Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In 2009, writer/director by Tommy Wirkola gained a cult following with his Zombie splatter film “Dead Snow”. Hollywood took notice and he was awarded with a larger budget and bigger stars for his follow up film “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters”. The film chronicles the fairytale brother and sister duo after they escaped the gingerbread house and started hunting down witches. Originally supposed to be released in 2012, the film was pushed back to a January 2013 release in hopes of generating more buzz on Jeremy Renner’s rising star. When the film was complete, Renner had yet to appear in last year’s films “The Avengers” and “The Bourne Legacy”. A good strategy, if the standard TV trailers did not make this movie look worse than it actually is.
I have to be honest. I went into this movie expecting it to be terrible. Personally I do not have much faith in Renner (Hansel) as a leading man. I know he is somewhat hot right now but to me he is best as a supporting role. I also have only seen Gemma Arterton (Gretel) in “Clash of the Titans” (2010) where she was nothing more than a pretty face in that lack luster film. Perhaps it was because of such low expectations that together they worked. They were both “bad ass” as the brother sister bounty hunters. Not spectacular performances or anything but easily entertaining and likeable performances.
The story follows the duo as they attempt to hunt down some missing children form a small village that is troubled by witches. Famke Janssen (Taken 2) leads the supporting cast as Leader of the witches who is trying to cast a spell that will make the witches stronger than ever. The three clash it out and that is basically the story.
From a stylistic standpoint fans of Wirkola’s films will not be disappointed. The dark and grim fairytale world he creates is charming and helps us fall into the fantasy. Furthermore this film has several gruesome scenes that are shockingly comical in the way they are over the top. At no point do they feel unnecessary for shock value, but rather they happen in a way that seems normal and plausible in the world we are shown on film. Additionally the pacing of this film is fast. There was not a dull moment as the 88 minute run time is one action or story driven transition to the next. Together these aspects help the film feel fun, lighthearted and surprisingly entertaining. Also the 3D effects help the film and do not seem distracting.
The finished product accomplishes something that other fast paced ridiculous action flicks do not. It keeps it simple. Tommy Wirkola shows his talent by keeping various stylistic factors and pacing together in a way that makes the simplistic story complete. Often times in films like this there comes a point where your suspended disbelief is tested beyond its limits. But that is not the case here. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters delivers an entertaining fast paced movie that the TV previews do not to justice. If you are a fan of zombies, vampires, witches or any other supernatural type characters then you will not want to miss this film.
I have to be honest. I went into this movie expecting it to be terrible. Personally I do not have much faith in Renner (Hansel) as a leading man. I know he is somewhat hot right now but to me he is best as a supporting role. I also have only seen Gemma Arterton (Gretel) in “Clash of the Titans” (2010) where she was nothing more than a pretty face in that lack luster film. Perhaps it was because of such low expectations that together they worked. They were both “bad ass” as the brother sister bounty hunters. Not spectacular performances or anything but easily entertaining and likeable performances.
The story follows the duo as they attempt to hunt down some missing children form a small village that is troubled by witches. Famke Janssen (Taken 2) leads the supporting cast as Leader of the witches who is trying to cast a spell that will make the witches stronger than ever. The three clash it out and that is basically the story.
From a stylistic standpoint fans of Wirkola’s films will not be disappointed. The dark and grim fairytale world he creates is charming and helps us fall into the fantasy. Furthermore this film has several gruesome scenes that are shockingly comical in the way they are over the top. At no point do they feel unnecessary for shock value, but rather they happen in a way that seems normal and plausible in the world we are shown on film. Additionally the pacing of this film is fast. There was not a dull moment as the 88 minute run time is one action or story driven transition to the next. Together these aspects help the film feel fun, lighthearted and surprisingly entertaining. Also the 3D effects help the film and do not seem distracting.
The finished product accomplishes something that other fast paced ridiculous action flicks do not. It keeps it simple. Tommy Wirkola shows his talent by keeping various stylistic factors and pacing together in a way that makes the simplistic story complete. Often times in films like this there comes a point where your suspended disbelief is tested beyond its limits. But that is not the case here. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters delivers an entertaining fast paced movie that the TV previews do not to justice. If you are a fan of zombies, vampires, witches or any other supernatural type characters then you will not want to miss this film.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Doom Patrol in TV
Jul 4, 2020
Not Your Average Superhero Show - 7/10
Doom Patrol Is a 2019 action/sci-fi, comedy/drama superhero TV series based on the DC comic created by writers Arnold Drake and Bob Haney and artist Bruno Premiani. It was developed by Jeremy Carver, and produced by DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. Television for DC Universe. Doom Patrol is a spin-off of Titans, a superhero TV series also on DC Universe. Starring Brendan Fraser, Timothy Dalton, Alan Tudyk, Matt Bomer and April Bowlby.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Jan 30, 2021
Boseman is amazing
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is the latest adaptation of the works of August Wilson brought to us by producer Denzel Washington, following on from the 2016 adaptation of Fences that earned Viola Davis a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Here Washington hands over the directing reins to Tony award winner George C. Wolfe, while Viola Davis returns as the titular Ma Rainey.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Hulk Continues to Smash...and I'm Here For All of it
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Mistress of All Evil: A Tale of the Dark Fairy (Villains #4) in Books
Sep 28, 2019
YES SERENA!
Mistress of Evil is precisely the book I wanted from the villain’s tales series: it had everything – an intriguing backstory; familiar characters as well as new ones who were pivotal to the plot; and of course, magic.
I couldn’t put this book down and I am so relieved that I can finally be super positive for the first time since Fairest of All.
Mistress of Evil takes place immediately after Poor Unfortunate Soul (these books have an order for a reason people!) and, with the odd sisters temporarily out of action, we learn that Maleficent must appeal to Circe and Nanny for assistance with a spell. However, it is soon revealed that Nanny, Maleficent and the odd sisters share a history.
What I loved most about this book is that Valentino spends a lot of time in Maleficent’s backstory, and it was evident that she took a lot of pride in the younger fairy she created. Maleficent is not 100% bad. Don’t get me wrong, she isn’t 100% good either, but the reader witnesses the circumstances that have made her this way. We observe abandonment, bullying and rejection but overall we witness prejudice against someone who is different and I feel it is this that really humanises Maleficent.
Familiar characters are also introduced; namely Flora, Fauna and Merryweather. Now, Merryweather has always been my favourite of the three fairies: something about her sarcastic and feisty personality calls to me. However, young Merryweather is a bit of a cow and, although I didn’t want to, I loved this twist. As usual, Valentino’s world is not black and white: if the good fairies had always been good, events may have turned out very differently.
Snow and her mother also play a role in the progression of the underlying story throughout all these tales: the one of the odd sisters. It wasn’t a complete surprise that Valentino brings one of her previous characters into the story, after all each tale has led into the next. However, it was really interesting to meet Queen Snow and glimpse at her life since we left her in Fairest of All. Also, a book from the odd sisters that possibly binds all our heroes and villains together is pure genius- particularly for someone who was obsessed with Once Upon a Time.
The level of detail in Valentino’s writing is superb. You can really picture the village in which Maleficent was raised- an experience that I haven’t felt in the previous tales. She also doesn’t neglect Aurora just because she is asleep but creates a dream world of mirrors that for some reason conjured images of Labyrinth for me. I also appreciated that, although snippets of the original story are included, they are just snippets- not a retelling.
I think it’s pretty clear that I loved this book. It wasn’t perfect (I still just don’t “get” Tulip and Popinjay and the timing at the start of the book was confusing) but it was pretty close! A prequel to Sleeping Beauty, complete with a fairy school, tree lords, dream worlds and fallouts that would make Jeremy Kyle wince? What more could you want?
A MASSIVE twist? You got it! I always knew no-one would be that angry over not being invited to a christening….
Mistress of Evil is precisely the book I wanted from the villain’s tales series: it had everything – an intriguing backstory; familiar characters as well as new ones who were pivotal to the plot; and of course, magic.
I couldn’t put this book down and I am so relieved that I can finally be super positive for the first time since Fairest of All.
Mistress of Evil takes place immediately after Poor Unfortunate Soul (these books have an order for a reason people!) and, with the odd sisters temporarily out of action, we learn that Maleficent must appeal to Circe and Nanny for assistance with a spell. However, it is soon revealed that Nanny, Maleficent and the odd sisters share a history.
What I loved most about this book is that Valentino spends a lot of time in Maleficent’s backstory, and it was evident that she took a lot of pride in the younger fairy she created. Maleficent is not 100% bad. Don’t get me wrong, she isn’t 100% good either, but the reader witnesses the circumstances that have made her this way. We observe abandonment, bullying and rejection but overall we witness prejudice against someone who is different and I feel it is this that really humanises Maleficent.
Familiar characters are also introduced; namely Flora, Fauna and Merryweather. Now, Merryweather has always been my favourite of the three fairies: something about her sarcastic and feisty personality calls to me. However, young Merryweather is a bit of a cow and, although I didn’t want to, I loved this twist. As usual, Valentino’s world is not black and white: if the good fairies had always been good, events may have turned out very differently.
Snow and her mother also play a role in the progression of the underlying story throughout all these tales: the one of the odd sisters. It wasn’t a complete surprise that Valentino brings one of her previous characters into the story, after all each tale has led into the next. However, it was really interesting to meet Queen Snow and glimpse at her life since we left her in Fairest of All. Also, a book from the odd sisters that possibly binds all our heroes and villains together is pure genius- particularly for someone who was obsessed with Once Upon a Time.
The level of detail in Valentino’s writing is superb. You can really picture the village in which Maleficent was raised- an experience that I haven’t felt in the previous tales. She also doesn’t neglect Aurora just because she is asleep but creates a dream world of mirrors that for some reason conjured images of Labyrinth for me. I also appreciated that, although snippets of the original story are included, they are just snippets- not a retelling.
I think it’s pretty clear that I loved this book. It wasn’t perfect (I still just don’t “get” Tulip and Popinjay and the timing at the start of the book was confusing) but it was pretty close! A prequel to Sleeping Beauty, complete with a fairy school, tree lords, dream worlds and fallouts that would make Jeremy Kyle wince? What more could you want?
A MASSIVE twist? You got it! I always knew no-one would be that angry over not being invited to a christening….
VoiceMap: GPS Audio Tours with Offline Maps
Travel and Entertainment
App
Experience the magic of GPS audio walks, cycles, drives and even boat rides with VoiceMap tours in...
Holby City - Series 19
6.1
Rate It
TV Show
The series was created by Tony McHale and Mal Young as a spin-off from the established BBC medical...
Drama
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Mini Avengers, Assemble
Is anyone else getting bored of superhero films? Nope? Just me then. We’re not even halfway through 2016 and there have been three of them. In February, there was Deadpool, a film that despite all the odds, turned out to be smashing – despite its generic finale.
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When I first heard that Warner Bros. was planning a series of films based on the classic DC Comics characters akin to what Marvel has successfully done, I was intrigued with the possibilities. With the release of Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, we get the first look into that universe and I have to say it is one that has more than a few stumbles.
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/