Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a woman with many complications as we meet her just as she is leaving her engagement ring and fiancé behind to head off to a new future. We do not know what promoted this move other than an argument, but Michelle is unmoved by his plea-laden phone calls and opts to ignore them and move ahead with her life.
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Atomic Blonde (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Say hello to Mrs. John Wick
David Leitch is one of the most exciting film-makers of the current crop of directors working today. His brilliant John Wick reignited Keanu Reeves’ career in spectacular fashion and he’s worked behind-the-scenes on films like Captain America: Civil War and Jurassic World.
Just this year he signed on to direct Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller’s sudden departure. In the meantime, he’s treating us to another adults-only thriller, Atomic Blonde. But is this Charlize Theron-led vehicle as good as his previous work?
Sensual and savage, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is the most elite spy in MI6, an agent willing to use all her skills to stay alive during impossible missions. With the Berlin Wall ready to crumble, she travels into the middle of the city to retrieve a dossier and take down an espionage ring. Once there, she teams up with an embedded station chief (James McAvoy) to navigate her way through the deadliest game of spies.
Charlize Theron is fast-becoming one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars after decent turns in Fast & Furious 8 and Mad Max: Fury Road. In Atomic Blonde this is no exception. She commands the screen in each and every frame, oozing class and showing the world she is a first-class action superstar.
The rest of the cast are also exquisite. James McAvoy can do no wrong this year after his out-of-this-world performance in Split, and his David Percival here is fleshed out, well-written and beautifully acted. Elsewhere, John Goodman and Toby Jones add even more prowess to proceedings.
Add to this some stunning cinematography and you’ve got a recipe for success. Atomic Blonde relishes the era in which it is presented with a magnificent soundtrack and beautiful direction. Leitch makes the film feel very much alive, with brutally realistic action shot without needless shaky cam or over-the-top scoring.
Unfortunately, the story is less successful. If Theron is the living, beating heart of Atomic Blonde, the script nearly strangles her. It is nearly impossible to truly understand what is happening on screen as the plot throws more twists and turns at the audience than Spaghetti Junction. Ordinarily, this would be great, but here it’s distracting and nonsensical.
Nevertheless, this is a vastly entertaining film, very much in the same vein of John Wick. In fact, it’d be fantastic if we could see these two characters brought together in a crossover of epic proportions.
Overall, David Leitch hasn’t quite recaptured the success of his first feature film but has managed to craft a highly stylised and quick-moving thriller that feels very real and utilises its exceptional cast incredibly well, with Charlize Theron being an absolute delight. It’s just unfortunate the plot is a bit of a damp squib.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/10/atomic-blonde-review-say-hello-to-mrs-john-wick/
Just this year he signed on to direct Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller’s sudden departure. In the meantime, he’s treating us to another adults-only thriller, Atomic Blonde. But is this Charlize Theron-led vehicle as good as his previous work?
Sensual and savage, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is the most elite spy in MI6, an agent willing to use all her skills to stay alive during impossible missions. With the Berlin Wall ready to crumble, she travels into the middle of the city to retrieve a dossier and take down an espionage ring. Once there, she teams up with an embedded station chief (James McAvoy) to navigate her way through the deadliest game of spies.
Charlize Theron is fast-becoming one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars after decent turns in Fast & Furious 8 and Mad Max: Fury Road. In Atomic Blonde this is no exception. She commands the screen in each and every frame, oozing class and showing the world she is a first-class action superstar.
The rest of the cast are also exquisite. James McAvoy can do no wrong this year after his out-of-this-world performance in Split, and his David Percival here is fleshed out, well-written and beautifully acted. Elsewhere, John Goodman and Toby Jones add even more prowess to proceedings.
Add to this some stunning cinematography and you’ve got a recipe for success. Atomic Blonde relishes the era in which it is presented with a magnificent soundtrack and beautiful direction. Leitch makes the film feel very much alive, with brutally realistic action shot without needless shaky cam or over-the-top scoring.
Unfortunately, the story is less successful. If Theron is the living, beating heart of Atomic Blonde, the script nearly strangles her. It is nearly impossible to truly understand what is happening on screen as the plot throws more twists and turns at the audience than Spaghetti Junction. Ordinarily, this would be great, but here it’s distracting and nonsensical.
Nevertheless, this is a vastly entertaining film, very much in the same vein of John Wick. In fact, it’d be fantastic if we could see these two characters brought together in a crossover of epic proportions.
Overall, David Leitch hasn’t quite recaptured the success of his first feature film but has managed to craft a highly stylised and quick-moving thriller that feels very real and utilises its exceptional cast incredibly well, with Charlize Theron being an absolute delight. It’s just unfortunate the plot is a bit of a damp squib.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/10/atomic-blonde-review-say-hello-to-mrs-john-wick/
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Atomic Blonde (2017) in Movies
Dec 16, 2017 (Updated Dec 16, 2017)
Great soundtrack (1 more)
Fabulous action
Charlize Theron makes this movie
This is definitely one of those marmite movies, in which you either love or hate it. At times, the female protagonist Lorraine, played by Charlize Theron, echoed Uma Thurman's character in Kill Bill - stylized sequences, strong female lead, a great 1980's soundtrack and cinematography - made for a good watch.
Where it fell short was the plot. It dragged in the middle of the film, where there seemed to be mindless violence for no apparent reason. The story follows Lorraine Broughton, who is sent to Berlin to find and deliver some priceless information back to MI6. She meets the local station chief David Percival and they get caught up in the normal Iron Curtain spy business you'd expect with people getting killed left right and centre.
The only problem with this is that if Theron’s character Lorraine Broughton had been a man, it wouldn't have changed a single frame of the film. I'd like to see an action film where the female lead isn't trying to be a man replacement or scantily-clad for the male gaze, I'd love to see a female lead being female.
Despite the incredible cast - Theron, James McAvoy, John Goodman - the acting was adequate for the kind of film this was, but it could have been so much better.
Where it fell short was the plot. It dragged in the middle of the film, where there seemed to be mindless violence for no apparent reason. The story follows Lorraine Broughton, who is sent to Berlin to find and deliver some priceless information back to MI6. She meets the local station chief David Percival and they get caught up in the normal Iron Curtain spy business you'd expect with people getting killed left right and centre.
The only problem with this is that if Theron’s character Lorraine Broughton had been a man, it wouldn't have changed a single frame of the film. I'd like to see an action film where the female lead isn't trying to be a man replacement or scantily-clad for the male gaze, I'd love to see a female lead being female.
Despite the incredible cast - Theron, James McAvoy, John Goodman - the acting was adequate for the kind of film this was, but it could have been so much better.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Monuments Men (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As children, we all imagine going on a treasure hunt or adventure. In The Monuments Men, we bear witness to one of the greatest treasure hunts in recent history. The Monuments Men is based on the true story of a team of Art Historians and Architects who are tasked by President Roosevelt during WWII with locating and rescuing pieces of art from the Nazis. The challenge for these men is that they are put upon this task to search for these artifacts, many of which are trapped behind enemy lines.
It becomes a race not only to find the pieces but to prevent their destruction at the hands of the German Army under orders of Hitler himself. The film demonstrates that culture and history are vital to civilization’s memory. With a war of this scale, The Monuments Men demonstrates one of the many aspects of humanity that was endangered. It also reminds audiences that there are many stories still be told from the World War II era. The performances of Bill Murray, John Goodman, and Bob Balaban outshine that of George Clooney Matt Damon and Cate Blanchett. Despite this being an all-star cast, it does not detract from the story and the way that it is portrayed on screen. Audiences will find themselves emotionally connected to some of the characters, images, and the overall story.
It becomes a race not only to find the pieces but to prevent their destruction at the hands of the German Army under orders of Hitler himself. The film demonstrates that culture and history are vital to civilization’s memory. With a war of this scale, The Monuments Men demonstrates one of the many aspects of humanity that was endangered. It also reminds audiences that there are many stories still be told from the World War II era. The performances of Bill Murray, John Goodman, and Bob Balaban outshine that of George Clooney Matt Damon and Cate Blanchett. Despite this being an all-star cast, it does not detract from the story and the way that it is portrayed on screen. Audiences will find themselves emotionally connected to some of the characters, images, and the overall story.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Feb 7, 2018
Surprisingly Entertaining
Contains spoilers, click to show
THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN MILD SPOILERS, but honestly nothing more than I’d already gathered from Twitter and talk /reviews on various other forms of social media. Still, you have been warned. Read no further than the following first paragraph if you don’t want to risk mild spoilage.
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
JT (287 KP) rated Argo (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Does making a film based on a true story make it any more endearing to the Oscar big wigs? Possibly, but one thing is for sure, Ben Affleck’s third film Argo is an outstanding piece of film making with exceptional attention to detail and sense of realism.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
T Bone Burnett recommended Raising Arizona by Carter Burwell in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Monsters University (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Monsters University brings Billy Crystal, John Goodman, and the whole gang back in what I can only describe as a huge win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 10 Cloverfield Lane starts as we see Michelle (Winstead) walking away from her married life with Ben only to find herself in a car accident. Upon waking up she finds her chained up in a bed as she desperately looks for a way out. Michelle’s capturer is Howard (Goodman) who claims to have saved her from an attack on America. Michelle isn’t the only other person in the bunker with Emmett (Gallagher Jr) also there.
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/