Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Vast Improvement
The Young Adult genre has, for the last few years, been dominated by Jennifer Lawrence and her imposing Katniss Everdeen, and as fans prepare for the conclusion of Mockingjay in November, they can whet their appetites for the conclusion of another YA trilogy.
The Maze Runner was a decent, albeit muddled attempt at getting the coveted young adult audience interested in another series and its sequel, The Scorch Trials promises more of the mind-blowing storytelling of its predecessor, but is it a success?
The plot of Scorch Trials takes place immediately after the events of the previous instalment as a group of teenagers battle against the sinister W.C.K.D, an organisation intent on finding a cure for a virus that has ravished Earth.
Amongst them is leader Thomas (Teen Wolf’s Dylan O’Brien), the Katniss Everdeen of this particular series, Theresa (Skins’ Kaya Scodelario) and Newt (Love Actually’s Thomas Brodie-Sangster). There are numerous other characters in the group but they aren’t fleshed out enough to make an impact on screen.
Unfortunately, character development is a serious problem throughout, with only a handful of the large cast having enough of a backstory to make the memorable. O’Brien is particularly likeable as the confused Thomas and his more reserved persona is a pleasant change to the majority of lead characters in the genre.
Of the adult cast, Aidan Gillen does a sterling effort as the mysterious Janson and Giancarlo Esposito is perhaps the best character in the entire film with his portrayal of Jorge – a bargain hunter and ally of the group.
A much larger budget has done wonders for the series’ set-pieces. This is a particularly striking movie with numerous heart-racing action sequences filmed with a mixture of stunning CGI and breath-taking practical effects, a desert thunderstorm is beautifully filmed and a particular highlight.
The desolate landscapes and ruined cities give the film more than a whiff of Mad Max and I Am Legend with the latter being very similar.
These pulse-raising scenes do not do Scorch Trials’ dialogue any good however. The characters don’t get much to say apart from “Run” and “Look out” and the series lacks the powerful communication that The Hunger Games has become known for.
Nevertheless, those coming to the series without reading the books will find much to enjoy here as the plot is impossible to guess – there’s simply no way of knowing what is going to happen from one moment to the next.
It’s worth noting that this is a very dark film with a tone unlike anything else seen in the genre. The 12A certification given to it seems a little too lenient and in parts The Scorch Trials is deeply unnerving.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials is, on the whole, a fantastically enjoyable romp in spite of its excessive length and flat characters. It’s not quite up to the standards of The Hunger Games series but surpasses its Divergent franchise counterparts by some margin and is well worth a trip to the cinema.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/13/a-vast-improvement-maze-runner-the-scorch-trials-review/
The Maze Runner was a decent, albeit muddled attempt at getting the coveted young adult audience interested in another series and its sequel, The Scorch Trials promises more of the mind-blowing storytelling of its predecessor, but is it a success?
The plot of Scorch Trials takes place immediately after the events of the previous instalment as a group of teenagers battle against the sinister W.C.K.D, an organisation intent on finding a cure for a virus that has ravished Earth.
Amongst them is leader Thomas (Teen Wolf’s Dylan O’Brien), the Katniss Everdeen of this particular series, Theresa (Skins’ Kaya Scodelario) and Newt (Love Actually’s Thomas Brodie-Sangster). There are numerous other characters in the group but they aren’t fleshed out enough to make an impact on screen.
Unfortunately, character development is a serious problem throughout, with only a handful of the large cast having enough of a backstory to make the memorable. O’Brien is particularly likeable as the confused Thomas and his more reserved persona is a pleasant change to the majority of lead characters in the genre.
Of the adult cast, Aidan Gillen does a sterling effort as the mysterious Janson and Giancarlo Esposito is perhaps the best character in the entire film with his portrayal of Jorge – a bargain hunter and ally of the group.
A much larger budget has done wonders for the series’ set-pieces. This is a particularly striking movie with numerous heart-racing action sequences filmed with a mixture of stunning CGI and breath-taking practical effects, a desert thunderstorm is beautifully filmed and a particular highlight.
The desolate landscapes and ruined cities give the film more than a whiff of Mad Max and I Am Legend with the latter being very similar.
These pulse-raising scenes do not do Scorch Trials’ dialogue any good however. The characters don’t get much to say apart from “Run” and “Look out” and the series lacks the powerful communication that The Hunger Games has become known for.
Nevertheless, those coming to the series without reading the books will find much to enjoy here as the plot is impossible to guess – there’s simply no way of knowing what is going to happen from one moment to the next.
It’s worth noting that this is a very dark film with a tone unlike anything else seen in the genre. The 12A certification given to it seems a little too lenient and in parts The Scorch Trials is deeply unnerving.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials is, on the whole, a fantastically enjoyable romp in spite of its excessive length and flat characters. It’s not quite up to the standards of The Hunger Games series but surpasses its Divergent franchise counterparts by some margin and is well worth a trip to the cinema.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/13/a-vast-improvement-maze-runner-the-scorch-trials-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Mar 26, 2018
Better Than I Hoped
Red Sparrow is one of those films where I respectfully disagree with the overall opinion of the critics. It's not perfect but it gets a lot of things right and is definitely worth your time if you're thinking of checking it out. After Dominika Egrova (Jennifer Lawrence) takes a career-ending fall during a ballet routine, she has to turn to seedier means of keeping her family afloat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Red Sparrow doesn't take long to take off, giving you just enough to keep you intrigued. You're introduced to Dominika who is just trying to do what she needs to do to take care of her mom. You see the world through her eyes and you feel her struggle.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
A lot of moving parts succeed as a whole to keep the film's hooks in you. You're trying to piece together just what the hell is happening and you can't turn away in fear you might miss something. The action won't overwhelm you with its frequency, but there is an underlying intensity from the stakes and the possibilities of what could happen.
Genre: 6
As a dramatic film, I've seen better, but I've also seen a lot worse. If I'm comparing this to other films, movies like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo come to mind. Dragon Tattoo would get the nod for me because of a stronger, cohesive story. I didn't leave saying it was the best drama I had ever seen, but it was pretty solid nonetheless.
Memorability: 10
There is a gritty realism about this film that will probably keep a lot of its images in my head for a long time to come. Its sensual in an unsettling, predatory kind of way. The twists will leave you guessing until the very end. Just when you think you've got something figured out, you're hit from another angle.
Pace: 9
The only time the film really trips over itself is when it starts to overthink things and get too confusing. Those brief moments created a pace slowdown that took me out of the enjoying the film for a bit. For the most part, the film moves at a consistent, solid pace.
Plot: 6
One of the weaker aspects of the film from an entirety standpoint. Not saying there were holes, but certain parts made it hard to figure out what was currently happening. Sure, I figured it out eventually but not before thinking of the number of different ways they could have presented the same information in an easier fashion.
Resolution: 5
Loved the ending. Hated it at the same time. Hard to explain without spoiling it so I won't go into too much detail here, but I'll just say that it connects to tying up loose ends. I felt that, compared to the rest of the film, the ending could have served to be a little less sloppy.
Overall: 86
Red Sparrow currently sits at a 47% on Rotten Tomatoes right now. While it's not the perfect film, there are solid moments of action and intrigue that will keep you engaged from beginning to end. Thumbs up in my book.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Red Sparrow doesn't take long to take off, giving you just enough to keep you intrigued. You're introduced to Dominika who is just trying to do what she needs to do to take care of her mom. You see the world through her eyes and you feel her struggle.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
A lot of moving parts succeed as a whole to keep the film's hooks in you. You're trying to piece together just what the hell is happening and you can't turn away in fear you might miss something. The action won't overwhelm you with its frequency, but there is an underlying intensity from the stakes and the possibilities of what could happen.
Genre: 6
As a dramatic film, I've seen better, but I've also seen a lot worse. If I'm comparing this to other films, movies like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo come to mind. Dragon Tattoo would get the nod for me because of a stronger, cohesive story. I didn't leave saying it was the best drama I had ever seen, but it was pretty solid nonetheless.
Memorability: 10
There is a gritty realism about this film that will probably keep a lot of its images in my head for a long time to come. Its sensual in an unsettling, predatory kind of way. The twists will leave you guessing until the very end. Just when you think you've got something figured out, you're hit from another angle.
Pace: 9
The only time the film really trips over itself is when it starts to overthink things and get too confusing. Those brief moments created a pace slowdown that took me out of the enjoying the film for a bit. For the most part, the film moves at a consistent, solid pace.
Plot: 6
One of the weaker aspects of the film from an entirety standpoint. Not saying there were holes, but certain parts made it hard to figure out what was currently happening. Sure, I figured it out eventually but not before thinking of the number of different ways they could have presented the same information in an easier fashion.
Resolution: 5
Loved the ending. Hated it at the same time. Hard to explain without spoiling it so I won't go into too much detail here, but I'll just say that it connects to tying up loose ends. I felt that, compared to the rest of the film, the ending could have served to be a little less sloppy.
Overall: 86
Red Sparrow currently sits at a 47% on Rotten Tomatoes right now. While it's not the perfect film, there are solid moments of action and intrigue that will keep you engaged from beginning to end. Thumbs up in my book.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Good Lord! How much sex and violence is acceptable for a UK-15 film?
I recognise that it’s a “thing” that I get into periodic ‘ruts’ of ranting about particular aspects of cinema. But it’s not spoilers in trailers this time! No, the most recent rut I’ve been in is concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the BBFC’s rating of UK 15-certificate films, which seems to have been the rating of every cinema film I’ve seen recently! In my view both “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” should both have firmly been 12A’s to attract a broader teenage audience. But here’s a case on the other side of the balance.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Another case of threequel-itis
“At least we can agree the third one is always the worst” barks a young Jean Grey in X-Men: Apocalypse. And whilst the film stays well away from the poor efforts of Spider-Man 3 and The Last Stand, there’s more truth to that statement here than director Bryan Singer would want you to believe.
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ava (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Great mother/daughter scene in the middle of a generic assassin flick
To give you everything you need to know about the Jessica Chastain assassin flick AVA is to read the IMDB description of the film:
"Ava is a deadly assassin who works for a black ops organization, traveling the globe specializing in high profile hits. When a job goes dangerously wrong she is forced to fight for her own survival."
Pretty generic, right? There are only about a dozen films that I can think of off the top of my head that would fit this description. So...what separates this one to make it worth watching?
Not much.
Chastain stars as Ava, a deadly assassin who...oh, you get it. When the "job goes dangerously wrong", she heads back to Boston and into the arms of her loving family - who want nothing to do with her.
Chastain is good, but nothing special as Ava...she seems to be able to pull off the physicality of this role quite well (like Jennifer Lawrence in RED SPARROW or Charlize Theron in ATOMIC BLONDE). The head of the shadowy organization that Ava works, played by Collin Farrell, is generically shadowy and Farrell plays it professionally with a touch of "over the top" acting (but not too much). The great John Malkovich is a spark of energy in this film as Ava's mentor. Mr. Malkovich, as is his want to do, eats the scenery in every scene that he is in. Under normal circumstances, this would annoying, but in this film, it is welcome. Ioan Gruffudd and Joan Chen show up (briefly) as adversaries of Ava and all of these components makes the "assassin side" of this film work well enough.
The "family side' of this film just doesn't work - except for one scene.
Common is just plain bad in the underwritten role of Ava's former lover who is now married to her sister. Jess Wexler is forgettable as Ava's sister (I even had to look her up on IMDB to remind me of who played this role) and Geena Davis - as Ava's estranged mother - looks like she is just there because she owed someone a favor.
Except for one scene.
And that's the interesting thing about this film. Right in the middle of this very generic, very ordinary film is a "come to Jesus" meeting between Ava (Chastain) and her mother (Davis). This scene was "Oscar worthy" with 2 very good actresses going back and forth with each other (with Davis dominating the scene). I gotta think that this scene was the only one Davis read when she agreed to do this film and was pouting during her other, generic scenes.
Director Tate Taylor (who took over when the original Director was bounced when past sexual indiscretions were unearthed) and writer Matthew Newton bring nothing new to the genre. It is all very...generic. The action scenes are professionally done, but generic. The situations are contrived and...generic. The acting is...scenery chewing generic. The ending is predictably generic.
All-in-all an "entertaining enough" generic action flick - except for that one scene (and maybe Malkovich's performance), they make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10 - it really is a "5", but will add a point for Malkovich and another point for the mother daughter scene). - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
"Ava is a deadly assassin who works for a black ops organization, traveling the globe specializing in high profile hits. When a job goes dangerously wrong she is forced to fight for her own survival."
Pretty generic, right? There are only about a dozen films that I can think of off the top of my head that would fit this description. So...what separates this one to make it worth watching?
Not much.
Chastain stars as Ava, a deadly assassin who...oh, you get it. When the "job goes dangerously wrong", she heads back to Boston and into the arms of her loving family - who want nothing to do with her.
Chastain is good, but nothing special as Ava...she seems to be able to pull off the physicality of this role quite well (like Jennifer Lawrence in RED SPARROW or Charlize Theron in ATOMIC BLONDE). The head of the shadowy organization that Ava works, played by Collin Farrell, is generically shadowy and Farrell plays it professionally with a touch of "over the top" acting (but not too much). The great John Malkovich is a spark of energy in this film as Ava's mentor. Mr. Malkovich, as is his want to do, eats the scenery in every scene that he is in. Under normal circumstances, this would annoying, but in this film, it is welcome. Ioan Gruffudd and Joan Chen show up (briefly) as adversaries of Ava and all of these components makes the "assassin side" of this film work well enough.
The "family side' of this film just doesn't work - except for one scene.
Common is just plain bad in the underwritten role of Ava's former lover who is now married to her sister. Jess Wexler is forgettable as Ava's sister (I even had to look her up on IMDB to remind me of who played this role) and Geena Davis - as Ava's estranged mother - looks like she is just there because she owed someone a favor.
Except for one scene.
And that's the interesting thing about this film. Right in the middle of this very generic, very ordinary film is a "come to Jesus" meeting between Ava (Chastain) and her mother (Davis). This scene was "Oscar worthy" with 2 very good actresses going back and forth with each other (with Davis dominating the scene). I gotta think that this scene was the only one Davis read when she agreed to do this film and was pouting during her other, generic scenes.
Director Tate Taylor (who took over when the original Director was bounced when past sexual indiscretions were unearthed) and writer Matthew Newton bring nothing new to the genre. It is all very...generic. The action scenes are professionally done, but generic. The situations are contrived and...generic. The acting is...scenery chewing generic. The ending is predictably generic.
All-in-all an "entertaining enough" generic action flick - except for that one scene (and maybe Malkovich's performance), they make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10 - it really is a "5", but will add a point for Malkovich and another point for the mother daughter scene). - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) is a man looking for a fresh start on a new world. Along with 5000 other passengers; Jim is sleeping away the 120 year journey in stasis aboard a luxury ship. In the new film “Passengers”, Jim finds his entire world turned upside down when he is awakened 90 years before the completion of his trip. Alone with no way to return to stasis; Jim struggles to keep his wits as despite having food and recreation readily available, his only companions are server robots and an Android bartender named Arthur (Michael Sheen).
Unable to wake any of the crew to assist him with the situation or access the bridge of the ship, Jim uses his engineering skills to study the operations of the ship as well as gain access to areas normally reserved for VIP passengers.
As time goes by Jim becomes more and more despondent because he cannot even contact anyone on earth as the computer informs him that it will take 36 years for reply to any of his messages to reach the ship and he grows weary of the thought of spending the rest of his life alone.
During one of his frequent visits to his former stasis chamber, Jim discovers an attractive passenger named Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence), and using the ships database, proceeds to learn all about her and begins to fall in love with her as she sleeps blissfully unaware of his presence.
Fate eventually gets in the way and Aurora awakens and joins Jim is the only people awake on the massive ship. Having come from a privileged background as a successful author, Aurora is really upset over spending the rest of her life on the ship as her plan was to spend a year on the colony world before returning to Earth and resuming her writing career 241 years after she left with the adventure she is undertaken being the basis for some of her new work.
The two eventually have feelings for one another, but Jim is harboring a dark secret that threatens to unravel the happy life they have been able to build for one another. As if that was not enough, the ship is experiencing random and increasing malfunctions which threaten not only their survival, but the long-term survival of the fellow crew and passengers and the long journey that they have ahead of them.
What follows is a time predictable but albeit entertaining mix of romance and action. There are some very good visuals in the film and while the story moves along at a very predictable pace, the two leads make the material work. The film does have numerous plot holes in it which I cannot go into without spoiling it but suffice it to say the premise of q couple stranded is not new.
Yes we have seen this all before but the cast and the interesting locale and visuals make the film add up to more than the sum of its parts. I only wish there’d been a little more time shoring up the plot holes and perhaps adding a little bit of mystery and intrigue to the plot as it truly would’ve made this more compelling.
Unable to wake any of the crew to assist him with the situation or access the bridge of the ship, Jim uses his engineering skills to study the operations of the ship as well as gain access to areas normally reserved for VIP passengers.
As time goes by Jim becomes more and more despondent because he cannot even contact anyone on earth as the computer informs him that it will take 36 years for reply to any of his messages to reach the ship and he grows weary of the thought of spending the rest of his life alone.
During one of his frequent visits to his former stasis chamber, Jim discovers an attractive passenger named Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence), and using the ships database, proceeds to learn all about her and begins to fall in love with her as she sleeps blissfully unaware of his presence.
Fate eventually gets in the way and Aurora awakens and joins Jim is the only people awake on the massive ship. Having come from a privileged background as a successful author, Aurora is really upset over spending the rest of her life on the ship as her plan was to spend a year on the colony world before returning to Earth and resuming her writing career 241 years after she left with the adventure she is undertaken being the basis for some of her new work.
The two eventually have feelings for one another, but Jim is harboring a dark secret that threatens to unravel the happy life they have been able to build for one another. As if that was not enough, the ship is experiencing random and increasing malfunctions which threaten not only their survival, but the long-term survival of the fellow crew and passengers and the long journey that they have ahead of them.
What follows is a time predictable but albeit entertaining mix of romance and action. There are some very good visuals in the film and while the story moves along at a very predictable pace, the two leads make the material work. The film does have numerous plot holes in it which I cannot go into without spoiling it but suffice it to say the premise of q couple stranded is not new.
Yes we have seen this all before but the cast and the interesting locale and visuals make the film add up to more than the sum of its parts. I only wish there’d been a little more time shoring up the plot holes and perhaps adding a little bit of mystery and intrigue to the plot as it truly would’ve made this more compelling.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
More DC than Marvel
Bryan Singer’s return to the X-Men franchise comes at the perfect time both for the series and its director.
After last year’s poorly executed Jack the Giant Slayer, Singer needed to come back to home turf and after a string of irritating X-Men films, including the entertaining but soulless X-Men: The Last Stand and the downright offensive Wolverine origins story, it seems the superhero series needed to do the same.
But can a re-partnering 11 years after the brilliant X2 restore the magic of one of Marvel’s best comics?
Partially is the answer here. Singer restores the cinematic flair and sparkle of the series and brings back a lot of old faces but forgets a lot of the fun in the process.
x-men-days-of-future-past-character-poster-01.jpgDays of Future Past is set in a dystopian future as a war between mutants and humans continues to rage. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian McKellen), Storm (Halle Berry) and many other fan favourites return to the series after being absent for some time. We follow these characters as they try to escape the sentinels; an army of robots impressively rendered in CGI designed to kill any mutant on sight, friend or foe.
The only way to stop the war is to send a mutant back to 1973 when the sentinel program was put in motion. Unfortunately, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is the chosen one and remains the lead character throughout the film.
Back in 1973, the mutants from X-Men First Class are blissfully unaware of what lies in store for them, though they still have their own personal battles to deal with.
As the film progresses, it becomes painfully obvious that this is very much a “First Class” era film. James McAvoy’s impressive take on the young Charles Xavier returns, as does Michael Fassbender’s Magneto.
However, only Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique makes a lasting impact amongst the 1973 era mutants. You can see the pain and torment etched onto her face throughout theJennifer-Lawrence-mystique film and as in The Hunger Games she steals focus from everyone around her. Game of Thrones’ Peter Dinklage also joins the cast as the film’s primary antagonist Bolivar Trask and is a real joy to watch. His character is understated in every way, but he remains an iconic presence throughout.
However, as impressive as the set pieces and acting performances are, it is in the future where we wish to see more. The ‘classic’ characters are barely given any screen time which is a real shame and the real mutant cost of the war is glossed over entirely. The special effects are genuinely very good. Each of the action sequences is well choreographed and the CGI is great, especially the rendering on the future sentinels which can adapt to seek a mutant’s power – no matter what it is.
Unfortunately, the fun factor is completely lost as Singer ramps up the tension and the death toll. In fact, only one character provides the humour and that is Evan Peters’ portrayal of Quicksilver who is only on screen for 15 minutes.
Overall, X-Men: Days of Future Past is definitely the best film of the series and thankfully does away with the atrocities that have been committed previously in the franchise. However, it feels like Singer was trying so hard to repair his predecessor’s mistakes, he forgot some of the key elements of a Marvel superhero film in the process – this is more DC than Marvel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/06/01/x-men-days-of-future-past-review/
After last year’s poorly executed Jack the Giant Slayer, Singer needed to come back to home turf and after a string of irritating X-Men films, including the entertaining but soulless X-Men: The Last Stand and the downright offensive Wolverine origins story, it seems the superhero series needed to do the same.
But can a re-partnering 11 years after the brilliant X2 restore the magic of one of Marvel’s best comics?
Partially is the answer here. Singer restores the cinematic flair and sparkle of the series and brings back a lot of old faces but forgets a lot of the fun in the process.
x-men-days-of-future-past-character-poster-01.jpgDays of Future Past is set in a dystopian future as a war between mutants and humans continues to rage. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian McKellen), Storm (Halle Berry) and many other fan favourites return to the series after being absent for some time. We follow these characters as they try to escape the sentinels; an army of robots impressively rendered in CGI designed to kill any mutant on sight, friend or foe.
The only way to stop the war is to send a mutant back to 1973 when the sentinel program was put in motion. Unfortunately, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is the chosen one and remains the lead character throughout the film.
Back in 1973, the mutants from X-Men First Class are blissfully unaware of what lies in store for them, though they still have their own personal battles to deal with.
As the film progresses, it becomes painfully obvious that this is very much a “First Class” era film. James McAvoy’s impressive take on the young Charles Xavier returns, as does Michael Fassbender’s Magneto.
However, only Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique makes a lasting impact amongst the 1973 era mutants. You can see the pain and torment etched onto her face throughout theJennifer-Lawrence-mystique film and as in The Hunger Games she steals focus from everyone around her. Game of Thrones’ Peter Dinklage also joins the cast as the film’s primary antagonist Bolivar Trask and is a real joy to watch. His character is understated in every way, but he remains an iconic presence throughout.
However, as impressive as the set pieces and acting performances are, it is in the future where we wish to see more. The ‘classic’ characters are barely given any screen time which is a real shame and the real mutant cost of the war is glossed over entirely. The special effects are genuinely very good. Each of the action sequences is well choreographed and the CGI is great, especially the rendering on the future sentinels which can adapt to seek a mutant’s power – no matter what it is.
Unfortunately, the fun factor is completely lost as Singer ramps up the tension and the death toll. In fact, only one character provides the humour and that is Evan Peters’ portrayal of Quicksilver who is only on screen for 15 minutes.
Overall, X-Men: Days of Future Past is definitely the best film of the series and thankfully does away with the atrocities that have been committed previously in the franchise. However, it feels like Singer was trying so hard to repair his predecessor’s mistakes, he forgot some of the key elements of a Marvel superhero film in the process – this is more DC than Marvel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/06/01/x-men-days-of-future-past-review/