Search
Search results
Barry Newman (204 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Like a mash up of ‘Falling Down’ and ‘ The King Of Comedy’ this take on the Joker origin story was hugely satisfying and should be praised for doing something different and very un-comic book with the material . I could see where the story was going and wasn’t hugely surprised by how it ended , but the journey there..WOW. Joaquin Phoenix is simply outstanding as Arthur Fleck/Joker and if there is any justice in the world should surely be showered with awards for his mesmerising and twisted performance. Like Michael Douglas in ‘Falling Down’ you know he’s supposed to be “the bad guy” but you can’t help but sympathise with him after the shitty hand society has dealt him. Solid support also comes from Robert DeNiro in a small but memorable role. Highly recommended.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
All hail the Titans
2014’s Godzilla was a thrilling and somewhat underrated return to form for the king of the kaiju. Directed by visionary film-maker Gareth Edwards, Godzilla’s return to the big screen was beautifully filmed with some of the best set pieces ever seen on celluloid. It certainly made up for the Roland Emmerich monstrosity that shall remain nameless here.
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Jan 18, 2020
The new Universal Studios movie Dr. Dolittle stars Robert Downey Jr as Dr. Dolittle, Antonio Banderas as King Rassouli, Michael Sheen as Dr. Mudfly, Emma Thompson as Poly, Jessie Buckley as Queen Victoria, and a host of other well-known stars as the voices of the animals, including John Cena, Ralph Fiennes and Selna Gomez. Dolittle is directed by Stephen Gaghan
Dr. Dolittle is a charming movie.
The audience is taken on a wonderful adventure across oceans and far away kingdoms in search of a magical cure for young Queen Victoria.
Robert Downey Jr. does a phenomenal job in portraying Dr. Dolittle. He plays the role with emotion and charm. His life has been sad since the passing of his wife, and he secludes himself with the only beings he wants to have contact with, his animal menagerie. He is interrupted in his solitude by a request from the palace to find a cure for young Queen Victoria who has been poisoned.
Dr. Dolittle and his animal menagerie set off on an epic adventure to hunt down the one thing that might save the Queen, the sap from a tree that Dolittles late wife has been researching. On the way, they must get around the nefarious Dr. Blair Mudfly, and Rassouli the king of pirates.
Younger viewers are sure to be kept engaged, as the movie is fast paced and they will not have the chance to be bored. The audience are sure to be pleased with the vitality and humor that each role brings to the film.
The movie is perfect for families to view together and everyone will enjoy it.
Dr. Dolittle is a charming movie.
The audience is taken on a wonderful adventure across oceans and far away kingdoms in search of a magical cure for young Queen Victoria.
Robert Downey Jr. does a phenomenal job in portraying Dr. Dolittle. He plays the role with emotion and charm. His life has been sad since the passing of his wife, and he secludes himself with the only beings he wants to have contact with, his animal menagerie. He is interrupted in his solitude by a request from the palace to find a cure for young Queen Victoria who has been poisoned.
Dr. Dolittle and his animal menagerie set off on an epic adventure to hunt down the one thing that might save the Queen, the sap from a tree that Dolittles late wife has been researching. On the way, they must get around the nefarious Dr. Blair Mudfly, and Rassouli the king of pirates.
Younger viewers are sure to be kept engaged, as the movie is fast paced and they will not have the chance to be bored. The audience are sure to be pleased with the vitality and humor that each role brings to the film.
The movie is perfect for families to view together and everyone will enjoy it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Darren (1599 KP) rated 300 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 300 starts by telling us about Leonidas and how he was put through his training as a child before becoming King Leonidas (Butler). When a Persian messenger comes to Sparta with a message from King Xerxes (Santoro) about an impending war Leonidas refuses to back down. Leonidas draws up a battle plan to go against the Persian’s against that out numbers them drastically. The oracles warn Leonidas about going into the battle but Leonidas refuses to back down.
Leonidas selects 300 warriors who have sons to carry on their names to go and fight leaving Sparta behind. One the way to the battle Leonidas and his men learn what the Persians are capable off as they prepare for the battle. We follow King Leonidas and his 300 as they plough through the Persian army defying all of the odds, while another battle for power rages on back at Sparta.
300 shows how determined one group of people were to protect their own land, sure we have comic book style which helps the film enter the fantasy side. It doesn’t have the most original screen story but this is clearly made for the action. We do see how the warriors of Sparta would have been the better in battle even if the actual battle turned into something very fantasy based. Just remember you won’t need to be thinking too much through this film, just relax and enjoy. (7/10)
Actor Review
Gerard Butler: King Leonidas fearless warrior who leads his army of 300 into battle against the Persians against all odds. He goes against all the gods and wishes of their oracle to battle for his people. Gerard gives a good performance showing how he was going to be a lead actor. (8/10)
leonidas
Lena Headey: Queen Gorgo who is left to rule Sparta while the King goes into battle. She has to deal with Theron who stays back might not be as loyal as first thought. Lena gives a good performance and shows how she was always going to be playing a Queen. (7/10)
lena
Dominic West: Theron Spartan who stays behind and tries to use his power in the city to gain power over the people while Leonidas is battling for their freedom. Dominic gives a solid performance as the scheming villain. (6/10)
dom
David Wenham: Dilios warrior who is also the story telling, he provides narration for the story and fills us in on Leonidas’ past. David gives a good performance as the story teller but also warrior who fights for Sparta. (6/10)
david
Michael Fassbender: Stelios one of the fearless warriors who has never faced a real challenge and hopes to find one in this battle. Michael gives a good performance as the greatest warrior of the army in what was his debut role. (7/10)
stelios
Support Cast: 300 supporting cast is filled with warriors on both sides of the fight, they all have their moments in the battle.
Director Review: Zack Snyder – Zack showed why he is such a popular director with his newer style of directing which is both unique and entertaining. (8/10)
Action: 300 has plenty of fights but what did you expect from this kind of war film. (9/10)
Fantasy: 300 uses fantasy for its battles showing how different types of warriors could be looked and the legend created by fear. (8/10)
War: 300 shows of the great battles between the Persians and the Spartans. (10/10)
Settings: 300 creates the settings to look very authentic looking scenery for the battle scenes. (9/10)
Special Effects: 300 uses great effects for the fights and to create the different style of fighters. (9/10)
Suggestion: 300 is one for the action fans to enjoy, it has plenty of fighting but not much in the way of thinking needed. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Stelios Now.
Worst Part: Lots of shouting from Leonidas.
Action Scene Of The Film: The first battle.
Kill Of The Film: Monster creature man vs Leonidas.
Favourite Quote: King Leonidas ‘This is Sparta!’
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has a sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $456 Million
Budget: $65 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes
Tagline: Spartans, prepare for glory!
Overall: THIS IS ‘JUST’ GOOD!
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/16/300-2006/
Leonidas selects 300 warriors who have sons to carry on their names to go and fight leaving Sparta behind. One the way to the battle Leonidas and his men learn what the Persians are capable off as they prepare for the battle. We follow King Leonidas and his 300 as they plough through the Persian army defying all of the odds, while another battle for power rages on back at Sparta.
300 shows how determined one group of people were to protect their own land, sure we have comic book style which helps the film enter the fantasy side. It doesn’t have the most original screen story but this is clearly made for the action. We do see how the warriors of Sparta would have been the better in battle even if the actual battle turned into something very fantasy based. Just remember you won’t need to be thinking too much through this film, just relax and enjoy. (7/10)
Actor Review
Gerard Butler: King Leonidas fearless warrior who leads his army of 300 into battle against the Persians against all odds. He goes against all the gods and wishes of their oracle to battle for his people. Gerard gives a good performance showing how he was going to be a lead actor. (8/10)
leonidas
Lena Headey: Queen Gorgo who is left to rule Sparta while the King goes into battle. She has to deal with Theron who stays back might not be as loyal as first thought. Lena gives a good performance and shows how she was always going to be playing a Queen. (7/10)
lena
Dominic West: Theron Spartan who stays behind and tries to use his power in the city to gain power over the people while Leonidas is battling for their freedom. Dominic gives a solid performance as the scheming villain. (6/10)
dom
David Wenham: Dilios warrior who is also the story telling, he provides narration for the story and fills us in on Leonidas’ past. David gives a good performance as the story teller but also warrior who fights for Sparta. (6/10)
david
Michael Fassbender: Stelios one of the fearless warriors who has never faced a real challenge and hopes to find one in this battle. Michael gives a good performance as the greatest warrior of the army in what was his debut role. (7/10)
stelios
Support Cast: 300 supporting cast is filled with warriors on both sides of the fight, they all have their moments in the battle.
Director Review: Zack Snyder – Zack showed why he is such a popular director with his newer style of directing which is both unique and entertaining. (8/10)
Action: 300 has plenty of fights but what did you expect from this kind of war film. (9/10)
Fantasy: 300 uses fantasy for its battles showing how different types of warriors could be looked and the legend created by fear. (8/10)
War: 300 shows of the great battles between the Persians and the Spartans. (10/10)
Settings: 300 creates the settings to look very authentic looking scenery for the battle scenes. (9/10)
Special Effects: 300 uses great effects for the fights and to create the different style of fighters. (9/10)
Suggestion: 300 is one for the action fans to enjoy, it has plenty of fighting but not much in the way of thinking needed. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Stelios Now.
Worst Part: Lots of shouting from Leonidas.
Action Scene Of The Film: The first battle.
Kill Of The Film: Monster creature man vs Leonidas.
Favourite Quote: King Leonidas ‘This is Sparta!’
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has a sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $456 Million
Budget: $65 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes
Tagline: Spartans, prepare for glory!
Overall: THIS IS ‘JUST’ GOOD!
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/16/300-2006/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A Surprisingly Disappointing Heist Film
Upon seeing King of Thieves listed as a Limitless preview screening, I immediately snapped up the opportunity to see it because I had been looking forward to it since the first trailer I saw. With a well-known cast, an iconic real life heist story, and a classic ‘British crime’ aura, I was anticipating something great. I really can’t understand how they managed to mess that combo up, but here we are. Out of all the reviews I’ve ever written, this one is probably the hardest because of how disappointed I feel. As a film fan it’s difficult when you get yourself hyped up, only to be let down by the finished result.
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Sin City (2005) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021 (Updated Jan 11, 2021)
I absolutely adored Sin City when it first released way back in 2005, and I still do to a point, albeit a little less than I used to.
The main positives are of course the cast, and the style.
The cast is stacked - Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Michael Madsen, Clive Owen, Micky Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Powers Boothe, Devon Aoki, Rutger Hauer, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Jaime King... that's a fair ensemble if you ask me.
The style is of course a huge part of Sin City. It's neo noir black and white with splashes of colour translate perfectly from page to screen. 15 years later, the effects still look pretty decent and the overall look of the film is practically watching the graphic novels come to life, a strength that is bolstered by the cast involved.
It has a cheesy yet engaging screenplay - the runtime clocks in at over two hours, but never gets boring (just about), and the constant growly voiceovers and on the nose script beats could have potentially been laughable in anyone else's hands, but Robert Rodriguez somehow gets away with it.
The comics ultraviolence is well realised - the movie doesn't shy away from the grimness of proceedings. Some of the content however feels a little problematic in this day and age. The whole thing is plagued by a steady stream of misogyny, which would have probably been toned down if released today, but in my opinion, it's never glamorised. 95% of the male characters are grim shitbags, and the audience know it well.
I understand why a fair few people have an issue with Sin City and it's content, but personally, I find it to be a unique film with plenty of positives, a project that respects it's source material, and just about manages to avoid falling inside of its own arse.
The main positives are of course the cast, and the style.
The cast is stacked - Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Michael Madsen, Clive Owen, Micky Rourke, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Powers Boothe, Devon Aoki, Rutger Hauer, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Jaime King... that's a fair ensemble if you ask me.
The style is of course a huge part of Sin City. It's neo noir black and white with splashes of colour translate perfectly from page to screen. 15 years later, the effects still look pretty decent and the overall look of the film is practically watching the graphic novels come to life, a strength that is bolstered by the cast involved.
It has a cheesy yet engaging screenplay - the runtime clocks in at over two hours, but never gets boring (just about), and the constant growly voiceovers and on the nose script beats could have potentially been laughable in anyone else's hands, but Robert Rodriguez somehow gets away with it.
The comics ultraviolence is well realised - the movie doesn't shy away from the grimness of proceedings. Some of the content however feels a little problematic in this day and age. The whole thing is plagued by a steady stream of misogyny, which would have probably been toned down if released today, but in my opinion, it's never glamorised. 95% of the male characters are grim shitbags, and the audience know it well.
I understand why a fair few people have an issue with Sin City and it's content, but personally, I find it to be a unique film with plenty of positives, a project that respects it's source material, and just about manages to avoid falling inside of its own arse.
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated The Scorpion King (2002) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
The Rock (2 more)
Kelly Hu
Michael Clarke Duncan
Lots of white guys for Africa (1 more)
Not a single female who is not stuck in a bikini of some sort (Not that I'm complaining, but....)
Good sword and sorcery fun
Spinning out of The Mummy Returns, The Scorpion King is a decent sword-and-sorcery epic in the vein of Conan the Barbarian that would work better on its own than it does connected to the Mummy franchise. It's not that it's bad, but we know how things end up in The Mummy Returns, and that undercuts some of the characterization in this film. The performances are good to great across the board, though there's a lot of white guys given the African setting. I realize that it's the cradle of civilization, but still. Then there's the trope of all the women wearing bikinis, which doesn't play as well in this day and age as it did in the pulp era....I mean, it has the desired effect, don't get me wrong, but I think we've moved on. The action is excellent, the graphics hold up even seventeen years later (which is more than can be said for the character's introduction in TMR), and on the whole, I enjoyed the film. After watching the special features, though, I think they should have kept the prophecy element in the film. Just my opinion.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Is the MCU all out of surprises?
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has become one of the most successful movie franchises ever made, and it’s easy to see why. Featuring incredible actors, up-and-coming directors and that trademark sense of humour, each film in the MCU has something to offer.
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Paddington (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The timeless storybook written by Michael Bond about a loveable, well-mannered immigrant Bear who tries to adapt to the human world.
The movie opens up with an English Explorer, Montgomery Clyde (Tim Downie), who ventures to the darkest Peru and encounters Paddington’s Aunt Lucy(voiced by Imelda Stauton) and Uncle Pastuzo(voiced by Michael Gambon). Instead of shooting them to take back to the Geographers’ Guild to be stuffed, he teaches them to speak English and introduces them to marmalade. He ends his adventure by telling the two bears he would always give them a home in London. Fast forward 40 years, Lucy and Pastuzo are now raising their very energetic nephew (voiced by Ben Wishaw) and teach him everything they know about London and how to make marmalade. Sadly, tragedy strikes after a devastating earthquake destroys their home. This forces Aunt Lucy to allow the young bear to stowaway on a ship bound for London to find Montgomery Clyde, the explorer, while she takes residence at a facility for retired bears.
The little bear is discovered by the Brown family while wandering Paddington Station. After reading the tag that says, “Please look after this bear,” the Browns take him home and give him the name Paddington. They also agreed to help him find the explorer that once befriended his aunt and uncle. Confused by his new unfamiliar surroundings, Paddington becomes an accident prone guest who inadvertently creates chaos and devastation where ever he goes.
Writer/Director Paul King has made an ingeniously witty, funny film that will appeal to moviegoers of all ages. A sweet and playful take on the beloved 1950s children’s book. For the most part, it does follow the storyline of the book. With the exception of the character Millicent, played by Nicole Kidman, who is a museum taxidermist. She wants nothing more than to make Paddington the newest member of the museum’s collection of stuffed exotic animals.
You can’t help but fall in love with Paddington, and it’s just as easy to love the Brown family. This is a delightfully charming film with the perfect amount of quirkiness. A story of a lost child trying to find friends and a place to belong. A wonderful movie that will melt your heart!
The movie opens up with an English Explorer, Montgomery Clyde (Tim Downie), who ventures to the darkest Peru and encounters Paddington’s Aunt Lucy(voiced by Imelda Stauton) and Uncle Pastuzo(voiced by Michael Gambon). Instead of shooting them to take back to the Geographers’ Guild to be stuffed, he teaches them to speak English and introduces them to marmalade. He ends his adventure by telling the two bears he would always give them a home in London. Fast forward 40 years, Lucy and Pastuzo are now raising their very energetic nephew (voiced by Ben Wishaw) and teach him everything they know about London and how to make marmalade. Sadly, tragedy strikes after a devastating earthquake destroys their home. This forces Aunt Lucy to allow the young bear to stowaway on a ship bound for London to find Montgomery Clyde, the explorer, while she takes residence at a facility for retired bears.
The little bear is discovered by the Brown family while wandering Paddington Station. After reading the tag that says, “Please look after this bear,” the Browns take him home and give him the name Paddington. They also agreed to help him find the explorer that once befriended his aunt and uncle. Confused by his new unfamiliar surroundings, Paddington becomes an accident prone guest who inadvertently creates chaos and devastation where ever he goes.
Writer/Director Paul King has made an ingeniously witty, funny film that will appeal to moviegoers of all ages. A sweet and playful take on the beloved 1950s children’s book. For the most part, it does follow the storyline of the book. With the exception of the character Millicent, played by Nicole Kidman, who is a museum taxidermist. She wants nothing more than to make Paddington the newest member of the museum’s collection of stuffed exotic animals.
You can’t help but fall in love with Paddington, and it’s just as easy to love the Brown family. This is a delightfully charming film with the perfect amount of quirkiness. A story of a lost child trying to find friends and a place to belong. A wonderful movie that will melt your heart!