Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021) in Movies
Feb 13, 2022
Good Performances, Thin Script
Jessica Chastain is, in my opinion - and with all apologies to Glenn Close - the best actress working today that has yet to win an Academy Award. Having been nominated twice previously (Supporting Actress for THE HELP in 2012 and Actress for ZERO DARKY THIRTY in 2013 - a performance I thought she was a shoo-in Oscar winner for, she would lose to Jennifer Lawrence for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK), Chastain has earned her 3rd Oscar nomination for portraying Tammy Faye Bakker in THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE. It would be absurdly bizarre if THIS was the role she would win for.
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Dec 2, 2019 (Updated Jan 13, 2020)
With the (eventually true) whispers about the Disney-Fox merger doing the rounds around Dark Phoenix's release, it arrived to little fanfare. Most people had already written off as a pointless film, and it was a prime target for negativity. So much so, that it was actually the first and only X-Men film I ended up missing in the cinema.
I recently watched it on home release, really not expecting much. After the swing-and-a-miss of Apocalypse, I wasn't feeling too invested in the characters.
So imagine my surprise when I remained glued to the screen for most of the runtime.
Dark Phoenix isn't perfect by any means, and far from the lofty heights of the top tier X-Men movies, buts it no where near as awful as I had heard.
I thought the story was actually ok. I was glad that it partially took place in space, like the original comic, and unlike The Last Stand.
Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are fantastic as they usually are, as is Nicholas Hoult. I also thing Jennifer Lawrence I makes a good Mystique, even though I'm still not a massive fan of this franchises portrayal of her character.
Ty Sheridan and Sophie Turner are given more to do this time around, and are both fine. It's a shame that Evan Peters' Quicksilver is sidelined for this particular adventure.
There are some genuinely powerful emotional beats throughout the film, and it's clear as day that all the actors involved care about their characters, and are having fun.
My main criticism is predictably the villains. The D'bari are a fairly uninspired choice for such a big storyline, and they look like generic CGI aliens. I found Jessica Chastain quite wooden and uninteresting, and they made for a very underwhelming force if evil.
The main focus of Dark Phoenix is of course in Jean Grey's turn to the dark side, so vanilla bad guys shouldn't really be that important anyway.
Dark Phoenix does a slightly better job than The Last Stand of adapting this beloved storyline, but so can't help but feel that it would benefit from multiple movies, instead of cramming into one feature, a I really hope that's something that happens going into the MCU with these characters.
We still have New Mutants to go (if it ever actually comes out) but as a last main entry into the FOX X-Men franchise, you could do a lot worse. It's not the best, it's not the worst. Dark Phoenix sits somewhere quite comfortably in the middle.
Dare I say, I think it might actually be better than the first film...
I recently watched it on home release, really not expecting much. After the swing-and-a-miss of Apocalypse, I wasn't feeling too invested in the characters.
So imagine my surprise when I remained glued to the screen for most of the runtime.
Dark Phoenix isn't perfect by any means, and far from the lofty heights of the top tier X-Men movies, buts it no where near as awful as I had heard.
I thought the story was actually ok. I was glad that it partially took place in space, like the original comic, and unlike The Last Stand.
Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are fantastic as they usually are, as is Nicholas Hoult. I also thing Jennifer Lawrence I makes a good Mystique, even though I'm still not a massive fan of this franchises portrayal of her character.
Ty Sheridan and Sophie Turner are given more to do this time around, and are both fine. It's a shame that Evan Peters' Quicksilver is sidelined for this particular adventure.
There are some genuinely powerful emotional beats throughout the film, and it's clear as day that all the actors involved care about their characters, and are having fun.
My main criticism is predictably the villains. The D'bari are a fairly uninspired choice for such a big storyline, and they look like generic CGI aliens. I found Jessica Chastain quite wooden and uninteresting, and they made for a very underwhelming force if evil.
The main focus of Dark Phoenix is of course in Jean Grey's turn to the dark side, so vanilla bad guys shouldn't really be that important anyway.
Dark Phoenix does a slightly better job than The Last Stand of adapting this beloved storyline, but so can't help but feel that it would benefit from multiple movies, instead of cramming into one feature, a I really hope that's something that happens going into the MCU with these characters.
We still have New Mutants to go (if it ever actually comes out) but as a last main entry into the FOX X-Men franchise, you could do a lot worse. It's not the best, it's not the worst. Dark Phoenix sits somewhere quite comfortably in the middle.
Dare I say, I think it might actually be better than the first film...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Full disclosure, I grew up a huge X-Men fan. As a kid it was one of the few comics that I would try read as often as I could. I would borrow my friends books, convince my mom to buy me an issue every chance I got and like so many growing up in the early 90s, never miss a Saturday morning episode of the fantastic X-Men cartoon.
As such, I have been waiting for the films to capture the X-Men team dynamic while creating interesting fleshed out characters for the mass audiences to appreciate. I felt the franchise was headed in that direction with the last two films, X-Men: First class and X-Men: Days of Futures Past. Unfortunately, X-Men: Apocalypse takes a bit of a stumble in this department when it tries to introduce several fan favorite characters to this X-Men Universe. However it sacrifices solid character development in order to introduce them all in this one story. That’s not to say that this decision makes a bad film, it’s just that the characters are somewhat hollow and we never really connect with any of them. Not even the older characters who we already know. In the 2016 landscape of superhero/comic movies, when you have too many hollow characters the film often feels like we are just going through the motions of fan service, rather than telling a good story though film. This shallow character development makes me wish that instead of making more X-Men movies, Fox would team up with Netflix and produce an episodic series that can really dig down into the story of these characters and the missions they go on to help all of humanity…sigh…one can hope.
As for the rest of this film, it is safe to say that it is a fun popcorn adventure just in time for the summer blockbuster season. The first act suffers from a bit of pacing issues, but once the film starts to pick up steam, it becomes a full action packed adventure filled with all the mutant powers you would expect from an X-Men film. We receive excellent performances we have come to expect from James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the standard cast. As far as the new characters added to this film, Sophie Turner (Game of Thrones) is the stand out as Jean Gery. She delivers one of the few nuanced performances of the whole film and I look forward to her continuing to build on the roll in future X-Men films.
X-Men: Apocalypse is more of what you would expect from the X-Men series. Not terrible but not all that great either. Fans will be exited and enjoy this entry to the series while casual viewers will enjoy the blockbuster elements.
As such, I have been waiting for the films to capture the X-Men team dynamic while creating interesting fleshed out characters for the mass audiences to appreciate. I felt the franchise was headed in that direction with the last two films, X-Men: First class and X-Men: Days of Futures Past. Unfortunately, X-Men: Apocalypse takes a bit of a stumble in this department when it tries to introduce several fan favorite characters to this X-Men Universe. However it sacrifices solid character development in order to introduce them all in this one story. That’s not to say that this decision makes a bad film, it’s just that the characters are somewhat hollow and we never really connect with any of them. Not even the older characters who we already know. In the 2016 landscape of superhero/comic movies, when you have too many hollow characters the film often feels like we are just going through the motions of fan service, rather than telling a good story though film. This shallow character development makes me wish that instead of making more X-Men movies, Fox would team up with Netflix and produce an episodic series that can really dig down into the story of these characters and the missions they go on to help all of humanity…sigh…one can hope.
As for the rest of this film, it is safe to say that it is a fun popcorn adventure just in time for the summer blockbuster season. The first act suffers from a bit of pacing issues, but once the film starts to pick up steam, it becomes a full action packed adventure filled with all the mutant powers you would expect from an X-Men film. We receive excellent performances we have come to expect from James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the standard cast. As far as the new characters added to this film, Sophie Turner (Game of Thrones) is the stand out as Jean Gery. She delivers one of the few nuanced performances of the whole film and I look forward to her continuing to build on the roll in future X-Men films.
X-Men: Apocalypse is more of what you would expect from the X-Men series. Not terrible but not all that great either. Fans will be exited and enjoy this entry to the series while casual viewers will enjoy the blockbuster elements.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
This Phoenix Failed To Rise From It's Ashes
Dark Phoenix is a superhero movie based on the Marvel Comics X-Men and the Dark Phoenix Saga story arc. It was produced by 20th Century Fox and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The movie was written and directed by Simon Kinberg. It stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and Sophie Turner.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Director Gary Ross had his work cut out trying to create a film which brought to life the startling realism of Suzanne Collins’ successful trilogy of novels and here we have the first, The Hunger Games.
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
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.