Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Feb 7, 2019 (Updated Feb 7, 2019)
"You See, My Mule Don't Like People Laughing..."
I saw The Mule last night and thought it was excellent. Clint Eastwood directs and stars as a 90 year old drug mule working for the Cartel after losing his horticultural business due to the rise of online shopping. Clint is the crux that this whole movie is relying in as it's director and main protagonist and he carries off the task with ease. He plays this character of Earl with a charm and warmth that he has rarely been seen portraying in any of his other harsher, grumpier characters in movies like Gran Torino and Million Dollar Baby. It is clear that age has not slowed him down a bit and he doesn't miss a beat here, pulling off an extremely well told if unlikely story.
The rest of the cast are pretty great too. I have read some complaints from other reviewers who feel that Bradley Cooper and Michael Pena are underused here in their roles as the DEA agents leading the investigation to catch this mule. In my opinion though, there is an art to the more subtle performances that the two give here and they work well, never detracting from the main character whom this story is built around. Andy Garcia is also great playing the cartel boss that Earl is driving for. I would say that more could have been done with the talent of Laurence Fishburne's and Clifton Collins Jr's characters, but the actors themselves were solid in their respective roles.
The movie is also very well shot, even though this is the first time in a good number of years that Clint has not worked with his long time collaborator behind the lens Tom Stern, instead opting for Yves Belanger. The choices made for the soundtrack also work well in the film as they not only all manage to line up with what is going on at that certain point in the movie's plot, but they also add to the overall tone and desired feel that the story is conveying.
The only negative that I took away was Julio's odd character motivation when his character first showed up. Right from the get go, he seemed to only have a deep-seated resentment for Earl, even though he had literally just met him. Unfortunately, there is never really any reason given for it either, it's not like he would be jealous of this elderly drug mule and the rest of the Cartel crew seem totally fine with having Earl driving for them. The motivation for his immediate despising of Earl just didn't make much sense and seemed fairly jarring and uncalled for at first. Although it made sense by the end of the film for the sake of that character's story arc, it just felt a bit weird when we first meet the character and he has such a strong hatred for this harmless old man.
Overall, The Mule is a solid movie that tells a story that is unbelievably based on a real 90 year old man that transported a huge quantity of drugs for the Cartel. Clint tells this story with a tenderness and charm that I wasn't really expecting going in and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Sad to see the academy ignore this film, especially since they usually recognise Clint's efforts. Regardless, this is a great watch and if you are a fan of Clint's other movies, then this is a must see.
The rest of the cast are pretty great too. I have read some complaints from other reviewers who feel that Bradley Cooper and Michael Pena are underused here in their roles as the DEA agents leading the investigation to catch this mule. In my opinion though, there is an art to the more subtle performances that the two give here and they work well, never detracting from the main character whom this story is built around. Andy Garcia is also great playing the cartel boss that Earl is driving for. I would say that more could have been done with the talent of Laurence Fishburne's and Clifton Collins Jr's characters, but the actors themselves were solid in their respective roles.
The movie is also very well shot, even though this is the first time in a good number of years that Clint has not worked with his long time collaborator behind the lens Tom Stern, instead opting for Yves Belanger. The choices made for the soundtrack also work well in the film as they not only all manage to line up with what is going on at that certain point in the movie's plot, but they also add to the overall tone and desired feel that the story is conveying.
The only negative that I took away was Julio's odd character motivation when his character first showed up. Right from the get go, he seemed to only have a deep-seated resentment for Earl, even though he had literally just met him. Unfortunately, there is never really any reason given for it either, it's not like he would be jealous of this elderly drug mule and the rest of the Cartel crew seem totally fine with having Earl driving for them. The motivation for his immediate despising of Earl just didn't make much sense and seemed fairly jarring and uncalled for at first. Although it made sense by the end of the film for the sake of that character's story arc, it just felt a bit weird when we first meet the character and he has such a strong hatred for this harmless old man.
Overall, The Mule is a solid movie that tells a story that is unbelievably based on a real 90 year old man that transported a huge quantity of drugs for the Cartel. Clint tells this story with a tenderness and charm that I wasn't really expecting going in and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Sad to see the academy ignore this film, especially since they usually recognise Clint's efforts. Regardless, this is a great watch and if you are a fan of Clint's other movies, then this is a must see.
Debbiereadsbook (1110 KP) rated Retribution (The Protectors #3) in Books
Apr 15, 2019
My fav of the three so far!
*verified Audible purchase June 2017*
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Oct 2, 2018
Solid and Light
The micro-sized superhero is back on a new adventure with old friends.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Ant-Man and the Wasp gets off to a solid start that grabs your attention from jump. The players are re-introduced fairly quickly and it’s not long before you remember why you missed this portion of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While I felt there were definitely some big shoes to fill following behind and an Avengers film (and we all remember how that started, sorry Hulk), the first ten minutes left a big smile on my face.
Characters: 10
The gang is back and in full effect. Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is just a man trying to live out his house arrest sentence so he can be free to spend more time with his daughter. He packs a hilarity and sincerity that I’ve come to appreciate in all of Rudd’s roles. He is a star…but this film wouldn’t survive without Luis (Michael Pena). He’s frantic, clueless, and gives out way too many details every chance he gets. He innocently has no filter and it makes for some serious rib-splitting moments. Just thinking about it now makes me want to go back for a rewatch.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Hands-down some of the best special effects you will see in a Marvel film. I have immense respect for the larger-than-life setpieces they create when the characters are ant-sized. It’s like an entirely different world a la Honey I Shrunk the Kids. The transition from large-to-small and vice versa is seamless, making for perfect action sequences.
Conflict: 10
The film has everything you could want from an action standpoint. Car chases? Check. Fight scenes? Top notch. Superhero action? Yes please!
I’ve seen some critics come down on the fact that the villain was less of a threat than previous Marvel films, but I believe the villain matched perfectly with the overall tone of this sequel. Besides, how do you follow up on Thanos? You go completely in the opposite direction. Last thing to note: Ghost wasn’t exactly a slouch. She kicked some serious butt throughout and had some great scenes.
Genre: 7
I think this has more to do with where the genre has come rather than a knock on the film itself. In a genre where the stakes are higher than ever, the screen is packed with stars, and more films are driving a point home with an actual message, Ant-Man and the Wasp is more of a light-hearted romp that doesn’t serve to take itself too seriously. It’s a fun film that does fun better than most.
Memorability: 9
Perfect blend of action and comedy. The film succeeds by staying in its lane and doing what it does best. The action sequences are creative and fresh while the storytelling comes at you in such a hilarious way, it makes itself stand out. No spoilers, just know you’re in for a treat.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Overall: 93
Looking for some good family fun that will keep you entertained and laughing. Don’t miss Ant-Man and the Wasp. Hands down one of the best films I have seen in 2018.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Ant-Man and the Wasp gets off to a solid start that grabs your attention from jump. The players are re-introduced fairly quickly and it’s not long before you remember why you missed this portion of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While I felt there were definitely some big shoes to fill following behind and an Avengers film (and we all remember how that started, sorry Hulk), the first ten minutes left a big smile on my face.
Characters: 10
The gang is back and in full effect. Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is just a man trying to live out his house arrest sentence so he can be free to spend more time with his daughter. He packs a hilarity and sincerity that I’ve come to appreciate in all of Rudd’s roles. He is a star…but this film wouldn’t survive without Luis (Michael Pena). He’s frantic, clueless, and gives out way too many details every chance he gets. He innocently has no filter and it makes for some serious rib-splitting moments. Just thinking about it now makes me want to go back for a rewatch.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Hands-down some of the best special effects you will see in a Marvel film. I have immense respect for the larger-than-life setpieces they create when the characters are ant-sized. It’s like an entirely different world a la Honey I Shrunk the Kids. The transition from large-to-small and vice versa is seamless, making for perfect action sequences.
Conflict: 10
The film has everything you could want from an action standpoint. Car chases? Check. Fight scenes? Top notch. Superhero action? Yes please!
I’ve seen some critics come down on the fact that the villain was less of a threat than previous Marvel films, but I believe the villain matched perfectly with the overall tone of this sequel. Besides, how do you follow up on Thanos? You go completely in the opposite direction. Last thing to note: Ghost wasn’t exactly a slouch. She kicked some serious butt throughout and had some great scenes.
Genre: 7
I think this has more to do with where the genre has come rather than a knock on the film itself. In a genre where the stakes are higher than ever, the screen is packed with stars, and more films are driving a point home with an actual message, Ant-Man and the Wasp is more of a light-hearted romp that doesn’t serve to take itself too seriously. It’s a fun film that does fun better than most.
Memorability: 9
Perfect blend of action and comedy. The film succeeds by staying in its lane and doing what it does best. The action sequences are creative and fresh while the storytelling comes at you in such a hilarious way, it makes itself stand out. No spoilers, just know you’re in for a treat.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Overall: 93
Looking for some good family fun that will keep you entertained and laughing. Don’t miss Ant-Man and the Wasp. Hands down one of the best films I have seen in 2018.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Since his spectacular fight which ended in a loss at the conclusion of “Creed”, Adonis Johnson Creed (Michael B. Jordan) has won his next six bouts and then pulls off an impressive victory to become the new Heavyweight Champion.
Life is good for the new champion as he believes he has moved out of the shadow of his legendary father and is ready to settle down with Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and move ahead with life.
At the same time, former Russian Champion Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) is training his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) in Kiev to become and even more devastating boxer than he was. Ivan has suffered much since losing to Rocky in “Rocky IV” as his wife has left him and he has been shunned and cast out of the country which once lauded him as their prize athlete. Losing to Rocky in Moscow in front of numerous dignitaries has ruined him and made his life a shell of what he was leaving him and his son cold, bitter, and driven.
When the opportunity for Viktor and Adonis to box is presented, Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) advises Adonis not to take the match. Rocky recounts that not only did Ivan kill his father in the ring, but in beating him, Rocky suffered injuries which ended his boxing career and have never fully healed.
Despite the warnings, Adonis takes the match and is unprepared for the raw brutality that Viktor presents and sufferers a horrific beating but manages to hold his title due to a technicality.
The film then follows a standard redemption story of Adonis trying to recover, face his fears, train, and find a new level of strength that he has never shown before. The climatic fight is very entertaining and well-staged and had fans at our screening reacting with cheers and dismay as the punches landed.
The film does follow some very familiar territory for the series from the emotional highs and lows of the ring, battling yourself as well as an opponent, the grueling training session, and of course the big match at the end.
Stallone gives another moving and solid performance as the aging Rocky showing that his Academy Award nominated turn in the prior film was not a fluke. What was also impressive was how Dolph Lundgren returned to a role he initially had reservations about doing and gave Drago a sympathetic side even though he is a bad guy in the film. We see a man desperate to recover what he was and who is devastated by what life has dealt him but forces himself to examine the past as he guides his son’s future.
Jordan carries a lot of swagger with his character and while the story attempts to show a softer side of his character; he is not as sympathetic as he was in the past film. I noted that Rocky was much easier to get behind as he was a more sympathetic underdog at times. That is part of what makes the series so interesting in that Rocky is still there as a presence over Adonis to guide and inform him to try to make him a true champion while allowing him to have his own identity and style.
If you are a fan of the series, then you should enjoy this next offering as long as you do not mind the formula for much of the series repeated.
http://sknr.net/2018/11/20/creed-ii/
Life is good for the new champion as he believes he has moved out of the shadow of his legendary father and is ready to settle down with Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and move ahead with life.
At the same time, former Russian Champion Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) is training his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) in Kiev to become and even more devastating boxer than he was. Ivan has suffered much since losing to Rocky in “Rocky IV” as his wife has left him and he has been shunned and cast out of the country which once lauded him as their prize athlete. Losing to Rocky in Moscow in front of numerous dignitaries has ruined him and made his life a shell of what he was leaving him and his son cold, bitter, and driven.
When the opportunity for Viktor and Adonis to box is presented, Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) advises Adonis not to take the match. Rocky recounts that not only did Ivan kill his father in the ring, but in beating him, Rocky suffered injuries which ended his boxing career and have never fully healed.
Despite the warnings, Adonis takes the match and is unprepared for the raw brutality that Viktor presents and sufferers a horrific beating but manages to hold his title due to a technicality.
The film then follows a standard redemption story of Adonis trying to recover, face his fears, train, and find a new level of strength that he has never shown before. The climatic fight is very entertaining and well-staged and had fans at our screening reacting with cheers and dismay as the punches landed.
The film does follow some very familiar territory for the series from the emotional highs and lows of the ring, battling yourself as well as an opponent, the grueling training session, and of course the big match at the end.
Stallone gives another moving and solid performance as the aging Rocky showing that his Academy Award nominated turn in the prior film was not a fluke. What was also impressive was how Dolph Lundgren returned to a role he initially had reservations about doing and gave Drago a sympathetic side even though he is a bad guy in the film. We see a man desperate to recover what he was and who is devastated by what life has dealt him but forces himself to examine the past as he guides his son’s future.
Jordan carries a lot of swagger with his character and while the story attempts to show a softer side of his character; he is not as sympathetic as he was in the past film. I noted that Rocky was much easier to get behind as he was a more sympathetic underdog at times. That is part of what makes the series so interesting in that Rocky is still there as a presence over Adonis to guide and inform him to try to make him a true champion while allowing him to have his own identity and style.
If you are a fan of the series, then you should enjoy this next offering as long as you do not mind the formula for much of the series repeated.
http://sknr.net/2018/11/20/creed-ii/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Making movies based on video games has had a dubious history when it comes to cinematic success. While “Resident Evil” and “Warcraft” found decent success, films such as “DOOM”, “Super Mario Bros”, “Wing Commander”, and others crashed and burned hard at the box office. The reason for this was explained to me once by Director Uwe Boll who has crafted numerous titles based on video games and has suffered harsh feedback from fans and critics as a result.
Boll explained to me that many times you are only getting the name from a game and some of the characters but there is often a long list of things you cannot do from the game developers which often includes visuals, stories, and content that was used in the games as well as areas that might be used for potential sequels down the road.
So with such restrictive rules, one would ask yourself why anyone would want to take the risk. The answer like all things in Hollywood is money as game based movies already have a built in audience, and all one needs to do is successfully tap into that audience successfully and you can have a successful film and perhaps a series.
With this in mind, developer Ubisoft is looking to bring many of their games to the screen and unlike most game companies, they are taking a very hands-on approach to the process as they were active though all parts of the process from casting to the choice of Director and writers.
Their first effort is “Assassin’s Creed”, which is based on their very popular and successful series of games which combine historical settings with plenty of action and intriguing plots.
The film stars Michael Fassbender as Cal Lynch, who is about to be executed for murdering a criminal. Cal awakens to find that he has been given a new lease on life thanks to Sofia (Marion Cotillard) and her father Rikkin (Jeremy Irons), who run an institute dedicated to the elimination of violence.
Of course there is more to the story than Cal is told and he is strapped into a machine that allows him to experience the memories of one of his ancestors in Spain who was a skilled assassin. Cal ventures back in time again and again, as he attempts to locate a mysterious object that was last known to be in the possession of his ancestor, unaware that there is a much larger game underway with the fate of humanity in the balance.
The film makes a good effort as there are some nice visuals and action sequences, but unfortunately they are too few and far between and the film suffers from a stale narrative and dull characters which is surprising considering the talent that is attached to it.
This is not to say that it is a bad film, but rather it is not very memorable and is something that once seen is likely easy to forget and does not inspire enthusiasm for more which puts a crimp in the plans for the sequels. Time will tell how the film does, but it looks sadly like yet another effort that comes up lacking.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/20/assassins-creed/
Boll explained to me that many times you are only getting the name from a game and some of the characters but there is often a long list of things you cannot do from the game developers which often includes visuals, stories, and content that was used in the games as well as areas that might be used for potential sequels down the road.
So with such restrictive rules, one would ask yourself why anyone would want to take the risk. The answer like all things in Hollywood is money as game based movies already have a built in audience, and all one needs to do is successfully tap into that audience successfully and you can have a successful film and perhaps a series.
With this in mind, developer Ubisoft is looking to bring many of their games to the screen and unlike most game companies, they are taking a very hands-on approach to the process as they were active though all parts of the process from casting to the choice of Director and writers.
Their first effort is “Assassin’s Creed”, which is based on their very popular and successful series of games which combine historical settings with plenty of action and intriguing plots.
The film stars Michael Fassbender as Cal Lynch, who is about to be executed for murdering a criminal. Cal awakens to find that he has been given a new lease on life thanks to Sofia (Marion Cotillard) and her father Rikkin (Jeremy Irons), who run an institute dedicated to the elimination of violence.
Of course there is more to the story than Cal is told and he is strapped into a machine that allows him to experience the memories of one of his ancestors in Spain who was a skilled assassin. Cal ventures back in time again and again, as he attempts to locate a mysterious object that was last known to be in the possession of his ancestor, unaware that there is a much larger game underway with the fate of humanity in the balance.
The film makes a good effort as there are some nice visuals and action sequences, but unfortunately they are too few and far between and the film suffers from a stale narrative and dull characters which is surprising considering the talent that is attached to it.
This is not to say that it is a bad film, but rather it is not very memorable and is something that once seen is likely easy to forget and does not inspire enthusiasm for more which puts a crimp in the plans for the sequels. Time will tell how the film does, but it looks sadly like yet another effort that comes up lacking.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/20/assassins-creed/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Longest Yard (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Continuing the current trend of remakes, Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison production company set their sights on remaking the classic prison football film The Longest Yard. Like most projects that Sandler puts his Midas touch upon, this too has some moments of true gold.
The film stars Adam Sandler as Paul Crewe, a former NFL star quarterback who was banned from the league after allegedly throwing a game. As the film opens, Crewe is spending his time as a boy toy for a snobby socialite who is happy to capitalize on being seen with him, and parading Paul through various promotional ventures.
After reaching his breaking point, Paul lashes back by “borrowing” her car and leading several police officers on a high speed, and drunken chase through the streets. The resulting carnage is not only captured on live television, but awards Paul a three year prison term.
Upon arriving in the remote prison location, Crewe is introduced to Warden Hazen (James Cromwell), who attempts to recruit Crewe to help him with his semi-pro team. Crewe declines as he was urged to forcibly by Captain of the Guards Captain Knauer (William Fitchtner).
Paul eventually meets a helpful inmate known as Caretaker (Chris Rock), who shows him the ropes of prison life, and becomes a good friend for Crewe, who certainly needs friends, as there are more than a few guards and prisoners who lost money on the game he through years ago.
In time, Crew is forced by the Warden to organize a team of prisoners for a tune up game with the guards. In a series of comedic moments, Paul and Caretaker have to take drastic measures in order to organize a team from the prisoners including a game of basketball that is rougher than most games Paul had to face on the playing fields of the NFL.
Onboard to assist Paul is Coach Nate Scarborough (Burt Reynolds), who provides a much needed spark and wisdom to the team and as a former football great, allows Paul to unload some of the burden of getting the team and himself ready to play.
Of course there will be some subterfuge afoot, and the guards are not about to allow the prisoners any sense of hope, which all leads to a very funny series of point/counterpoint moves on the part of both teams to undermine the other.
When news of the game gets out, it is not long before ESPN 2 wants to televise the return of Paul Crewe, and the game soon becomes a national showcase. Since Warden Hazen has political aspirations, the outcome of the game in his favor becomes paramount forcing him to increase the pressure, and forces Paul to make a very important choice.
While the film follows the basic premise of the original, it has been updated to take advantage of modern humor and fine supporting cast. Many ex-NFL players ranging from Brian Bosworth, Michael Irvin, Bill Romanowski, and Bill Goldberg are in the film as well as wrestlers Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, and rapper Nelly.
While some may say the film is predictable, Sandler and the supporting cast do a great job in mixing humor with some of the more serious issues of prison life which results in a film that masterfully mixes humor, sports action, and human drama to create one of the better sports films in recent memory.
The film stars Adam Sandler as Paul Crewe, a former NFL star quarterback who was banned from the league after allegedly throwing a game. As the film opens, Crewe is spending his time as a boy toy for a snobby socialite who is happy to capitalize on being seen with him, and parading Paul through various promotional ventures.
After reaching his breaking point, Paul lashes back by “borrowing” her car and leading several police officers on a high speed, and drunken chase through the streets. The resulting carnage is not only captured on live television, but awards Paul a three year prison term.
Upon arriving in the remote prison location, Crewe is introduced to Warden Hazen (James Cromwell), who attempts to recruit Crewe to help him with his semi-pro team. Crewe declines as he was urged to forcibly by Captain of the Guards Captain Knauer (William Fitchtner).
Paul eventually meets a helpful inmate known as Caretaker (Chris Rock), who shows him the ropes of prison life, and becomes a good friend for Crewe, who certainly needs friends, as there are more than a few guards and prisoners who lost money on the game he through years ago.
In time, Crew is forced by the Warden to organize a team of prisoners for a tune up game with the guards. In a series of comedic moments, Paul and Caretaker have to take drastic measures in order to organize a team from the prisoners including a game of basketball that is rougher than most games Paul had to face on the playing fields of the NFL.
Onboard to assist Paul is Coach Nate Scarborough (Burt Reynolds), who provides a much needed spark and wisdom to the team and as a former football great, allows Paul to unload some of the burden of getting the team and himself ready to play.
Of course there will be some subterfuge afoot, and the guards are not about to allow the prisoners any sense of hope, which all leads to a very funny series of point/counterpoint moves on the part of both teams to undermine the other.
When news of the game gets out, it is not long before ESPN 2 wants to televise the return of Paul Crewe, and the game soon becomes a national showcase. Since Warden Hazen has political aspirations, the outcome of the game in his favor becomes paramount forcing him to increase the pressure, and forces Paul to make a very important choice.
While the film follows the basic premise of the original, it has been updated to take advantage of modern humor and fine supporting cast. Many ex-NFL players ranging from Brian Bosworth, Michael Irvin, Bill Romanowski, and Bill Goldberg are in the film as well as wrestlers Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, and rapper Nelly.
While some may say the film is predictable, Sandler and the supporting cast do a great job in mixing humor with some of the more serious issues of prison life which results in a film that masterfully mixes humor, sports action, and human drama to create one of the better sports films in recent memory.
Debbiereadsbook (1110 KP) rated Nothing Serious in Books
Jul 15, 2019
really kinda cute!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted the AUDIO file of this book.
Mark finally admits to himself and his partner of 9 years, that he is gay. While Rachel is devastated, she knows things have not been right between them for a long time. Mark moving out of their home seems the best thing to do, but they will remain friends. On moving day, Jamie shows up with his brother, and Mark feels an immediate attraction to the younger man. When Jamie drops a box contains some. . .personal items, Mark is mortified but Jamie finds the blush on Mark’s face adorable, and all kinds of sexy. But neither man is looking for anything serious right now, so they can just help each other out, right?
This book, right here, landed in my queue just when I needed it to, cos its far too stinking cute for its own good!
It’s a wonderfully well written tale of a newly out of the closet man, finding himself and all about his sexuality, with a willing young man who wants to help. Jamie finds Mark attractive, but he doesn’t want anything serious, last time he ran away when *serious* was talked about, so helping Mark explore all the joys of sex with a man, seems a good way to get close to Mark, while keeping his distance.
Mark has an immediate attraction to Jamie, and when Jamie suggests a friends with benefits type arrangement, Mark is keen to get to know Jamie.
What neither man expected, or wanted, was their emotions to get involved, and when they both realise this is what was happening, Mark and Jamie struggle with ways to talk to each other about it!
It’s not overly explicit, but it is all kinds of sexy! There is no real drama, save the guys finally admitting to themselves, at least, what they feel for each other.
It really is one of those books you just fall into and lose a few hours. It’s only short, some 154 pages, but it packs a hefty punch of cuteness! I listened to this, it’s just over 4 hours.
Michael Pauley narrates.
I have, in the past, found Pauley a bit hit and miss, for me, personally. Here, however, he really nails it!
Pauley’s voices for Mark and Jamie are different enough to be easily identifiable when they are talking, for all the characters, actually. His reading voice is clear and even, and I had no trouble keeping up. There were no dips in the sound to put me off, which has happened with Pauley before. It’s just where he lowers his voice, for thinking or musing, really but here, there is no dipping.
I loved how Pauley gets all the things running around in Mark and Jamie’s heads across, you genuinely sort of fall in love with them, as they fall in love with each other!
I’ve shelved it on my *kinda creeps up on ya* shelf, simply because, that’s what happens!
Love creeps up on Mark and Jamie and it was a pleasure listening to that happen.
4 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
4.5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Mark finally admits to himself and his partner of 9 years, that he is gay. While Rachel is devastated, she knows things have not been right between them for a long time. Mark moving out of their home seems the best thing to do, but they will remain friends. On moving day, Jamie shows up with his brother, and Mark feels an immediate attraction to the younger man. When Jamie drops a box contains some. . .personal items, Mark is mortified but Jamie finds the blush on Mark’s face adorable, and all kinds of sexy. But neither man is looking for anything serious right now, so they can just help each other out, right?
This book, right here, landed in my queue just when I needed it to, cos its far too stinking cute for its own good!
It’s a wonderfully well written tale of a newly out of the closet man, finding himself and all about his sexuality, with a willing young man who wants to help. Jamie finds Mark attractive, but he doesn’t want anything serious, last time he ran away when *serious* was talked about, so helping Mark explore all the joys of sex with a man, seems a good way to get close to Mark, while keeping his distance.
Mark has an immediate attraction to Jamie, and when Jamie suggests a friends with benefits type arrangement, Mark is keen to get to know Jamie.
What neither man expected, or wanted, was their emotions to get involved, and when they both realise this is what was happening, Mark and Jamie struggle with ways to talk to each other about it!
It’s not overly explicit, but it is all kinds of sexy! There is no real drama, save the guys finally admitting to themselves, at least, what they feel for each other.
It really is one of those books you just fall into and lose a few hours. It’s only short, some 154 pages, but it packs a hefty punch of cuteness! I listened to this, it’s just over 4 hours.
Michael Pauley narrates.
I have, in the past, found Pauley a bit hit and miss, for me, personally. Here, however, he really nails it!
Pauley’s voices for Mark and Jamie are different enough to be easily identifiable when they are talking, for all the characters, actually. His reading voice is clear and even, and I had no trouble keeping up. There were no dips in the sound to put me off, which has happened with Pauley before. It’s just where he lowers his voice, for thinking or musing, really but here, there is no dipping.
I loved how Pauley gets all the things running around in Mark and Jamie’s heads across, you genuinely sort of fall in love with them, as they fall in love with each other!
I’ve shelved it on my *kinda creeps up on ya* shelf, simply because, that’s what happens!
Love creeps up on Mark and Jamie and it was a pleasure listening to that happen.
4 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
4.5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Great Zoo of China in Books
Nov 13, 2019
The Chinese government have been working for years to create the ultimate tourist attraction, a very special zoo stocking with only one kind of animal - dragons. Long considered a myth the Chinese have found that they do exist and now they are ready to astound the world by showing of these amazing creatures and the fantastic zoo they have created to house them.
CJ Cameron is one of those invited to attend a special press preview tour, on behalf of National Geographic. A renowned expert on all types of reptiles she takes her brother Hamish with her as a photographer as part of a small and select group so that they can be the first to reveal the zoo to the world.
But on this special day, the dragons have their own plan and soon the Chinese are fighting for control of the dragons and the zoo they have created, with Cameron and the other group of journalists caught in the middle as the fearsome beasts rampage through the complex. Cameron must rely on her wits and experience with crocodiles and alligators to survive.
The obvious four word description of this book is 'Jurassic Park with dragons' but also superficially that does describe it's also missing the point of both books. Indeed Reilly acknowledges the Jurassic Park angle, both in an off the cuff remark by Hamish at the start of the book and also in the interview at the back. Jurassic Park has Michael Crichton in full science-as-thriller mode, pondering the latest advances (at the time) of both DNA and fossil discoveries and then giving a glimpse of how these beasts must have been when they ruled the world. The thrill comes from the dinosaurs themselves, they are the stars of the book.
In The Great Zoo of China the dragons are very much a McGuffin. Any suitably fearsome creature would have done, real, historical, mythical or completely imagined. They are simply a powerful threat to humans and agents capable of wreaking huge amounts of death and destruction, as would be expected of Reilly. The star of the show is Cameron, and to a lesser extent her brother (and a few others).
Cameron is Reilly's first lead female character in an action role (The Tournament being a completely different kind of book) and this works really well in the novel, both in terms of setup and plot and she makes a convincing heroine using her knowledge and intelligence to combat each threat.
Of course there are moments where the reader has to suspend their belief. Reilly doesn't aim for gritty realism, he goes for the big and impressive set pieces, almost certain death and narrow escapes that clearly would be impossible in the real world. His novels are very much blockbuster movies transferred to the written word, with the added bonus that the special effects come free courtesy of the reader's imagination.
As usual the plot drives at a breathtaking pace although the real story doesn't start until Reilly has taken us on a tour of his ultimate zoo and shown off his dragons before letting them off the leash.
Yes some of it is pure hokum and there are a couple of plot holes, but at the end of the day this was not written to win any literary prizes. This was written to entertain and thrill and it does that with ease.
Rated: Strong language and graphic violence (i.e. lots of people eaten by dragons)
CJ Cameron is one of those invited to attend a special press preview tour, on behalf of National Geographic. A renowned expert on all types of reptiles she takes her brother Hamish with her as a photographer as part of a small and select group so that they can be the first to reveal the zoo to the world.
But on this special day, the dragons have their own plan and soon the Chinese are fighting for control of the dragons and the zoo they have created, with Cameron and the other group of journalists caught in the middle as the fearsome beasts rampage through the complex. Cameron must rely on her wits and experience with crocodiles and alligators to survive.
The obvious four word description of this book is 'Jurassic Park with dragons' but also superficially that does describe it's also missing the point of both books. Indeed Reilly acknowledges the Jurassic Park angle, both in an off the cuff remark by Hamish at the start of the book and also in the interview at the back. Jurassic Park has Michael Crichton in full science-as-thriller mode, pondering the latest advances (at the time) of both DNA and fossil discoveries and then giving a glimpse of how these beasts must have been when they ruled the world. The thrill comes from the dinosaurs themselves, they are the stars of the book.
In The Great Zoo of China the dragons are very much a McGuffin. Any suitably fearsome creature would have done, real, historical, mythical or completely imagined. They are simply a powerful threat to humans and agents capable of wreaking huge amounts of death and destruction, as would be expected of Reilly. The star of the show is Cameron, and to a lesser extent her brother (and a few others).
Cameron is Reilly's first lead female character in an action role (The Tournament being a completely different kind of book) and this works really well in the novel, both in terms of setup and plot and she makes a convincing heroine using her knowledge and intelligence to combat each threat.
Of course there are moments where the reader has to suspend their belief. Reilly doesn't aim for gritty realism, he goes for the big and impressive set pieces, almost certain death and narrow escapes that clearly would be impossible in the real world. His novels are very much blockbuster movies transferred to the written word, with the added bonus that the special effects come free courtesy of the reader's imagination.
As usual the plot drives at a breathtaking pace although the real story doesn't start until Reilly has taken us on a tour of his ultimate zoo and shown off his dragons before letting them off the leash.
Yes some of it is pure hokum and there are a couple of plot holes, but at the end of the day this was not written to win any literary prizes. This was written to entertain and thrill and it does that with ease.
Rated: Strong language and graphic violence (i.e. lots of people eaten by dragons)