Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Witcher in TV
Dec 30, 2019
I learned of The Witcher through the video games. When I heard Netflix was making a series about it, I was ecstatic. I will say the series doesn't disappoint!
The plot and other story lines in this are solid. There is plenty of action with a tiny bit of romance thrown in. This series follows the books very closely. The sword fighting scenes are epic and are choreographed brilliantly! One of the things that I found very confusing though was the timelines taking place. It's all over the place, and you don't really know whether you're watching something in the present or something that happened previously in each scene. It would have been nice to have something on the bottom of the screen saying "10 year earlier" or something similar.
The acting is spot on in The Witcher. Henry Cavill plays Geralt perfectly. While the actress who plays Yennefer is a great actress, I don't think she's a great fit for Yennefer. Yennefer is supposed to be very beautiful, but Anya Chalotra is a bit too plain. There are so many actresses they could have had to play Yennefer, yet they go with the one who's not very striking. The man who plays Jaskier was also a good fit, and Freya Allen (Ciri) was also perfect. I also thought Triss was also perfectly casted. (In the books, Triss' hair is a chestnut/auburn color. It's only in the games where she has red hair.)
I hate waiting over a year for the next season, but it is what it is. I will definitely be watching though!
The plot and other story lines in this are solid. There is plenty of action with a tiny bit of romance thrown in. This series follows the books very closely. The sword fighting scenes are epic and are choreographed brilliantly! One of the things that I found very confusing though was the timelines taking place. It's all over the place, and you don't really know whether you're watching something in the present or something that happened previously in each scene. It would have been nice to have something on the bottom of the screen saying "10 year earlier" or something similar.
The acting is spot on in The Witcher. Henry Cavill plays Geralt perfectly. While the actress who plays Yennefer is a great actress, I don't think she's a great fit for Yennefer. Yennefer is supposed to be very beautiful, but Anya Chalotra is a bit too plain. There are so many actresses they could have had to play Yennefer, yet they go with the one who's not very striking. The man who plays Jaskier was also a good fit, and Freya Allen (Ciri) was also perfect. I also thought Triss was also perfectly casted. (In the books, Triss' hair is a chestnut/auburn color. It's only in the games where she has red hair.)
I hate waiting over a year for the next season, but it is what it is. I will definitely be watching though!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005) in Movies
Apr 27, 2022
The Hellraiser franchise has certainly hit some low notes by the eight entry in the series, but you know what? Hellworld ain't one of those low notes, and this a hill I am willing to die on.
It's without a doubt, the cheesiest Hellraiser thus far, and the first one to really lean into the dumb, sex-crazed teenager horror usually associated with slashers. It kind of works. There's a bit of an identity crisis going on. It's part slasher (complete with an I Know What You Did Last Summer set up), part typical Hellraiser, part Saw (this was the mid 00s after all), part haunted house horror. Suffice to say, there's a lot going on, and the plot even manages a semi decent twist during the climax which is a rarity with these later entries. It sometimes feels a bit muddled but most importantly, it's something different at this point! 5-7 all feel VERY similar so I can respect the fresh angle Hellworld was aiming for. Throw Lance Henriksen into the mix, alongside a returning Doug Bradley (unfortunately with little screentime yet again), and some early roles from Henry Cavill, Katheryn Winnick, and Khary Payton, and you have a pretty solid cast doing their best to traverse a typical low budget horror script. When all is said and done, it ain't too shabby, and even has the courtesy to include some memorable gore, and brings back the much loved Chatterer.
Hellworld is way more entertaining than it has any right to be, and is easily the best of the Rick Bota trilogy, which isn't exactly a high bar to clear, granted. Either way, it deserves more love!
It's without a doubt, the cheesiest Hellraiser thus far, and the first one to really lean into the dumb, sex-crazed teenager horror usually associated with slashers. It kind of works. There's a bit of an identity crisis going on. It's part slasher (complete with an I Know What You Did Last Summer set up), part typical Hellraiser, part Saw (this was the mid 00s after all), part haunted house horror. Suffice to say, there's a lot going on, and the plot even manages a semi decent twist during the climax which is a rarity with these later entries. It sometimes feels a bit muddled but most importantly, it's something different at this point! 5-7 all feel VERY similar so I can respect the fresh angle Hellworld was aiming for. Throw Lance Henriksen into the mix, alongside a returning Doug Bradley (unfortunately with little screentime yet again), and some early roles from Henry Cavill, Katheryn Winnick, and Khary Payton, and you have a pretty solid cast doing their best to traverse a typical low budget horror script. When all is said and done, it ain't too shabby, and even has the courtesy to include some memorable gore, and brings back the much loved Chatterer.
Hellworld is way more entertaining than it has any right to be, and is easily the best of the Rick Bota trilogy, which isn't exactly a high bar to clear, granted. Either way, it deserves more love!
David McK (3172 KP) rated Superman and Lois in TV
Apr 10, 2022
I don't know about you, but when I think of Superman I tend to think of his Clark Kent early Daily Planet days, back when he was a reporter and when Lois didn't know his alter-ego.
That seems to be the period in which most of the Superman films have been set in (and is probably why I think of that), with his earlier teenage/Young Adult days explored more in TVs Smallville.
I'd never come across a 'mainline' story with a hook just like this before: Clark Kent is no longer a reporter at the Daily Planet, is now married to Lois who knows his secret and has kids (teenage twin boys) of his own.
Yes, I know that's been covered in the comic books.
Anyway, this is another entry in what-is-sometimes-known-as The Arrowverse, with both Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane having previously 'popped up' in some of it's sister shows - I think first appearing in the second season of 'Supergirl' - before putting in an appearance in some of the crossover events.
Having said that, this is largely a self-contained series (post Crisis), although there are points where you just have to wonder why Kal-El doesn't put out a call to his cousin Kara Zor-El to help! Setting that aside, however, this is beautifully shot (and generally written/performed better than most of the other Arrowverse shows), with Tyler Hoechlin continuing to prove himself a far lighter, more comic-accurate (I feel) version than that shown by Henry Cavill in 'Man of Steel' and 'Batman Vs Superman' or 'Dawn of Justice', and with Elizabeth Tulloch also winning me over as Lois Lane.
That seems to be the period in which most of the Superman films have been set in (and is probably why I think of that), with his earlier teenage/Young Adult days explored more in TVs Smallville.
I'd never come across a 'mainline' story with a hook just like this before: Clark Kent is no longer a reporter at the Daily Planet, is now married to Lois who knows his secret and has kids (teenage twin boys) of his own.
Yes, I know that's been covered in the comic books.
Anyway, this is another entry in what-is-sometimes-known-as The Arrowverse, with both Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane having previously 'popped up' in some of it's sister shows - I think first appearing in the second season of 'Supergirl' - before putting in an appearance in some of the crossover events.
Having said that, this is largely a self-contained series (post Crisis), although there are points where you just have to wonder why Kal-El doesn't put out a call to his cousin Kara Zor-El to help! Setting that aside, however, this is beautifully shot (and generally written/performed better than most of the other Arrowverse shows), with Tyler Hoechlin continuing to prove himself a far lighter, more comic-accurate (I feel) version than that shown by Henry Cavill in 'Man of Steel' and 'Batman Vs Superman' or 'Dawn of Justice', and with Elizabeth Tulloch also winning me over as Lois Lane.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes 2 (2022) in Movies
Nov 14, 2022
Pleasant and Entertaining
Back in September 2020 - in the heart of the pandemic shutdown - Netflix released ENOLA HOLMES which was dubbed “the teen version of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes” - one can decide for themselves if that is a good or a bad thing. For me, this flick was an agreeable way to spend a few hours and I, for one, was looking forward to further adventures of Enola and her more well-known older brother, Sherlock.
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When I first heard that Warner Bros. was planning a series of films based on the classic DC Comics characters akin to what Marvel has successfully done, I was intrigued with the possibilities. With the release of Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, we get the first look into that universe and I have to say it is one that has more than a few stumbles.
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Witcher - Season 1 in TV
Jan 9, 2020 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
An exceptional start to the show
The Witcher is a show I've been excited about for some time.
I've never read the books, and to be honest, only slightly dabbled in the video games, but the idea of seeing the exploits of Geralt of Rivea on screen was a prospect I was ready for.
Henry Cavill is great as the titular Witcher, I've heard people complain that he's a bit too brooding, doesn't say a whole lot etc, but it's to my understanding that this is his character, and it works well when put alongside the other two leads.
Anya Chalotra as Yennefer is the star of this season for sure. Her story is one of pain, and triumph, and the constant longing for something more. It's frequently emotional, and at times difficult to watch, and the series pulls no punches when it comes to what it wants to show.
Her character transformation both physically and mentally is superb, and well realised.
And then we have Freya Allen playing Ciri, a princess on the run when her home and city is sacked and burned by the main villains Nilfgaard.
Her role is a little more straightforward, as she spends the season hiding and fleeing, all whilst looking for Geralt.
The three separate storylines work very well alongside each other, as they slowly start to come together over the course of the eight episode season.
The stories timeline seems all over the place at first, and for some may be quite jarring, but it does begin to make sense the further in it gets. If you've been put off by this aspect initially, then please stick with it!
The cinematography is frequently gorgeous, and the CGI is mostly passable (there are some dodgy moments here and there, but surely that's to be expected from a first season), and it's nice to see creatures bought to life that even I recognise from my short time spent with the games.
The music score is beautiful - Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli have created a score that sticks with you after watching (a highlight is the music attached to Aretuza and the mages).
Overall, it's an exceptionally strong start to a new ambitious series. I can't wait to see where it goes from here!
I've never read the books, and to be honest, only slightly dabbled in the video games, but the idea of seeing the exploits of Geralt of Rivea on screen was a prospect I was ready for.
Henry Cavill is great as the titular Witcher, I've heard people complain that he's a bit too brooding, doesn't say a whole lot etc, but it's to my understanding that this is his character, and it works well when put alongside the other two leads.
Anya Chalotra as Yennefer is the star of this season for sure. Her story is one of pain, and triumph, and the constant longing for something more. It's frequently emotional, and at times difficult to watch, and the series pulls no punches when it comes to what it wants to show.
Her character transformation both physically and mentally is superb, and well realised.
And then we have Freya Allen playing Ciri, a princess on the run when her home and city is sacked and burned by the main villains Nilfgaard.
Her role is a little more straightforward, as she spends the season hiding and fleeing, all whilst looking for Geralt.
The three separate storylines work very well alongside each other, as they slowly start to come together over the course of the eight episode season.
The stories timeline seems all over the place at first, and for some may be quite jarring, but it does begin to make sense the further in it gets. If you've been put off by this aspect initially, then please stick with it!
The cinematography is frequently gorgeous, and the CGI is mostly passable (there are some dodgy moments here and there, but surely that's to be expected from a first season), and it's nice to see creatures bought to life that even I recognise from my short time spent with the games.
The music score is beautiful - Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli have created a score that sticks with you after watching (a highlight is the music attached to Aretuza and the mages).
Overall, it's an exceptionally strong start to a new ambitious series. I can't wait to see where it goes from here!
The Chairport (1 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Aug 4, 2018
Real action (3 more)
Real stunts
Fantastically scored
Beautiful locations and cinematography
Pay the admission, accept this mission!
(Review from www.thechairport.com)When the Mission Impossible film franchise started it had a slightly rocky start. After a great first film, the second film fell short of the mark. Watching those first two films now you can see how different they are to the Mission we know now. Ever since the second Mission film, ever since JJ Abrams and the Bad Robot team took over, the Mission franchise has been ageing like a fine wine. Actually, it’s been ageing like Tom Cruise. Fallout, the sixth film in the Mission franchise is the best yet and easily one of the best action films of all time and it’s all thanks to its real action.
Mission Impossible: Fallout follows Ethan Hunt as he and his crew lose some plutonium they are trying to recover. The bad guys trying to use the plutonium are The Apostles, a spin-off group from Rogue Nation’s Syndicate. This time the IMF team are joined by a ruthless CIA agent, Walker played by Henry Cavill, who is there to ensure that the team retrieve the plutonium. The bad guys this time around, The Apostles, follow Solomon Lane’s thinking that to get peace the world must first experience a great suffering. With that line ringing throughout the IMF’s ears, the team is off on a race against time to stop The Apostles.
Fallout is filled with action and as far as action movies come, this film really takes the cake. Tom Cruise is just the man that everyone wants to be, as in he really seems like he can do anything. In the current state of cinema any other filmmaking team would’ve made this film with CGI effects all over yet Cruise and Fallout’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, have decided to do everything for real and it’s that element alone that makes the film.
There are moments in Fallout where you just sit there astonished by what you’re seeing happen in front of you. You feel shivers and the need to applause at the opening ten minutes of the film, your eye’s dash across the screen as you’re watching Cruise’s Ethan Hunt race through oncoming traffic in Paris and you’ll find yourself simply flabbergasted as you watch Cruise do anything at all in the helicopter sequence that you’ve definitely already heard about.
Mission Impossible: Fallout isn’t just simply an insane action blockbuster, it is more than that. Every actor on the screen knows that what they’re in is going to be something revolutionary for cinema and every actor really pulls their weight. Simon Pegg’s comedy is on point, Alec Baldwin’s acting as someone in charge is as good as ever, Henry Cavill being absolutely brutal is scary and cool at the same time. Fallout also has a good amount of female characters in it with Rebecca Ferguson and Michelle Monaghan bringing a lot of well-needed emotion and Vanessa Kirby’s Black Widow bringing a funny yet creepy vibe to the whole occasion.
The story is fairly simple as McQuarrie doesn’t want to isolate the audience, you can definitely see it if you haven’t seen other Mission Films. It’s McQuarrie and his team’s filmmaking that really make the film what it is. The cameraman who does the HALO jump with Tom Cruise deserves many awards and I would be surprised if the film, and its team, didn’t win any awards for filmmaking. If you’ve got free time too then look up how the film was made because it is quite interesting. I mean it’s rare that an action blockbuster would even be nominated but as of right now Fallout is my favourite film of the year, both for how good it is and then researching how it was made. People just don’t put in as much effort as the Mission team have done in films anymore.
Mission Impossible: Fallout is a must-see film. It’s a long film but never really feels like it. It’s a constant chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat and it has twists and turns that you won’t see coming. I was recently reading about how Christopher Nolan wanted The Dark Knight to bring back film instead of everyone filming digitally. Fallout sings a similar message and but its message is for real-life stunts. Mquarrie has evolved in a similar manner to how Nolan evolved between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Fallout gave me similar vibes of excitement and intensity and Fallout will leave its mark on you, I’m not sure how I’ll feel watching CGI action from now on. All I know is that making everything real instead of fake isn’t impossible but to repeat the magic that Fallout has, well that’s only something the Mission team can do. Mission accomplished Cruise, mission accomplished.
Score: 5/5
Mission Impossible: Fallout follows Ethan Hunt as he and his crew lose some plutonium they are trying to recover. The bad guys trying to use the plutonium are The Apostles, a spin-off group from Rogue Nation’s Syndicate. This time the IMF team are joined by a ruthless CIA agent, Walker played by Henry Cavill, who is there to ensure that the team retrieve the plutonium. The bad guys this time around, The Apostles, follow Solomon Lane’s thinking that to get peace the world must first experience a great suffering. With that line ringing throughout the IMF’s ears, the team is off on a race against time to stop The Apostles.
Fallout is filled with action and as far as action movies come, this film really takes the cake. Tom Cruise is just the man that everyone wants to be, as in he really seems like he can do anything. In the current state of cinema any other filmmaking team would’ve made this film with CGI effects all over yet Cruise and Fallout’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, have decided to do everything for real and it’s that element alone that makes the film.
There are moments in Fallout where you just sit there astonished by what you’re seeing happen in front of you. You feel shivers and the need to applause at the opening ten minutes of the film, your eye’s dash across the screen as you’re watching Cruise’s Ethan Hunt race through oncoming traffic in Paris and you’ll find yourself simply flabbergasted as you watch Cruise do anything at all in the helicopter sequence that you’ve definitely already heard about.
Mission Impossible: Fallout isn’t just simply an insane action blockbuster, it is more than that. Every actor on the screen knows that what they’re in is going to be something revolutionary for cinema and every actor really pulls their weight. Simon Pegg’s comedy is on point, Alec Baldwin’s acting as someone in charge is as good as ever, Henry Cavill being absolutely brutal is scary and cool at the same time. Fallout also has a good amount of female characters in it with Rebecca Ferguson and Michelle Monaghan bringing a lot of well-needed emotion and Vanessa Kirby’s Black Widow bringing a funny yet creepy vibe to the whole occasion.
The story is fairly simple as McQuarrie doesn’t want to isolate the audience, you can definitely see it if you haven’t seen other Mission Films. It’s McQuarrie and his team’s filmmaking that really make the film what it is. The cameraman who does the HALO jump with Tom Cruise deserves many awards and I would be surprised if the film, and its team, didn’t win any awards for filmmaking. If you’ve got free time too then look up how the film was made because it is quite interesting. I mean it’s rare that an action blockbuster would even be nominated but as of right now Fallout is my favourite film of the year, both for how good it is and then researching how it was made. People just don’t put in as much effort as the Mission team have done in films anymore.
Mission Impossible: Fallout is a must-see film. It’s a long film but never really feels like it. It’s a constant chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat and it has twists and turns that you won’t see coming. I was recently reading about how Christopher Nolan wanted The Dark Knight to bring back film instead of everyone filming digitally. Fallout sings a similar message and but its message is for real-life stunts. Mquarrie has evolved in a similar manner to how Nolan evolved between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Fallout gave me similar vibes of excitement and intensity and Fallout will leave its mark on you, I’m not sure how I’ll feel watching CGI action from now on. All I know is that making everything real instead of fake isn’t impossible but to repeat the magic that Fallout has, well that’s only something the Mission team can do. Mission accomplished Cruise, mission accomplished.
Score: 5/5
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is back and on a mission to stop a terrorist group, known as The Apostles, from acquiring three uranium cores that they will use to create nuclear devices. Hunt and his Impossible Mission Force (IMF) team (Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames) set up a black market deal to purchase the cores. But during the buy Luther (Rhames) is taken hostage. In a rescue attempt Hunt and Benji (Pegg) let the cores slip into the hands of The Apostles. Due to Hunt’s choice to save his team over protecting the cores has put the world in danger of nuclear attack. Luckily, the head of the IMF, Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin, has received intelligence that an arms dealer known as the White Widow (Vanessa Kirby) is looking to broker a deal for the cores. The only problem is the price is not money but the breaking out of the former IMF nemesis and anarchist Solomon Lane (Sean Harris). Hunt, eager for redemption, agrees to once again track down the cores. But the CIA want to make sure that this time the job is done right, so Director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) demands her top cleaner August Walker (Henry Cavill) accompany. With the help of the CIA they will try and break Lane out of prison and save the world from a catastrophic nuclear attack.
This film, the sixth installment of the Mission: Impossible film franchise, is a true action packed summer blockbuster. Written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie (Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, Jack Reacher) this film has the action and suspense that viewers have come to expect from these films. Cruise, who famously does all of his own stunts, puts in a stellar performance, as does the rest of the cast. Rebecca Ferguson, as assassin and Hunt love interest Ilsa Faust, has good on screen chemistry with Cruise. The overall vision of the film is big and everything is well shot. One example is seamlessly shot motorcycle/car chase through Paris streets, with narrow misses, extreme speeds and iconic scenery. Along with all of the action you get the sometimes corny dialog that you can expect. As long as you expect it, and maybe embrace it, you will definitely enjoy the film. At 2 hours and 27 minutes the runtime might seem long but the pace is really good so it does not feel that long.
This is the best action film of the summer I have seen so far. The attention to detail in the action scenes really shows through. The twists and turns of the story keep you as engaged as the jaw dropping stunts. Maybe not the film for everyone but a great action/spy movie. For me it is definitely a film that should be seen in theaters, maybe more than once.
This film, the sixth installment of the Mission: Impossible film franchise, is a true action packed summer blockbuster. Written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie (Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, Jack Reacher) this film has the action and suspense that viewers have come to expect from these films. Cruise, who famously does all of his own stunts, puts in a stellar performance, as does the rest of the cast. Rebecca Ferguson, as assassin and Hunt love interest Ilsa Faust, has good on screen chemistry with Cruise. The overall vision of the film is big and everything is well shot. One example is seamlessly shot motorcycle/car chase through Paris streets, with narrow misses, extreme speeds and iconic scenery. Along with all of the action you get the sometimes corny dialog that you can expect. As long as you expect it, and maybe embrace it, you will definitely enjoy the film. At 2 hours and 27 minutes the runtime might seem long but the pace is really good so it does not feel that long.
This is the best action film of the summer I have seen so far. The attention to detail in the action scenes really shows through. The twists and turns of the story keep you as engaged as the jaw dropping stunts. Maybe not the film for everyone but a great action/spy movie. For me it is definitely a film that should be seen in theaters, maybe more than once.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html