rollercoaster of Tomorrow War's story, but everything is "they were working with what they got". There wasn't always a lot.
Despite the opportunity for Chris Pratt to be a strong action lead, the set up doesn't really allow for it. Initially we get presented with him being a scientist, when the action begins we're given the soldier angle. I'm not saying people can't have to sides to them, but it felt very strange to swap it up. It seemed entirely based off the need to have a scientific element later in the story, but with so many characters, it felt odd to have those elements in one person when there was plenty of scope to have two different people, one for each role.
With all these characters it's hard to differentiate between them... but don't worry, the costume department have a solution to that... I don't want to ruin the surprise, but it's truly ridiculous. There's very little sense to it, and I can't fathom how anyone signed it off.
The effects didn't really bother me, it all seemed to work, nothing stood out for negative reasons. With so many other questionable things happening, that was a bit of a relief really. The creatures were kind of familiar and just creepy enough to work, their movement helped with that, but overall there really didn't feel like enough of them in the film to warrant the effort.
I liked the idea behind Tomorrow War, but while I tried to switch my brain off, I came out with questions... so many questions. They just popped in there. And if it wasn't questions, it was predictions that were often right. With all of this I haven't even dealt with the ending. Everything before the conclusion wasn't bad, the ending was rushed and didn't fit with what had come before. The balance was definitely off, and I think with some changes this could really have knocked it out of the park.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-tomorrow-war-movie-review.html
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020 (Updated Oct 19, 2020)
Fascinating
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is Aaron Sorkin’s second foray into directing, a dramatisation of the true story of 7 people on trial following the events at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Rare Beasts (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Directorial debuts are tough, and it gives people a chance to establish their personal style. Sadly for me, Billie Piper’s first film had a style that didn’t sit well with me at all. She was heavily involved in the project; directing, writing and starring in it, but her unique first film is perhaps a bit too quirky.
Rare Beasts follows Mandy, a career-driven single mother (Billie Piper) and her turbulent relationship with Pete (Leo Bill). Possibly the most frustrating thing about this film as it’s unclear why the two of them even ended up together at all.
It’s not uncommon for people to choose poorly when they’re dating, and end up in a relationship that doesn’t work, but Rare Beasts offers no reason for the two to even end up together in the first place. Mandy’s a single mother, she’s wild, she wears bold clothing, and Pete is a traditionalist who is, frankly, a misogynist with anger issues.
Interestingly, the film’s synopsis describes Pete as ‘charming’, and I’m unable to see that quality in him, nor is it ever shown from Mandy’s point of view. She never once looks at Pete lovingly, or seems charmed by him.
The lack of context or any indication as to what drove them to be together is a problem for me. Even if we saw one tiny nice moment between them it would make sense, but throughout the film they’re consistently awful to each other with no redeeming features.
Combined with a narrative that is all over the place and dialogue that feels very unnatural, it comes across as jarring most of the time. I have no issue with unconventional film styles, but I found it very hard to follow what was going on at various points.
It seems Rare Beasts is confused about what tone its actually going for, switching between whimsical musical style scenes (minus the music or singing) and gritty realism in a matter of seconds.
I appreciated the efforts to raise awareness of social issues such as domestic abuse, gender inequalities and the struggles of bringing up a child as a single parent, but these messages are squashed by a visual style that is rather overwhelming.
There is also a sub-plot involving Mandy’s parents (Kerry Fox and David Thewlis), who have separated but appear to have a complicated relationship. This is never fully explained either so it’s hard to connect with them, especially when Mandy’s mother falls ill.
This attempt to tug at our heartstrings falls flat, which is disappointing as it had the potential to bring some real, raw emotion to Rare Beasts. Sadly it’s as disjoined and confusing as Mandy and Pete’s relationship.
It’s clear those involved in the film gave it their all, and I can’t fault the quality of the actors even though some of the lines didn’t work and felt too far removed from natural conversation to be taken seriously. At least they tried.
Billie Piper has talent, there’s no doubt about it, but she hasn’t quite made it work in this very daring debut behind the camera. If Rare Beasts was attempting to be relatable and resonate with audiences, it failed to do that with me.
Rare Beasts follows Mandy, a career-driven single mother (Billie Piper) and her turbulent relationship with Pete (Leo Bill). Possibly the most frustrating thing about this film as it’s unclear why the two of them even ended up together at all.
It’s not uncommon for people to choose poorly when they’re dating, and end up in a relationship that doesn’t work, but Rare Beasts offers no reason for the two to even end up together in the first place. Mandy’s a single mother, she’s wild, she wears bold clothing, and Pete is a traditionalist who is, frankly, a misogynist with anger issues.
Interestingly, the film’s synopsis describes Pete as ‘charming’, and I’m unable to see that quality in him, nor is it ever shown from Mandy’s point of view. She never once looks at Pete lovingly, or seems charmed by him.
The lack of context or any indication as to what drove them to be together is a problem for me. Even if we saw one tiny nice moment between them it would make sense, but throughout the film they’re consistently awful to each other with no redeeming features.
Combined with a narrative that is all over the place and dialogue that feels very unnatural, it comes across as jarring most of the time. I have no issue with unconventional film styles, but I found it very hard to follow what was going on at various points.
It seems Rare Beasts is confused about what tone its actually going for, switching between whimsical musical style scenes (minus the music or singing) and gritty realism in a matter of seconds.
I appreciated the efforts to raise awareness of social issues such as domestic abuse, gender inequalities and the struggles of bringing up a child as a single parent, but these messages are squashed by a visual style that is rather overwhelming.
There is also a sub-plot involving Mandy’s parents (Kerry Fox and David Thewlis), who have separated but appear to have a complicated relationship. This is never fully explained either so it’s hard to connect with them, especially when Mandy’s mother falls ill.
This attempt to tug at our heartstrings falls flat, which is disappointing as it had the potential to bring some real, raw emotion to Rare Beasts. Sadly it’s as disjoined and confusing as Mandy and Pete’s relationship.
It’s clear those involved in the film gave it their all, and I can’t fault the quality of the actors even though some of the lines didn’t work and felt too far removed from natural conversation to be taken seriously. At least they tried.
Billie Piper has talent, there’s no doubt about it, but she hasn’t quite made it work in this very daring debut behind the camera. If Rare Beasts was attempting to be relatable and resonate with audiences, it failed to do that with me.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Eternal Rider (Lords of Deliverance, #1, Demonica, #6) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I loved that this book took a concept that I am very familiar with, the Four Horsemen from Revelation, and turned it on its head. For all of the repetitiveness of fantasy fiction using the same species over and over again - from mermaids to vampires - the horsemen are definitely new vehicles for enticing literature.
The background of the story is that all of the horsemen once lead human lives, but were cursed to become the horsemen after reacting very badly to the news that Lilith is their mother. Another interesting quirk on the common tale is that one of them is actually female, Limos. The four are destined to either fulfill the Biblical prophecy or the demonic equivalent - which none of them want to do. In addition, each of them have a unique method by which they fall into the demonic prophecy's designated role and must fight to keep said method from playing out.
Ares, whom the story says the Greek god of war is named for, is destined to become War should the being bearing his seal, or agimortus, dies. Thanks to Cara, a human, inadvertently crossing paths with a hellhound, she becomes the bearer of the agimortus. Luckily, she has a few tricks of her own to aid her in her new role. I liked Cara and the way she seemed to blossom despite her captivity and impending death, as well as how easily she could stand up to Ares. I would have liked a little more character development, as it did not feel like her character arc was complete.
Ares is also an interesting character. Even though he is drawn to wars and violence, with his very presence inciting violence and rage among humans, Cara is immune to this ability. Because of how her presence weakens him, Ares shows a vulnerability characteristic of the humanity he left behind thousands of years ago. Around Cara, he is simply a normal guy falling in love, and the way he attempts to "macho-up" to deal with it is positively adorable.
The violence in the book is both believable and quite gritty. Of course, the horsemen's supernatural abilities of strength and healing allow it to be especially intense and dramatic. The sexual scenes in the book are also quite graphic and detailed, without feeling cheesy or awkward.
The laws built into Ione's world of horsemen, angels, and demons is complex without being confusing. The reader is introduced to its structure piece by piece throughout the novel without being bombarded by the details, and all of the pieces fit together nicely. In addition, Ione even includes a glossary at the beginning of the book to help the reader become more accustomed to the world.
The other siblings are all unique and show lots of promise for future books in the series. Thanatos, destined to become Death, has a seductive air of mystery that had me wondering several times throughout the book if something would occur between him and Cara. The sister, Limos, destined to be Famine, also shows many interesting characteristics, such as a certain hidden madness that she struggles to keep leashed, and the chemistry she shares with Arik is palpable. Even though Reseph becomes Pestilence early in the book, I have a feeling he may prove to be the most interesting of the siblings under a theme of redemption. I only have to wait till December for Immortal Rider (Lords of Deliverance), which centers on Limos, to find out what happens next!
The background of the story is that all of the horsemen once lead human lives, but were cursed to become the horsemen after reacting very badly to the news that Lilith is their mother. Another interesting quirk on the common tale is that one of them is actually female, Limos. The four are destined to either fulfill the Biblical prophecy or the demonic equivalent - which none of them want to do. In addition, each of them have a unique method by which they fall into the demonic prophecy's designated role and must fight to keep said method from playing out.
Ares, whom the story says the Greek god of war is named for, is destined to become War should the being bearing his seal, or agimortus, dies. Thanks to Cara, a human, inadvertently crossing paths with a hellhound, she becomes the bearer of the agimortus. Luckily, she has a few tricks of her own to aid her in her new role. I liked Cara and the way she seemed to blossom despite her captivity and impending death, as well as how easily she could stand up to Ares. I would have liked a little more character development, as it did not feel like her character arc was complete.
Ares is also an interesting character. Even though he is drawn to wars and violence, with his very presence inciting violence and rage among humans, Cara is immune to this ability. Because of how her presence weakens him, Ares shows a vulnerability characteristic of the humanity he left behind thousands of years ago. Around Cara, he is simply a normal guy falling in love, and the way he attempts to "macho-up" to deal with it is positively adorable.
The violence in the book is both believable and quite gritty. Of course, the horsemen's supernatural abilities of strength and healing allow it to be especially intense and dramatic. The sexual scenes in the book are also quite graphic and detailed, without feeling cheesy or awkward.
The laws built into Ione's world of horsemen, angels, and demons is complex without being confusing. The reader is introduced to its structure piece by piece throughout the novel without being bombarded by the details, and all of the pieces fit together nicely. In addition, Ione even includes a glossary at the beginning of the book to help the reader become more accustomed to the world.
The other siblings are all unique and show lots of promise for future books in the series. Thanatos, destined to become Death, has a seductive air of mystery that had me wondering several times throughout the book if something would occur between him and Cara. The sister, Limos, destined to be Famine, also shows many interesting characteristics, such as a certain hidden madness that she struggles to keep leashed, and the chemistry she shares with Arik is palpable. Even though Reseph becomes Pestilence early in the book, I have a feeling he may prove to be the most interesting of the siblings under a theme of redemption. I only have to wait till December for Immortal Rider (Lords of Deliverance), which centers on Limos, to find out what happens next!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
If I had a pound for every time someone said they wanted a live-action Power Rangers reboot, I’d have exactly… nothing. The popular television series isn’t the first franchise that comes to mind when imagining films that’ll draw in the crowds, especially considering its era was very much the 90s.
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
No, not that one
Nordic noir is big business at the moment, but with the incredible scenery of the locations lending themselves perfectly to film, is there any wonder?
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Hypnotist are just a couple of movies that have fallen into this massively expanding genre.
Now, Jo Nesbø’s chilling The Snowman novel gets the silver screen treatment in a film of the same name. But can this continue the thrilling trend of whodunit novels being turned into fabulous crime dramas?For Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender), the death of a young woman during the first snow of winter feels like anything but a routine homicide. His investigation leads him to “The Snowman Killer,” an elusive sociopath who continuously taunts Hole with ingeniously crafted cat-and-mouse games. As the brutal deaths show no sign of slowing, Harry teams up with a new recruit (Rebecca Ferguson) to try and lure the madman out of the shadows before it’s too late.
With Michael Fassbender at the helm, director Thomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) manages to blend gorgeous imagery with an intriguing plot and excellent performances in a film that suffers from a couple of issues that stops it from becoming a must-see event.
These R-rated thrillers are ten-a-penny these days with the bar still being set incredibly high by Gone Girl. Last year’s Girl on the Train was a decent stab at dethroning David Fincher’s masterpiece, but it just fell a little short – well the same has happened here.
Michael Fassbender is uniformly excellent as troubled detective, Harry and the actor can do no wrong in his performances, but he’s suffered this year. After Assassin’s Creed failed to ignite the box-office, it looks to be a similar story this time. While The Snowman is technically competent and filmed beautifully, it lacks the sense of originality that breeds success.
It also doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by thinly padded supporting characters like former love interest Rakel (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and new police officer Katrine (Ferguson). Elsewhere, bizarre glorified cameos for Val Kilmer and Toby Jones leave you wondering if these actors expected a little more from their parts.
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, the cast is one of the film’s strongest suits. Add J.K. Simmons to the aforementioned roster and it really does have one of the best line-ups of the year. It’s just a shame the script doesn’t do more with them.
To look at, The Snowman is absolutely gorgeous. Helped obviously by magnificent Norwegian landscapes, Alfredson shoots using steady cam in scenes reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, high praise indeed. In a year populated by CGI-heavy blockbusters, this comes as a real breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately, the constant use of flashbacks and a peculiar subplot involving a Winter sporting event ruin the pacing, though at 130 minutes, this isn’t too much of an issue. The ending however, is disappointing and lacks an emotional payoff after the film’s events.
Overall, The Snowman is a gritty adaptation of Jo Nesbø’s successful novel and while some of the plot choices leave a little to be desired, a great anchor performance by Michael Fassbender and stunning cinematography mean it’s definitely worth a watch; just don’t expect too much.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/14/the-snowman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Snow White has certainly been receiving a lot of attention this year and it’s been hard to ignore two films competing with each other to win the accolade of best cinema adaptation.
Julia Roberts has already starred in sickly sweet adaptation Mirror Mirror and here Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame takes on the lead role in the gritty, dramatic adaptation of the fairytale. But is it a good take on a children’s classic?
Snow White & The Huntsman opens as you would expect with a look back at the aforementioned Princess’ traumatic childhood, from the death of her mother, to witnessing the death of her father King Magnus, it seems like any normal child would’ve had a few problems after this but Snow seems a little more reserved.
Snow White’s father is killed at the hands of her wicked stepmother, played wonderfully by Charlize Theron who really gets her teeth into the role she’s been given and plays the character with a nice dose of evil intertwined with brief moments of sincerity. Those of you familiar with the story will no doubt know that Snow White hides with the seven dwarves to escape the clutches of her stepmother, but more on that later.
Chris Hemsworth, who seems to be getting more and more acting jobs these days does a nice job as the widowed, constantly drunk huntsman, though his accent is a little hard to assess, no doubt done to cover his Australian roots.
Hemsworth is sent by the wicked Queen to kill Snow White so that her eternal youth isn’t threatened but things run less than smoothly as he realises that he is being tricked, he and Snow then decide to go on the run, bumping into the seven dwarves along the way.
The Kingdom in which they live is beautifully realised in fabulous CGI, from the dark forest, to the towering stone walls of the castle and then further into the ‘sanctuary’ a place where people can go to relax and unwind. Fairies, badgers, foxes, rabbits, mushrooms with beady little eyes and moss covered tortoises are amongst the creatures here and ruling over them all is the spirit of the forest, a fabulous and very real looking white stag.
This is, however, where Snow White & The Huntsman falls short. Yes, the CGI is impeccable and yes the acting is good, but it all feels a little bit soulless. It’s all about the frills rather than creating a deep and meaningful story. It has the basics right but it’s impossible to care about the characters because there isn’t enough back-story. Each set piece is interspersed with a little bit of emotion, but it’s not really enough and because of this, the entire film feels disjointed.
This is made worse by the fact the film is stretched to over two hours when there isn’t really enough story to create a two hour film.
Unfortunately, these points detract from what is a wonderful and beautifully realised adaptation of a classic children’s fairytale. To compare it to Mirror Mirror would be unfair as they are both so different. Snow White & The Huntsman is like last year’s Alice in Wonderland, it all looks and sounds great, but is ultimately; decidedly average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/06/07/snow-white-the-huntsman-review/
Julia Roberts has already starred in sickly sweet adaptation Mirror Mirror and here Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame takes on the lead role in the gritty, dramatic adaptation of the fairytale. But is it a good take on a children’s classic?
Snow White & The Huntsman opens as you would expect with a look back at the aforementioned Princess’ traumatic childhood, from the death of her mother, to witnessing the death of her father King Magnus, it seems like any normal child would’ve had a few problems after this but Snow seems a little more reserved.
Snow White’s father is killed at the hands of her wicked stepmother, played wonderfully by Charlize Theron who really gets her teeth into the role she’s been given and plays the character with a nice dose of evil intertwined with brief moments of sincerity. Those of you familiar with the story will no doubt know that Snow White hides with the seven dwarves to escape the clutches of her stepmother, but more on that later.
Chris Hemsworth, who seems to be getting more and more acting jobs these days does a nice job as the widowed, constantly drunk huntsman, though his accent is a little hard to assess, no doubt done to cover his Australian roots.
Hemsworth is sent by the wicked Queen to kill Snow White so that her eternal youth isn’t threatened but things run less than smoothly as he realises that he is being tricked, he and Snow then decide to go on the run, bumping into the seven dwarves along the way.
The Kingdom in which they live is beautifully realised in fabulous CGI, from the dark forest, to the towering stone walls of the castle and then further into the ‘sanctuary’ a place where people can go to relax and unwind. Fairies, badgers, foxes, rabbits, mushrooms with beady little eyes and moss covered tortoises are amongst the creatures here and ruling over them all is the spirit of the forest, a fabulous and very real looking white stag.
This is, however, where Snow White & The Huntsman falls short. Yes, the CGI is impeccable and yes the acting is good, but it all feels a little bit soulless. It’s all about the frills rather than creating a deep and meaningful story. It has the basics right but it’s impossible to care about the characters because there isn’t enough back-story. Each set piece is interspersed with a little bit of emotion, but it’s not really enough and because of this, the entire film feels disjointed.
This is made worse by the fact the film is stretched to over two hours when there isn’t really enough story to create a two hour film.
Unfortunately, these points detract from what is a wonderful and beautifully realised adaptation of a classic children’s fairytale. To compare it to Mirror Mirror would be unfair as they are both so different. Snow White & The Huntsman is like last year’s Alice in Wonderland, it all looks and sounds great, but is ultimately; decidedly average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/06/07/snow-white-the-huntsman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Chappie (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A little rough around the edges
District 9 was a tough act to follow for first-time director Neill Blomkamp. His follow up to 2009’s sci-fi sleeper hit was the mediocre Elysium that whilst having a gargantuan budget and the likes of Jodie Foster and Matt Damon, failed on the most basic of levels – storytelling.
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A charming adaptation
Wolves, witches and giants all appear in the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s popular musical which takes all the best bits of our favourite fairytales and mashes them together in one engaging, song-filled rollercoaster.
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Altered (Crewel World, #2) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
First off, I don't think Altered would work as a stand alone novel, so therefore, I'd suggest reading Crewel first so as not to be too confused. Oh, and if you haven't read Crewel, this review may contain some spoilers for it.
I really enjoyed Crewel, the first book in this series. I'd been wanting to read Altered since I finished Crewel. While this book takes a different direction from Crewel, I still really enjoyed it.
I like the title. It suits the book rather well. Even the Earth in this book has been altered from the Earth we know.
I really love the cover! I love the photo off Adelice within the whole sand timer thing. Adelice is running on borrowed time, and the cover depicts this perfectly.
The world building was done fantastically! It is quite a different world then that of Arras. Yes, I know it takes place on Earth, but this is a post apocalyptic type Earth with a sort of alternate history. In fact, there is one famous figure from history who makes an appearance in Altered which I didn't expect.
The pacing was done really well, and I was instantly drawn back into Adelice's world. I never wanted to put the book down!
Again, the plot is very original. I was confused a little bit through out the book, but I think that was because it had been awhile since I had read Crewel (well over a year ago). I had to try to remember how Adelice can weave and her abilities. Saying that though, I did enjoy the whole plot throughout especially the whole alternate history take. The cliff hanger at the end of this book leave it open for another book in the seires (which I will be reading). There's also the whole love triangle with Jost and Eric again. With the last book, I was team Jost, but this book, I was team Eric!
Again, Albin does a fantastic job in writing well developed characters. Adelice feels like she's grown a lot emotionally in this book. She's more of a stronger female lead and less sarcastic in this book. Jost, to me, shows his true colors in Altered. We also get to learn more about Eric and his background. We are also introduced to another baddie in this book named Kincaid. Kincaid is more of a snake in the grass compared to Cormac who was an up front, in your face, sleazeball.
The dialogue is fantastic and never once feels awkward. I don't remember any swear words, and there is minor violence.
Overall, Altered is a much different book from its predecessor, but that's not a bad thing. There's more gritty, fast paced action as well as a whole new cast of characters.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who are into science fiction and post apocalyptic worlds.
<center><b>I'd give Altered (Crewel World #2) by Gennifer Albin a 4.75 out of 5.</b></center>
(I won this hardback book in a competition. I was not required to write a review).
First off, I don't think Altered would work as a stand alone novel, so therefore, I'd suggest reading Crewel first so as not to be too confused. Oh, and if you haven't read Crewel, this review may contain some spoilers for it.
I really enjoyed Crewel, the first book in this series. I'd been wanting to read Altered since I finished Crewel. While this book takes a different direction from Crewel, I still really enjoyed it.
I like the title. It suits the book rather well. Even the Earth in this book has been altered from the Earth we know.
I really love the cover! I love the photo off Adelice within the whole sand timer thing. Adelice is running on borrowed time, and the cover depicts this perfectly.
The world building was done fantastically! It is quite a different world then that of Arras. Yes, I know it takes place on Earth, but this is a post apocalyptic type Earth with a sort of alternate history. In fact, there is one famous figure from history who makes an appearance in Altered which I didn't expect.
The pacing was done really well, and I was instantly drawn back into Adelice's world. I never wanted to put the book down!
Again, the plot is very original. I was confused a little bit through out the book, but I think that was because it had been awhile since I had read Crewel (well over a year ago). I had to try to remember how Adelice can weave and her abilities. Saying that though, I did enjoy the whole plot throughout especially the whole alternate history take. The cliff hanger at the end of this book leave it open for another book in the seires (which I will be reading). There's also the whole love triangle with Jost and Eric again. With the last book, I was team Jost, but this book, I was team Eric!
Again, Albin does a fantastic job in writing well developed characters. Adelice feels like she's grown a lot emotionally in this book. She's more of a stronger female lead and less sarcastic in this book. Jost, to me, shows his true colors in Altered. We also get to learn more about Eric and his background. We are also introduced to another baddie in this book named Kincaid. Kincaid is more of a snake in the grass compared to Cormac who was an up front, in your face, sleazeball.
The dialogue is fantastic and never once feels awkward. I don't remember any swear words, and there is minor violence.
Overall, Altered is a much different book from its predecessor, but that's not a bad thing. There's more gritty, fast paced action as well as a whole new cast of characters.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 14+ who are into science fiction and post apocalyptic worlds.
<center><b>I'd give Altered (Crewel World #2) by Gennifer Albin a 4.75 out of 5.</b></center>
(I won this hardback book in a competition. I was not required to write a review).