Search
Search results
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated An American Werewolf in London (1981) in Movies
Jun 4, 2017
Steps away from most of the stereotypes (2 more)
Comedic Horror
Great practical effects for the time, even better than some modern day films
One of the classic Werewolf Films that any horror fan should watch
An American Werewolf in London should always be apart of any Werewolf film or horror film Fan's collection. It's comedic, yes, but it's still a great horror as well especially for it's time.
The cast isn't full of big Hollywood names, but that's what makes this film so good. You don't expect anything from the cast so the film shows you something like you've never seen. Though there are a few cast members that have big names such as Rik Mayall (R.I.P), but he isn't a main cast member, and serves only as a background character in a pub.
The story of two Americans, on a tour of England, with some comedic humour towards the atmosphere of England as we begin the film in the countryside. David's friend complains about the weather, whilst David himself is enjoying his time being out in the open.
The films practical effects are incredible, from the large wolf itself to the actual transformation, which sees limbs being extended into unnatural form, and David's mouth extending into a about, using only practical effects and no CGI. This is what makes this film so damn good!
The soundtrack is one of the cheeriest IV heard for a horror film as it contains multiple versions of the classic song Blue Moon, as well as Creedance Clearwater Revival's classic song Bad Moon Rising. Which eases some of the horror but not by much.
The film also differs from other werewolf films as it mocks the supernatural myth elements such as silver bullets, but includes some of the lesser known myths about the pre-transformation period such as the bizarre nightmares which often involve the cursed being to see themselves naked in a woods stalking and sometimes eating an animal raw, often deer or rabbit, and this film includes that as well as another very bizarre nightmare involving Nazi Demons.
The other great aspect to this film is the appearance of Dave's dead friend throughout the film, as we discover he is trapped in purgatory unable to pass on until the curse is lifted (a.k.a David needs to die). It's not the fact that Jack appears though that makes this element of the film incredible, it's the way he looks when he appears. Everytime Jack shows up, his body is more and more decayed and he becomes very zombiefied during our last encounter with him in the film, and the practical effects and makeup truly add to the grim reality of this aspect. The makeup was so grim in fact, that Griffin Dunne, who portrays Jack, wasn't overly pleased that this gruesome makeup would mean that his mother wouldn't be able to watch the film because it was that horrifying. There were even pieces of dangling rotten flesh, which was accidental but left in because it looked more realistic.
The film is funny, it's gripping and it's horrifying as we watch the beast stalk the people of London and then the next morning, we see a normal man and as we begin to watch him lose his mind, we sympathise for him.
Highly recommend this to any horror fan of you haven't seen it already, and if you haven't...why not? It's brilliantly written and brilliantly directed by the amazing John Landis.
The cast isn't full of big Hollywood names, but that's what makes this film so good. You don't expect anything from the cast so the film shows you something like you've never seen. Though there are a few cast members that have big names such as Rik Mayall (R.I.P), but he isn't a main cast member, and serves only as a background character in a pub.
The story of two Americans, on a tour of England, with some comedic humour towards the atmosphere of England as we begin the film in the countryside. David's friend complains about the weather, whilst David himself is enjoying his time being out in the open.
The films practical effects are incredible, from the large wolf itself to the actual transformation, which sees limbs being extended into unnatural form, and David's mouth extending into a about, using only practical effects and no CGI. This is what makes this film so damn good!
The soundtrack is one of the cheeriest IV heard for a horror film as it contains multiple versions of the classic song Blue Moon, as well as Creedance Clearwater Revival's classic song Bad Moon Rising. Which eases some of the horror but not by much.
The film also differs from other werewolf films as it mocks the supernatural myth elements such as silver bullets, but includes some of the lesser known myths about the pre-transformation period such as the bizarre nightmares which often involve the cursed being to see themselves naked in a woods stalking and sometimes eating an animal raw, often deer or rabbit, and this film includes that as well as another very bizarre nightmare involving Nazi Demons.
The other great aspect to this film is the appearance of Dave's dead friend throughout the film, as we discover he is trapped in purgatory unable to pass on until the curse is lifted (a.k.a David needs to die). It's not the fact that Jack appears though that makes this element of the film incredible, it's the way he looks when he appears. Everytime Jack shows up, his body is more and more decayed and he becomes very zombiefied during our last encounter with him in the film, and the practical effects and makeup truly add to the grim reality of this aspect. The makeup was so grim in fact, that Griffin Dunne, who portrays Jack, wasn't overly pleased that this gruesome makeup would mean that his mother wouldn't be able to watch the film because it was that horrifying. There were even pieces of dangling rotten flesh, which was accidental but left in because it looked more realistic.
The film is funny, it's gripping and it's horrifying as we watch the beast stalk the people of London and then the next morning, we see a normal man and as we begin to watch him lose his mind, we sympathise for him.
Highly recommend this to any horror fan of you haven't seen it already, and if you haven't...why not? It's brilliantly written and brilliantly directed by the amazing John Landis.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jul 21, 2017
Incredible CGI (2 more)
Amazing voice acting
New versions of classic songs
The King Of The Swingers
I was sceptical going in, as I’m not a huge fan of the original Disney cartoon version and the fact that the only live action performance in the movie was being delivered by a child actor definitely made me fairly dubious. However I actually enjoyed this movie. The young actor portraying Mowgli is a bit cringeworthy at times, but when you think that all he had to work with was a bunch of green screens and voiceovers, he did a remarkably good job, especially considering his age. He wasn’t anywhere near as good as Jaeden Lieberher was in Midnight Special, but he did a decent job of carrying the movie’s plot along. The CG work in this movie is mind blowing. Disney have gone all out and went for a hyper realistic style of animation and at times, even as an animator myself, I forgot that these animals and environments were cartoons and totally bought them as real world objects and environments. Also the cast is made up of Hollywood gold and all of the voice performances are spot on. Ben Kingsley does a great job as the parental panther who guides Mowgli along his journey and whoever decided to cast Bill Murray as Baloo deserves a raise, as that is a stroke of casting genius. Murray is hilarious here and his relationship with Mowgli is also fantastic. Scarlett Johannsen does a decent job as the snake, but to be honest it is more of a cameo role as she is in the movie for under five minutes. Of course it would be a crime not to mention the legend that is Christopher Walken and his fantastic performance as King Louie. He gives off a perfect blend of charm and villainy and his rendition of King Of The Swingers is also very entertaining. However, although all of the above voice performances were great, there is one that completely steals the show and that is Idris Elba as the antagonist Lion, Sher Khan. The command that Elba has over his vocal performance is incredible, he is such a threatening presence throughout the entire movie and he completely steals every single scene that he is in. Several people have also complained about the use of the music in the film, but that was actually one of my favourite parts of the film, Bare Necessities is used as more of a shanty than an actual song, and King Of The Swingers performed by Walken, is in my opinion very well implemented and serves as an awesome new take on the classic song. The one gripe that I have about the film is that, it is quite slow at times and I was left fairly bored several times, as were a lot of the kids in the theatre by the looks of it. If I didn’t have to keep an eye on the kids we were looking after I probably would have drifted off and to be honest I don’t know if they really enjoyed much either, they seemed to either be scared by Sher Khan and hiding their eyes or bored and fidgety. Although it’s hard to deny that this is a very well made movie and while not totally faithful to its source material, it is a fresh new take on the classic story for a new generation. I would like to see the film again without a wriggling child on my knee, but I did enjoy myself with this movie overall.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Into the Night in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Intriguing and refreshing mystery
Detective Sergeant Gemma Woodstock is working in Melbourne now, trying to negotiate relationships with her new boss, Chief Inspector Toby Isaacs, and her partner, Detective Sergeant Fleet. She has been in Melbourne for three months; this has meant leaving behind her five-year-old son, Ben, and his father, Scott. She's keeping busy with a series of cases, including that of a homeless man, Walter Miller, who was brutally killed and one with the famous actor, Sterling Wade, who was stabbed while filming a high-profile zombie film. Alone and away from her son, Gemma throws herself into her work, but will these difficult cases prove too much for her and her emotional well-being?
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
We have a problem
To say 2014’s Guardians of the Galaxy was a surprise hit is a slight understatement. Many had predicted Marvel’s gamble to sink the studio with its unknown characters and very unique sense of style, but it ended up being one of the year’s best films grossing nearly $800million.
Three years on, director James Gunn returns with the plucky group of space stars. But can lightning strike twice? Or have the Guardians had their time to shine?
Star Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Drax (Dave Bautista) and Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) struggle to keep their newfound family together as they desperately try to unravel the mystery of Peter Quill’s true parentage in the outer reaches of the galaxy.
To our cast of space vigilantes, James Gunn has thrown in a few new personas and fleshed out some secondary characters, resulting in a film that rivals Avengers: Age of Ultron for the amount of people jostling for screen-time. Unfortunately, Volume 2 also suffers from many of the same problems as its earthly stablemate.
The biggest joy of watching Guardians 2 is seeing those secondary characters getting their chance in the spotlight. In particular, Michael Rooker’s Yondu makes a massive impact throughout the running time and is a highlight throughout. Elsewhere, Karen Gillan’s villainous Nebula gets a similar treatment, though not quite to the same extent.
Moreover, the team we have all come to know and love is on fine form, even if they are split from one another for the majority of the film. Chris Pratt is probably the biggest star in Hollywood at the moment and he looks like he’s having the time of his life. However, it’s not Star Lord that shines brightest this time around. That honour goes to Dave Bautista’s Drax.
The addition of Kurt Russell as Pratt’s father, Ego is an ingenious piece of casting and his ‘pet’ Mantis, played wonderfully by Pom Klementieff steals the show in every scene. Her brief moments with Bautista are where the film really succeeds.
Another witty script crafted by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman ensures that Guardians 2 is absolutely hilarious. Some of the one-liners are absolute corkers and it often outdoes its predecessor, raising the bar very high for future Marvel projects in the process.
To look at, Volume 2 is pleasant if unspectacular. Colourful? Yes. Detailed? Not so much. With so much going on at once, it’s easy for the film to feel overwhelmed with some of the CGI being downright poor. The opening scene in which our heroes battle a hideous octopus-like beast, whilst fun to watch, isn’t crafted to the same level as its predecessor’s introductory sequence. The finale is a little anti-climactic, unfortunately falling into the same pitfalls that so many big blockbusters do nowadays – needless and frankly ugly CGI.
Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2 is another accomplished film in the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, like Avengers: Age of Ultron, it suffers from its predecessor’s popularity and is overstuffed with too many characters elbowing for screen-time.
Unfortunately, the new approach the first film took has disappeared a little this time around. Because Volume 1 was such a delightful change from the rest of the crowd-pleasing blockbusters, Guardians 2 was bound to be a bit of a disappointment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/28/we-have-a-problem-guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-review/
Three years on, director James Gunn returns with the plucky group of space stars. But can lightning strike twice? Or have the Guardians had their time to shine?
Star Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Drax (Dave Bautista) and Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) struggle to keep their newfound family together as they desperately try to unravel the mystery of Peter Quill’s true parentage in the outer reaches of the galaxy.
To our cast of space vigilantes, James Gunn has thrown in a few new personas and fleshed out some secondary characters, resulting in a film that rivals Avengers: Age of Ultron for the amount of people jostling for screen-time. Unfortunately, Volume 2 also suffers from many of the same problems as its earthly stablemate.
The biggest joy of watching Guardians 2 is seeing those secondary characters getting their chance in the spotlight. In particular, Michael Rooker’s Yondu makes a massive impact throughout the running time and is a highlight throughout. Elsewhere, Karen Gillan’s villainous Nebula gets a similar treatment, though not quite to the same extent.
Moreover, the team we have all come to know and love is on fine form, even if they are split from one another for the majority of the film. Chris Pratt is probably the biggest star in Hollywood at the moment and he looks like he’s having the time of his life. However, it’s not Star Lord that shines brightest this time around. That honour goes to Dave Bautista’s Drax.
The addition of Kurt Russell as Pratt’s father, Ego is an ingenious piece of casting and his ‘pet’ Mantis, played wonderfully by Pom Klementieff steals the show in every scene. Her brief moments with Bautista are where the film really succeeds.
Another witty script crafted by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman ensures that Guardians 2 is absolutely hilarious. Some of the one-liners are absolute corkers and it often outdoes its predecessor, raising the bar very high for future Marvel projects in the process.
To look at, Volume 2 is pleasant if unspectacular. Colourful? Yes. Detailed? Not so much. With so much going on at once, it’s easy for the film to feel overwhelmed with some of the CGI being downright poor. The opening scene in which our heroes battle a hideous octopus-like beast, whilst fun to watch, isn’t crafted to the same level as its predecessor’s introductory sequence. The finale is a little anti-climactic, unfortunately falling into the same pitfalls that so many big blockbusters do nowadays – needless and frankly ugly CGI.
Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2 is another accomplished film in the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, like Avengers: Age of Ultron, it suffers from its predecessor’s popularity and is overstuffed with too many characters elbowing for screen-time.
Unfortunately, the new approach the first film took has disappeared a little this time around. Because Volume 1 was such a delightful change from the rest of the crowd-pleasing blockbusters, Guardians 2 was bound to be a bit of a disappointment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/28/we-have-a-problem-guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Titanic in the Sky
Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence are two of the world’s most bankable stars. What with Pratt helping to resurrect prehistoric franchises like Jurassic Park and Lawrence turning The Hunger Games series into one of the biggest ever, it seems they are the people Hollywood wants to work with, right here, right now.
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Run All Night (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Neeson at his gritty best
It’s fair to say Liam Neeson has picked some decidedly dodgy acting jobs since his rise to become an A-list Hollywood action hero. From a disappointing turn in the most recent A Team movie to the laughably bad Taken 3, he seems to have been turned from fan favourite to the butt of so many jokes.
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
On the wrong side of 60 you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was time for Liam Neeson to hang up his gun and move away from the cold, steely world of action films, into the fuzzy and sentimental territory of a rom-com.
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
May 30, 2018
This is a prequel to probably one of the best horror films ever made
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a prequel to probably one of the best horror films ever made, a true classic and a very good addition to the story. It tells what happened in the events leading up to the original film. The last shot of this film links to the first shot of the original.
At first I was worried about this film for two reasons. First, as the film was set on a Norwegian camp how much reading would I have to do whilst trying to follow the story? Second, the original film is amazing a true classic of the horror genre. Would this film do justice to the story and would the use of modern effects change the feel of the story? My fears were soon put to rest. Fortunately it appears that the universal language for scientists working in the Antarctic is English! There are a few subtitles throughout the film but not that many. Now a big thank you to the producers of this film. It is clear that they are true fans of the original and this is evident in the title. They couldn't come up with a title better than "The Thing". They could have gone with The Thing: Begins but nothing sounded as good. This film was made by fans of the original and they have ensured that it links into every reference made in the original to the Norwegian base, even down to an axe in the wall seen in the first film, showing how it got there in this one. The cast is made up of very good actors, none of them are particularly well known to everyone. I recognised a few faces, but this is good as you have no idea who will survive as there no major stars.
Story wise, if you have seen the original you know what to expect but the film makers know this and throw a few curve-balls in. The famous "blood test" of the original almost happens here but cleverly it gets change for something else also unexpected. The creatures origins are left alone and rightly so as there is no way of knowing them. It is just a creature trying to survive by killing everyone in its way. Do we really need to know more than that? The effects are also very good, but this is what you would expect from modern effects. Where the original films effects were ground breaking, the ones here are what you can see in most Hollywood creature films. The difference here is the attention to making the creature effects look like the original. Again the makers of the film have done a great job in making the two films fit together both story wise and visually. I wish all sequels/prequels would have enough respect for the audience like this one has.
My nemesis(a film critic on UK radio) struck again with this film. They rated this film a "good strong 3 stars" asked why not 4 stars they stated that Happy Feet Two was released at the same time and this was a 4 star film and they enjoyed it more. What???! How can you compare a horror with a cartoon? Shouldn't you rate them as individual films in different genres?
At first I was worried about this film for two reasons. First, as the film was set on a Norwegian camp how much reading would I have to do whilst trying to follow the story? Second, the original film is amazing a true classic of the horror genre. Would this film do justice to the story and would the use of modern effects change the feel of the story? My fears were soon put to rest. Fortunately it appears that the universal language for scientists working in the Antarctic is English! There are a few subtitles throughout the film but not that many. Now a big thank you to the producers of this film. It is clear that they are true fans of the original and this is evident in the title. They couldn't come up with a title better than "The Thing". They could have gone with The Thing: Begins but nothing sounded as good. This film was made by fans of the original and they have ensured that it links into every reference made in the original to the Norwegian base, even down to an axe in the wall seen in the first film, showing how it got there in this one. The cast is made up of very good actors, none of them are particularly well known to everyone. I recognised a few faces, but this is good as you have no idea who will survive as there no major stars.
Story wise, if you have seen the original you know what to expect but the film makers know this and throw a few curve-balls in. The famous "blood test" of the original almost happens here but cleverly it gets change for something else also unexpected. The creatures origins are left alone and rightly so as there is no way of knowing them. It is just a creature trying to survive by killing everyone in its way. Do we really need to know more than that? The effects are also very good, but this is what you would expect from modern effects. Where the original films effects were ground breaking, the ones here are what you can see in most Hollywood creature films. The difference here is the attention to making the creature effects look like the original. Again the makers of the film have done a great job in making the two films fit together both story wise and visually. I wish all sequels/prequels would have enough respect for the audience like this one has.
My nemesis(a film critic on UK radio) struck again with this film. They rated this film a "good strong 3 stars" asked why not 4 stars they stated that Happy Feet Two was released at the same time and this was a 4 star film and they enjoyed it more. What???! How can you compare a horror with a cartoon? Shouldn't you rate them as individual films in different genres?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Making movies based on video games has had a dubious history when it comes to cinematic success. While “Resident Evil” and “Warcraft” found decent success, films such as “DOOM”, “Super Mario Bros”, “Wing Commander”, and others crashed and burned hard at the box office. The reason for this was explained to me once by Director Uwe Boll who has crafted numerous titles based on video games and has suffered harsh feedback from fans and critics as a result.
Boll explained to me that many times you are only getting the name from a game and some of the characters but there is often a long list of things you cannot do from the game developers which often includes visuals, stories, and content that was used in the games as well as areas that might be used for potential sequels down the road.
So with such restrictive rules, one would ask yourself why anyone would want to take the risk. The answer like all things in Hollywood is money as game based movies already have a built in audience, and all one needs to do is successfully tap into that audience successfully and you can have a successful film and perhaps a series.
With this in mind, developer Ubisoft is looking to bring many of their games to the screen and unlike most game companies, they are taking a very hands-on approach to the process as they were active though all parts of the process from casting to the choice of Director and writers.
Their first effort is “Assassin’s Creed”, which is based on their very popular and successful series of games which combine historical settings with plenty of action and intriguing plots.
The film stars Michael Fassbender as Cal Lynch, who is about to be executed for murdering a criminal. Cal awakens to find that he has been given a new lease on life thanks to Sofia (Marion Cotillard) and her father Rikkin (Jeremy Irons), who run an institute dedicated to the elimination of violence.
Of course there is more to the story than Cal is told and he is strapped into a machine that allows him to experience the memories of one of his ancestors in Spain who was a skilled assassin. Cal ventures back in time again and again, as he attempts to locate a mysterious object that was last known to be in the possession of his ancestor, unaware that there is a much larger game underway with the fate of humanity in the balance.
The film makes a good effort as there are some nice visuals and action sequences, but unfortunately they are too few and far between and the film suffers from a stale narrative and dull characters which is surprising considering the talent that is attached to it.
This is not to say that it is a bad film, but rather it is not very memorable and is something that once seen is likely easy to forget and does not inspire enthusiasm for more which puts a crimp in the plans for the sequels. Time will tell how the film does, but it looks sadly like yet another effort that comes up lacking.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/20/assassins-creed/
Boll explained to me that many times you are only getting the name from a game and some of the characters but there is often a long list of things you cannot do from the game developers which often includes visuals, stories, and content that was used in the games as well as areas that might be used for potential sequels down the road.
So with such restrictive rules, one would ask yourself why anyone would want to take the risk. The answer like all things in Hollywood is money as game based movies already have a built in audience, and all one needs to do is successfully tap into that audience successfully and you can have a successful film and perhaps a series.
With this in mind, developer Ubisoft is looking to bring many of their games to the screen and unlike most game companies, they are taking a very hands-on approach to the process as they were active though all parts of the process from casting to the choice of Director and writers.
Their first effort is “Assassin’s Creed”, which is based on their very popular and successful series of games which combine historical settings with plenty of action and intriguing plots.
The film stars Michael Fassbender as Cal Lynch, who is about to be executed for murdering a criminal. Cal awakens to find that he has been given a new lease on life thanks to Sofia (Marion Cotillard) and her father Rikkin (Jeremy Irons), who run an institute dedicated to the elimination of violence.
Of course there is more to the story than Cal is told and he is strapped into a machine that allows him to experience the memories of one of his ancestors in Spain who was a skilled assassin. Cal ventures back in time again and again, as he attempts to locate a mysterious object that was last known to be in the possession of his ancestor, unaware that there is a much larger game underway with the fate of humanity in the balance.
The film makes a good effort as there are some nice visuals and action sequences, but unfortunately they are too few and far between and the film suffers from a stale narrative and dull characters which is surprising considering the talent that is attached to it.
This is not to say that it is a bad film, but rather it is not very memorable and is something that once seen is likely easy to forget and does not inspire enthusiasm for more which puts a crimp in the plans for the sequels. Time will tell how the film does, but it looks sadly like yet another effort that comes up lacking.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/20/assassins-creed/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Everest (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Ever since Sir Edmund Hillary reached the peak of Mount Everest in 1953, the mountain has been the Holy Grail for climbers of all experience levels despite the fact that the mountain has claimed more than a few victims over the years from those who have attempted to reach the summit which is also known as “The Killing Zone”.
In the new film “Everest”, audiences get an up close look at the beauty and danger of the mountain as told by real men and women who risked it all for a shot at greatness.
Based on the books Into Thin Air and The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest by two of the survivors, the film looks at an expedition in 1996 that until recently was the most tragic climb on the mountain and caused real concern about the commercialization of the mountain.
Jason Clarke stars as Rob Hall, an experienced guide and climber who has operated a very successful company which charges $65,000 a head for the chance at greatness.
As the film opens, Rob is leaving his pregnant wife behind in New Zealand to lead a group up the mountain. The weather looks good during the brief window where they have a chance to climb to the top, and despite a record number of groups waiting to climb, Rob is confident he can get his crew to the top.
Rob has a seasoned and professional crew and with a journalist in tow, he is ready to procedure but always operates from a position of safety and care. It is attention to safety that causes Rob to be labeled a “hand holder” from rival guide Scott Fisher (Jake Gyllenhaal).
Despite their rival nature and different styles, Rob and Scott decide to combine forces and work with one another to get their clients up the mountain and work to secure the all-important climbing ropes.
As the climb goes well, we learn about the various characters and get some great supporting work from Sam Worthington, Josh Brolin, and the diverse and very engaging cast of the film.
Naturally things do not go as planned as a series of weather induced tragedies set in and forces the climbers to battle overwhelming odds to survive in a deadly race against time.
Aside from the amazing visual where you can really see the challenge and danger of climbing at an altitude usually reserved for 747s, the film which will be shown only in IMAX 3D screens shows the passion and endurance of those willing to pay a small fortune and risk death for one of the greatest challenges out there.
Director Baltasar Kormakur is to be praised for a visually compelling film that lets the setting and characters propel the story and does not resort to Hollywood gimmicks like over embellished storms, cave ins, and scenes common in most Disaster films and focused on the events as depicted by the survivors.
It was difficult at times to identify key characters as when they are all bundled up in a storm, telling who was who became a real challenge at times, but imagine how hard it was for those who were actually there.
If you are looking for a character driven action film with amazing scenery, you will want to make sure to see this film as it is as unforgettable a tale with amazing visuals.
http://sknr.net/2015/09/18/everest/
In the new film “Everest”, audiences get an up close look at the beauty and danger of the mountain as told by real men and women who risked it all for a shot at greatness.
Based on the books Into Thin Air and The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest by two of the survivors, the film looks at an expedition in 1996 that until recently was the most tragic climb on the mountain and caused real concern about the commercialization of the mountain.
Jason Clarke stars as Rob Hall, an experienced guide and climber who has operated a very successful company which charges $65,000 a head for the chance at greatness.
As the film opens, Rob is leaving his pregnant wife behind in New Zealand to lead a group up the mountain. The weather looks good during the brief window where they have a chance to climb to the top, and despite a record number of groups waiting to climb, Rob is confident he can get his crew to the top.
Rob has a seasoned and professional crew and with a journalist in tow, he is ready to procedure but always operates from a position of safety and care. It is attention to safety that causes Rob to be labeled a “hand holder” from rival guide Scott Fisher (Jake Gyllenhaal).
Despite their rival nature and different styles, Rob and Scott decide to combine forces and work with one another to get their clients up the mountain and work to secure the all-important climbing ropes.
As the climb goes well, we learn about the various characters and get some great supporting work from Sam Worthington, Josh Brolin, and the diverse and very engaging cast of the film.
Naturally things do not go as planned as a series of weather induced tragedies set in and forces the climbers to battle overwhelming odds to survive in a deadly race against time.
Aside from the amazing visual where you can really see the challenge and danger of climbing at an altitude usually reserved for 747s, the film which will be shown only in IMAX 3D screens shows the passion and endurance of those willing to pay a small fortune and risk death for one of the greatest challenges out there.
Director Baltasar Kormakur is to be praised for a visually compelling film that lets the setting and characters propel the story and does not resort to Hollywood gimmicks like over embellished storms, cave ins, and scenes common in most Disaster films and focused on the events as depicted by the survivors.
It was difficult at times to identify key characters as when they are all bundled up in a storm, telling who was who became a real challenge at times, but imagine how hard it was for those who were actually there.
If you are looking for a character driven action film with amazing scenery, you will want to make sure to see this film as it is as unforgettable a tale with amazing visuals.
http://sknr.net/2015/09/18/everest/