Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 1, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Let me start by saying that Godzilla Vs Kong is offensively entertaining when the two big bois are smacking the shit out of each other and generally wrecking entire cities, but whereas the first Godzilla had too little lizard action, and King of the Monsters arguably overcompensated, this time around, it's gone back to too little! The big smackdowns were fun, but they seemed done and dusted pretty quickly. It felt like they were lacking meat.
Especially when *SPOILERS* (worst kept secret in recent cinema memory) MechaGodzilla joins the fun near the end. He looks awesome, but again, it's over with pretty quick, and I wanted more dammit! Outside of the fighting, all of the scenes set in the Hollow Earth were pretty decent and interesting in their lore building.
Then there's of course the usual cast of forgettable human characters. Kaylee Hottle and Rebecca Hall are both great and hugely likable, but everyone else is just kind of there, and the plot criminally wastes Demián Bichir. I found there was once again way too much human drama, and none of it seemed at all important, and there was nowhere near enough development on offer to care one bit about them.
So what do we have then? Godzilla Vs Kong is definitely a shallow monster movie, but it's a hell of a lot of fun when it wants to be, with a fantastic music score (the reworked Godzilla theme slaps) and some truly stunning digital effects. The neon aesthetic in the Hong Kong scenes looks great, and the titular monsters look as good as ever. Better than KOTM, not as good as Skull Island, but still worth checking out for anyone who likes this particular sub genre.
On a final note - can't wait to see this properly when cinemas re-open!
Especially when *SPOILERS* (worst kept secret in recent cinema memory) MechaGodzilla joins the fun near the end. He looks awesome, but again, it's over with pretty quick, and I wanted more dammit! Outside of the fighting, all of the scenes set in the Hollow Earth were pretty decent and interesting in their lore building.
Then there's of course the usual cast of forgettable human characters. Kaylee Hottle and Rebecca Hall are both great and hugely likable, but everyone else is just kind of there, and the plot criminally wastes Demián Bichir. I found there was once again way too much human drama, and none of it seemed at all important, and there was nowhere near enough development on offer to care one bit about them.
So what do we have then? Godzilla Vs Kong is definitely a shallow monster movie, but it's a hell of a lot of fun when it wants to be, with a fantastic music score (the reworked Godzilla theme slaps) and some truly stunning digital effects. The neon aesthetic in the Hong Kong scenes looks great, and the titular monsters look as good as ever. Better than KOTM, not as good as Skull Island, but still worth checking out for anyone who likes this particular sub genre.
On a final note - can't wait to see this properly when cinemas re-open!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Project Power (2020) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
If you're looking for a straight down the middle-of-the-road action flick, then you're in the right place.
Project Power has a decent concept - a new street drug that gives the user a random superpower for 5 minutes is running rampant in New Orleans. Police officer Frank (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is working hard to shut the whole thing down, whilst Art (Jamie Foxx) has a more personal vendetta against the manufacturers of the drug, and will stop at nothing to get to those at the top.
Now, Jamie Foxx is a damn fine actor, and here is no exception. He carries the film along side Dominique Fishback (a teenage dealer who sort of becomes his sidekick). The two of them share some great chemistry, and gave the film a bit of heart.
The usually reliable Gordon-Levitt however seems so uninterested in what he's doing. Honestly looks and sounds like he just doesn't give a fuck, which is a shame - he's usually a highlight for me!
The CGI in this movie is weird - sometimes it looks pretty decent, other times it looks horrible.
The majority of the final action sequence - good. The big scary bearded guy knocking down thick steel doors - bad.
The woman who turns icy - fairly good. The guy who turns into a big angry monster thing - really really bad, like the first Harry Potter troll bad.
Some of the action is entertaining, but it's nothing we haven't seen before from the up and down X-Men franchise.
Project Power isn't a bad film - it's watchable for the most part, it's just a little underwhelming, and I have no doubt I'll have forgotten it in a few days.
Project Power has a decent concept - a new street drug that gives the user a random superpower for 5 minutes is running rampant in New Orleans. Police officer Frank (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is working hard to shut the whole thing down, whilst Art (Jamie Foxx) has a more personal vendetta against the manufacturers of the drug, and will stop at nothing to get to those at the top.
Now, Jamie Foxx is a damn fine actor, and here is no exception. He carries the film along side Dominique Fishback (a teenage dealer who sort of becomes his sidekick). The two of them share some great chemistry, and gave the film a bit of heart.
The usually reliable Gordon-Levitt however seems so uninterested in what he's doing. Honestly looks and sounds like he just doesn't give a fuck, which is a shame - he's usually a highlight for me!
The CGI in this movie is weird - sometimes it looks pretty decent, other times it looks horrible.
The majority of the final action sequence - good. The big scary bearded guy knocking down thick steel doors - bad.
The woman who turns icy - fairly good. The guy who turns into a big angry monster thing - really really bad, like the first Harry Potter troll bad.
Some of the action is entertaining, but it's nothing we haven't seen before from the up and down X-Men franchise.
Project Power isn't a bad film - it's watchable for the most part, it's just a little underwhelming, and I have no doubt I'll have forgotten it in a few days.
Trust Me, I'm a Superhero
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
In Trust Me, I'm a Superhero, you’re a rag-tag group of super-ish heroes who have been left to...
Pacific Rim
Games
App
What the press is saying about Pacific Rim: **ARCADE SUSHI: "Robots fighting monsters is a pretty...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
The Mexican Legend
The Curse of La Llorona is a 2019 supernatura/horror movie directed by Michael Chaves and written by Mikki Daughtry and Tobias Iaconis. The film was produced by James Wan through his Atomic Monster Productions. It is based on the Mexican folklore, is Chaves directorial debut, and is set in "The Conjuring" Universe. It stars Linda Cardellini, Raymond Cruz, and Patricia Velasquez.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020 (Updated Oct 28, 2020)
The Vampire Among Them
Nosferatu The Vampyre- is a very slow movie. Very slow, for 90% of the time nothing happens and when some does happens its only for three minutes max. I always wanted to watch the oringal, never got a chance to, hopefully soon i will. As for this remake its so-so.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight (2020) in Movies
Oct 29, 2020 (Updated Oct 29, 2020)
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a starting note, please please please watch this film with the audio set to Polish with subtitles. Netflix started playing the dubbed version for me, and I managed about 30 seconds worth of cheesy American voice over before I couldn't stand it any longer. It's 100% more natural the way it was intended.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight is absolutely and wholly not original - it cherry picks parts from other horror movies and shamelessly imitates them, and do you know what? I don't hate it.
The whole movie is shot nicely, especially taking into account it's low budget.
Among these moments we have:
- A sleeping bag kill ripped straight out of Friday the 13th Part VII.
- A character explaining the rules of horror movies just like in Scream.
- A character tied to a chair and ballgagged a la Hostel.
- Big cannabalistic, dungaree wearing woodsman straight out of Wrong Turn.
- A cut-in-half-vertically-with-an-axe kill from Wrong Turn 2, using the same damn camera angle and everything.
- A character going through a woodchipper like in Tucker and Dale vs Evil
- An under the bed shot of someone being stabbed repeatedly with a machete, just like in Freddy vs Jason.
So yeah, absolutely zero points for originality, but props for executing it all to a satisfactory degree. A less cynical person could choose to look at it as a horror love letter, rather than a rip off.
Some of the camerawork is genuinely fantastic. There are multiple shots during the runtime that are quite captivating, and took me out of the standard slasher situation now and again.
The make up effects applied to the monster men are pretty good, and the movie delivers some pretty brutal gore. It's hard to fully tell, but it looked like a fair chunk of it was practical, which is always a bonus.
The characters are likable as well, especially the badass final girl Zodiac, played awesomely by Julia Wieniawa-Narkiewicz.
The film also touches on some social issues, such as the perception of homosexuality in Poland. It's a shame it's not explored further than a few lines of dialogue.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods may be down right predictable, but if you can leave any cynicism at the door, then it's a pretty fun slasher to pass the time.
As my first foray into Polish horror, I found it mostly enjoyable. Worth checking out for any horror fans.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight is absolutely and wholly not original - it cherry picks parts from other horror movies and shamelessly imitates them, and do you know what? I don't hate it.
The whole movie is shot nicely, especially taking into account it's low budget.
Among these moments we have:
- A sleeping bag kill ripped straight out of Friday the 13th Part VII.
- A character explaining the rules of horror movies just like in Scream.
- A character tied to a chair and ballgagged a la Hostel.
- Big cannabalistic, dungaree wearing woodsman straight out of Wrong Turn.
- A cut-in-half-vertically-with-an-axe kill from Wrong Turn 2, using the same damn camera angle and everything.
- A character going through a woodchipper like in Tucker and Dale vs Evil
- An under the bed shot of someone being stabbed repeatedly with a machete, just like in Freddy vs Jason.
So yeah, absolutely zero points for originality, but props for executing it all to a satisfactory degree. A less cynical person could choose to look at it as a horror love letter, rather than a rip off.
Some of the camerawork is genuinely fantastic. There are multiple shots during the runtime that are quite captivating, and took me out of the standard slasher situation now and again.
The make up effects applied to the monster men are pretty good, and the movie delivers some pretty brutal gore. It's hard to fully tell, but it looked like a fair chunk of it was practical, which is always a bonus.
The characters are likable as well, especially the badass final girl Zodiac, played awesomely by Julia Wieniawa-Narkiewicz.
The film also touches on some social issues, such as the perception of homosexuality in Poland. It's a shame it's not explored further than a few lines of dialogue.
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods may be down right predictable, but if you can leave any cynicism at the door, then it's a pretty fun slasher to pass the time.
As my first foray into Polish horror, I found it mostly enjoyable. Worth checking out for any horror fans.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Totally Onix-pected
Before we begin, I must apologise for the bad pun, but if any franchise deserves a pun for their first live-action movie adaptation, it’s Pokémon. Growing up in 90s Britain, Pokémon was absolutely everywhere. You couldn’t turn a street corner without seeing Pikachu and his sidekick Ash (or should that be the other way around) emblazoned across every toy shop window or on every bus. It was a true phenomenon that took the world by storm like nothing else.
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Monsters vs. Aliens (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Ushering in what they hope will be a bold new era in 3D movie making, Dreamworks has set a very high standard with “Monsters Vs Aliens”. By combining science fiction and monster films, pop culture references, a strong cast, and cutting edge 3D technology, the film is likely to score big with audiences of all ages.
The story involves a bride to be named Susan (Reese Witherspoon), who is struck by a meteor shortly before her nuptials to local anchorman Derek (Paul Rudd). Before she can say “I do” Susan has an amazing growth spurt that soon has her towering over the church and eventually captured and subdued by a cadre of soldiers.
Susan is targeted as a monster by the government and awakens in a strange cell with fellow detainees B.O.B. (Seth Rogan), The Missing Link (Will Arnett), Dr. Cockroach PHD (Hugh Laurie), and Insectasaurus. While shocked and horrified to be in the company of monsters, Susan remains focused on getting back to normal and marrying Derek.
At the same time, an alien probe has arrived on earth and after a first contact effort by President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert), goes very wrong, the military soon realizes they are overmatched, requiring drastic efforts to save the planet.Enter General W.R. Monger, (Kiefer Sutherland), who reveals his captive monsters to the President and his staff with the idea that the only way to save the earth is to turn the monsters loose on the alien threat.
With a promise of freedom, the monsters and Susan (now dubbed Ginormica) seek to save San Francisco from the aliens. However, a greater threat is facing the earth from the alien Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), who has designs on Earth and the power Susan possesses, and will stop at nothing to get it. What ensues is a funny adventure that thanks to the stunning 3D visuals is one of the more enjoyable family films in years.
The amazing 3D effects truly allow for the audience to become immersed in the film rather than just occasionally entertained with a few simple gimmicks. The film has plenty to offer children, but parents should note that the film is PG rated due to some clever quips designed for older viewers.The nearly two hour film moves at a brisk pace, ensuring the monsters do not outstay their welcome, but it may still be a bit long for very young viewers. There are dimensions of the characters that I hope get expanded upon in future films, but I do understand that with such lavish visuals, action, not so much character development, takes centerstage, and the film certainly delivers adventure in spades.
The animation is first rate, as is the great ensemble cast, all of which combine to make “Monsters Vs Aliens” a fun viewing experience for the entire family, and a grand new direction for animation.While viewers wishing to see the film in 3D can expect to pay a higher ticket price, I strongly recommend the 3D version to truly enjoy the film and the breathtaking achievements in animation..
The story involves a bride to be named Susan (Reese Witherspoon), who is struck by a meteor shortly before her nuptials to local anchorman Derek (Paul Rudd). Before she can say “I do” Susan has an amazing growth spurt that soon has her towering over the church and eventually captured and subdued by a cadre of soldiers.
Susan is targeted as a monster by the government and awakens in a strange cell with fellow detainees B.O.B. (Seth Rogan), The Missing Link (Will Arnett), Dr. Cockroach PHD (Hugh Laurie), and Insectasaurus. While shocked and horrified to be in the company of monsters, Susan remains focused on getting back to normal and marrying Derek.
At the same time, an alien probe has arrived on earth and after a first contact effort by President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert), goes very wrong, the military soon realizes they are overmatched, requiring drastic efforts to save the planet.Enter General W.R. Monger, (Kiefer Sutherland), who reveals his captive monsters to the President and his staff with the idea that the only way to save the earth is to turn the monsters loose on the alien threat.
With a promise of freedom, the monsters and Susan (now dubbed Ginormica) seek to save San Francisco from the aliens. However, a greater threat is facing the earth from the alien Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), who has designs on Earth and the power Susan possesses, and will stop at nothing to get it. What ensues is a funny adventure that thanks to the stunning 3D visuals is one of the more enjoyable family films in years.
The amazing 3D effects truly allow for the audience to become immersed in the film rather than just occasionally entertained with a few simple gimmicks. The film has plenty to offer children, but parents should note that the film is PG rated due to some clever quips designed for older viewers.The nearly two hour film moves at a brisk pace, ensuring the monsters do not outstay their welcome, but it may still be a bit long for very young viewers. There are dimensions of the characters that I hope get expanded upon in future films, but I do understand that with such lavish visuals, action, not so much character development, takes centerstage, and the film certainly delivers adventure in spades.
The animation is first rate, as is the great ensemble cast, all of which combine to make “Monsters Vs Aliens” a fun viewing experience for the entire family, and a grand new direction for animation.While viewers wishing to see the film in 3D can expect to pay a higher ticket price, I strongly recommend the 3D version to truly enjoy the film and the breathtaking achievements in animation..
Luke (12 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 3, 2017
Great comedic writing from Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd (4 more)
Imaginative ghost designs
Great chemistry between the stars
That iconic theme song from Ray Parker Jr.
Mostly everything is explained through science
Some special effects haven't aged all that well (2 more)
Some younger viewers may be frightened by some imagery- parental discretion is advised
Some sexual references.
Ghostbusters is a comedy horror film from 1984 directed by Ivan Reitman and written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis who also star in the film. The film follows three ex-university professors as they go into business to catch ghosts. This was Ghost Hunters before it was cool. One of their first clients, Dana Barrett played by Sigourney Weaver, hires Dr. Peter Venkman, played by Bill Murray, to investigate a haunting in her apartment. The chemistry between Murray and Weaver here is great. Murray is clearly a womanizer and wants nothing more than to go out with Weaver. Weaver plays hard to get of course. The monster designs are very imaginative for the time, some of them being a little bit creepy. When the movie uses practical effects, it looks really good. But when it instead goes for other special effects, it really breaks the illusion that these monsters are real. You can really see it with the demon dogs if you know what to look for. There is one scene in which Dana Barrett is possessed by the demon known as Zuul where she tries to seduce Peter Venkman, but it never goes anywhere. There's another scene where a demon hand comes out of a lounge chair that Dana is sitting in. And it literally cops a feel. No joke. Go watch that scene. It really looks like Dana is getting molested there. I don't know why that is in there but there it is. Be warned. Some scenes may frighten younger children. Parents be advised. But nonetheless, Ghostbusters is still a classic to watch during Halloween. Cause I ain't afraid of no ghost.