Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Hornery Exit.
As a big fan of the original – a staple of many Bank Holiday afternoons in my youth – I was prepared to be sniffy about this remake and came to the film on my high-horse (I left that tied to the rail outside the cinema by the way). But I was surprised to have my expectations reset.
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Marvel just about manages to pull it off
With a touching tribute to the amazing Stan Lee, it’s clear from the outset that Captain Marvel isn’t going to be your ordinary MCU instalment, or so Marvel Studios would have us believe. The 21stfilm, yes, I can’t quite believe it either, in the long-standing Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain Marvel is the first superhero film from the studio to focus primarily on a single female lead.
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Iron Lady (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Meryl Streep certainly has an impressive roster of films under her belt. She’s reduced Anne Hathaway to tears in The Devil Wears Prada, she’s played the role of struggling hotelier in the all singing, all dancing Mamma Mia and has racked up an astonishing 16 Oscar nominations for films like Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie’s Choice. However, here, she perhaps takes on her biggest role to date portraying arguably the most controversial figure in British politics; Baroness Thatcher. Can she pull it off? Did you really need to ask?
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated After Earth (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
M Night Shyamalan is a director of two-halves. On one hand we have the man who gave us the amazing blockbusters Signs, Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense, which were met with commercial and critical success; and on the other hand we have the man who tortured the cinema-going public with abominations like The Lady in the Water, The Village and perhaps one of the worst films of all time, The Happening.
However, despite his recent offerings, the studios are allowing him to have another go, teaming up with Will Smith and his son Jaden in the sci-fi thriller After Earth. But can it mark a return to form for the struggling director?
After Earth begins with Jaden Smith getting the audience up to speed with exactly what has happened before the film began. The human race has had to leave the planet to ensure the continuation of our species after purging all the resources Earth had to offer.
Their new home, Nova Prime is a hostile environment, not unlike Mars in appearance with its rugged, red rocks and sweeping planes of space sand. After years of peace, an alien race intends to conquer their new home and enslave mankind with their secret weapons, the Ursas. These predatory beasts are technically blind, but sense fear and because of their grotesque appearance, it is easy to see why they can kill so quickly. The only way to survive an Ursa attack is to ‘ghost’, to not secrete the fear they need to ‘see’ you.
Jaden Smith plays Kitai, a young cadet who is on a training regime to become a ranger like his father Cypher (Will Smith). It’s fair to say they have a fraught relationship which is in part to Cypher being away for long periods of time defending Nova Prime, and partly because of the death of his daughter at the hands of an Ursa; something which Kitai blames himself for.
In an attempt to bond the pair together, their mother Faia, played briefly by Sophie Okonedo, convinces Cypher to take Kitai on his last voyage before retirement. On their journey their ship is severely damaged by an asteroid field and subsequently crashes on an inhospitable planet; no prizes for guessing where.
After discovering that his father has two badly broken legs, Kitai realises, with a little help from his dad, that he must travel 100km through Earth’s once pleasant land to retrieve an emergency signalling beacon – otherwise, they will die.
What ensues is a formulaic father, son bonding story mixed in with some mildly entertaining action pieces which try and get the heart racing. The problem with the film as a whole is that we, as the audience, never really sense any danger. Despite Kitai being attacked by a troop of baboons, poisoned by a leech and almost eviscerated by a group of big cats, we never think anything too awful is going to happen, simply because the film would be pointless if the duo weren’t rescued in the end.
Side-lining one of Hollywood’s most loved actors with two broken legs was a brave move by Shyamalan and it is done with a small degree of success. Smith senior suffers as a result of being bed-ridden for the duration and doesn’t perform as well as some of his other recent roles; I am Legend and I, Robot being prime examples. This isn’t to say that he isn’t engaging, as he always is, but it falls well short of his best characterisations.
The major fault with After Earth is in its leading man. Jaden Smith is a good actor, but he is not good enough to carry an entire film for over 90 minutes, we see him shout, pout and look into the camera longingly, but there is little else here and that’s a shame. He lacks the charisma and the charm that has made his father such a joy to watch over the years.
Special effects are a mixed bag, in some sequences, like the sweeping shots of Nova Prime and the cities which are dotted across its landscape, the effect is very good and the 4k resolution that Shyamalan has filmed in makes everything look crisp and sharp. However, the CGI animals, especially the big cats and the Ursa alien look a little like something pre-2000 and are disappointing.
Overall, After Earth is not as bad as the reviews and its dire box-office performance would suggest, and comparing it to Battlefield Earth is downright ridiculous. It is by no means a masterpiece, but as a slice of cheesy, sentimental popcorn entertainment it succeeds and does so well. Will Smith and his son Jaden are good, but not outstanding and the special effects look rushed – but this is offset by a wonderful soundtrack and a surprisingly deep and meaningful story. It may not be the career revival that Shyamalan was hoping for, but if this is the last film he directs he can at least be content. Set your expectations low and you’ll come out pleasantly surprised.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/08/after-earth-review-2013/
However, despite his recent offerings, the studios are allowing him to have another go, teaming up with Will Smith and his son Jaden in the sci-fi thriller After Earth. But can it mark a return to form for the struggling director?
After Earth begins with Jaden Smith getting the audience up to speed with exactly what has happened before the film began. The human race has had to leave the planet to ensure the continuation of our species after purging all the resources Earth had to offer.
Their new home, Nova Prime is a hostile environment, not unlike Mars in appearance with its rugged, red rocks and sweeping planes of space sand. After years of peace, an alien race intends to conquer their new home and enslave mankind with their secret weapons, the Ursas. These predatory beasts are technically blind, but sense fear and because of their grotesque appearance, it is easy to see why they can kill so quickly. The only way to survive an Ursa attack is to ‘ghost’, to not secrete the fear they need to ‘see’ you.
Jaden Smith plays Kitai, a young cadet who is on a training regime to become a ranger like his father Cypher (Will Smith). It’s fair to say they have a fraught relationship which is in part to Cypher being away for long periods of time defending Nova Prime, and partly because of the death of his daughter at the hands of an Ursa; something which Kitai blames himself for.
In an attempt to bond the pair together, their mother Faia, played briefly by Sophie Okonedo, convinces Cypher to take Kitai on his last voyage before retirement. On their journey their ship is severely damaged by an asteroid field and subsequently crashes on an inhospitable planet; no prizes for guessing where.
After discovering that his father has two badly broken legs, Kitai realises, with a little help from his dad, that he must travel 100km through Earth’s once pleasant land to retrieve an emergency signalling beacon – otherwise, they will die.
What ensues is a formulaic father, son bonding story mixed in with some mildly entertaining action pieces which try and get the heart racing. The problem with the film as a whole is that we, as the audience, never really sense any danger. Despite Kitai being attacked by a troop of baboons, poisoned by a leech and almost eviscerated by a group of big cats, we never think anything too awful is going to happen, simply because the film would be pointless if the duo weren’t rescued in the end.
Side-lining one of Hollywood’s most loved actors with two broken legs was a brave move by Shyamalan and it is done with a small degree of success. Smith senior suffers as a result of being bed-ridden for the duration and doesn’t perform as well as some of his other recent roles; I am Legend and I, Robot being prime examples. This isn’t to say that he isn’t engaging, as he always is, but it falls well short of his best characterisations.
The major fault with After Earth is in its leading man. Jaden Smith is a good actor, but he is not good enough to carry an entire film for over 90 minutes, we see him shout, pout and look into the camera longingly, but there is little else here and that’s a shame. He lacks the charisma and the charm that has made his father such a joy to watch over the years.
Special effects are a mixed bag, in some sequences, like the sweeping shots of Nova Prime and the cities which are dotted across its landscape, the effect is very good and the 4k resolution that Shyamalan has filmed in makes everything look crisp and sharp. However, the CGI animals, especially the big cats and the Ursa alien look a little like something pre-2000 and are disappointing.
Overall, After Earth is not as bad as the reviews and its dire box-office performance would suggest, and comparing it to Battlefield Earth is downright ridiculous. It is by no means a masterpiece, but as a slice of cheesy, sentimental popcorn entertainment it succeeds and does so well. Will Smith and his son Jaden are good, but not outstanding and the special effects look rushed – but this is offset by a wonderful soundtrack and a surprisingly deep and meaningful story. It may not be the career revival that Shyamalan was hoping for, but if this is the last film he directs he can at least be content. Set your expectations low and you’ll come out pleasantly surprised.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/08/after-earth-review-2013/
Kyera (8 KP) rated The Circle in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Even a day after finishing The Circle by Dave Eggers, Im still not quite sure how I feel about the book. The story follows Mae, a young twenty-something year old as she gets a job at the Circle the biggest tech company around. Theyve essentially outperformed, purchased and influenced their competition like Google, Facebook and Apple and have become dominant in the field. The plot progresses as the company invents more and more ways to progress technology and access to knowledge.
I didnt find any of the characters in this book particularly likable. In fact, I really didnt connect with or like the main character at all. She seemed to have no backbone, became very defensive and accusatory with no motivation, meddled in other peoples private affairs, and made some terrible decisions in her life. Her choices throughout the book were very frustrating, as she succumbed to bad decision making, alienated her family, and pushed away her true friends.
For me, this book was very stress-inducing. Just Maes job in customer service became overwhelming very quickly. When she was introduced to her job, her desk and her coworkers, it was explained to her that she would have multiple points of contact that she must keep her focus on. Her first screen was for her work and interaction with customers, where she would respond to their queries and assist them with problems. The second screen was for inter-office communication (which was constant) between her and her colleagues. That in and of itself was overwhelming, but she was also told that she had to pay attention to her phone on her desk and the health monitor/smart watch type device on her wrist. As if that wasnt enough, over time the number of screens that were installed at her desk multiplied and became completely overwhelming to me as the reader. Just attempting to imagine having to deal with that was stressing me out a little.
As the book progressed, it reminded me more and more of 1984 and Big Brother. One of the first things that horrified me was the installation of cameras across the globe, although it was touted as a way to disseminate information and curb crime I could only think of the implications. What happened to personal privacy? As an introvert, the ideas put forth in the Circle were incredibly hard to accept. Circle membership grew, voting became mandatory and privacy all but disappeared. What makes the book even more hard-hitting and thought provoking is that the ideas in the book are the way that the world is currently progressing.
The book and its ideas definitely force you to think about the state of the world today, our reliance on technology and willingness to put so much information about ourselves out there in the world. Just as a slight spoiler, in the next paragraph I will discuss my feelings about the conclusion of the book. If you dont want to know whether they followed the path of Big Brother or rebelled, please just skip that paragraph and continue reading after that.
<spoiler>The entire book, I was expecting there to be a lesson about the overwhelming power of technology, our loss of privacy and the worlds discovery that this is not the way to live. There is a line that perhaps we should not cross and continuing on the path the Circle is taking is crossing that line. Unfortunately, that is not what happened in the book. In the end, the Circles way of being with no privacy, a world monopoly and forced participation in everything was accepted, wholeheartedly. I was baffled and so I have no idea how I feel about the book. It seemed like it was a technological horror, warning humanity but the acceptance at the end makes me question the purpose of the book. </spoiler>
One of my problems with the book may just stem from the issue of converting the book into eBook form and not formatting it well. As I have never paged through a physical copy, I dont know what the book is supposed to look like but beyond basic paragraph formatting there was no delineation between sections in my copy. Scene changes would occur where the day, location or character being interacted with would change and it caused a split-second of confusion. There were no chapters and no page breaks. The only formatting I had in my copy where the headings for book 1, 2, and 3. Again, this may just be my copy and if so I dont want to fault the book but if the physical book is like that, then I take issue with the formatting. It doesnt look professional and affects the readability of the book.
This book definitely forces you to think and may cause a few nightmares depending upon how you feel about technology, just be warned. Overall, I would recommend this book but to adult readers as it is not a young adult book.
I didnt find any of the characters in this book particularly likable. In fact, I really didnt connect with or like the main character at all. She seemed to have no backbone, became very defensive and accusatory with no motivation, meddled in other peoples private affairs, and made some terrible decisions in her life. Her choices throughout the book were very frustrating, as she succumbed to bad decision making, alienated her family, and pushed away her true friends.
For me, this book was very stress-inducing. Just Maes job in customer service became overwhelming very quickly. When she was introduced to her job, her desk and her coworkers, it was explained to her that she would have multiple points of contact that she must keep her focus on. Her first screen was for her work and interaction with customers, where she would respond to their queries and assist them with problems. The second screen was for inter-office communication (which was constant) between her and her colleagues. That in and of itself was overwhelming, but she was also told that she had to pay attention to her phone on her desk and the health monitor/smart watch type device on her wrist. As if that wasnt enough, over time the number of screens that were installed at her desk multiplied and became completely overwhelming to me as the reader. Just attempting to imagine having to deal with that was stressing me out a little.
As the book progressed, it reminded me more and more of 1984 and Big Brother. One of the first things that horrified me was the installation of cameras across the globe, although it was touted as a way to disseminate information and curb crime I could only think of the implications. What happened to personal privacy? As an introvert, the ideas put forth in the Circle were incredibly hard to accept. Circle membership grew, voting became mandatory and privacy all but disappeared. What makes the book even more hard-hitting and thought provoking is that the ideas in the book are the way that the world is currently progressing.
The book and its ideas definitely force you to think about the state of the world today, our reliance on technology and willingness to put so much information about ourselves out there in the world. Just as a slight spoiler, in the next paragraph I will discuss my feelings about the conclusion of the book. If you dont want to know whether they followed the path of Big Brother or rebelled, please just skip that paragraph and continue reading after that.
<spoiler>The entire book, I was expecting there to be a lesson about the overwhelming power of technology, our loss of privacy and the worlds discovery that this is not the way to live. There is a line that perhaps we should not cross and continuing on the path the Circle is taking is crossing that line. Unfortunately, that is not what happened in the book. In the end, the Circles way of being with no privacy, a world monopoly and forced participation in everything was accepted, wholeheartedly. I was baffled and so I have no idea how I feel about the book. It seemed like it was a technological horror, warning humanity but the acceptance at the end makes me question the purpose of the book. </spoiler>
One of my problems with the book may just stem from the issue of converting the book into eBook form and not formatting it well. As I have never paged through a physical copy, I dont know what the book is supposed to look like but beyond basic paragraph formatting there was no delineation between sections in my copy. Scene changes would occur where the day, location or character being interacted with would change and it caused a split-second of confusion. There were no chapters and no page breaks. The only formatting I had in my copy where the headings for book 1, 2, and 3. Again, this may just be my copy and if so I dont want to fault the book but if the physical book is like that, then I take issue with the formatting. It doesnt look professional and affects the readability of the book.
This book definitely forces you to think and may cause a few nightmares depending upon how you feel about technology, just be warned. Overall, I would recommend this book but to adult readers as it is not a young adult book.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
Mothergamer (1536 KP) rated BEYOND: Two Souls in Video Games
Jun 21, 2019
I had never played Beyond: Two Souls and I got the game for free with my Playstation Plus subscription. I decided to check it out. Right from the start of the game, the story hooks you in with an introduction to a young woman (played by Ellen Page) sitting in a sheriff's office looking grim. This is where Beyond really begins. It's an intriguing way to start a story and I found myself wanting to know who this young woman was and how she got to this point.
As the story progresses, you learn that the young woman's name is Jodie and she has a psychic connection with an entity known as Aiden. Jodie can communicate and work with Aiden to use telepathic abilities such as moving objects or possessing people's minds. This is where the game has time jumps between Jodie's childhood, her teen years, and adulthood. It seems the story does this on purpose, showing that memories in Jodie's mind are jumbled so there are frequent time jumps back and forth. It can be a little confusing at times, but it seems to meld well with the story.
You can adjust the difficulty settings in the game from easy to normal depending on your play style which is nice. Since this was my first time playing the game, I went with the easy setting so I could get a feel for things and just enjoy the story. As the story switched back and forth in the timeline you get to see the things Jodie went through as a kid with Aiden and how she came to be with the lead scientist of the paranormal department, Nathan who is played by Willem Dafoe. Throughout Jodie's childhood, Nathan is a constant presence and a bit of a father figure to her as they run tests to see how strong Jodie's abilities are as well as testing her connection to Aiden. This is where the game introduces you to the controls and the quick action button events.
You can also switch views between Jodie and Aiden. There are many points in the game where Jodie relies on Aiden for certain parts of the story in order to move objects, possess people, or fight enemies. This is where the quick action controls come in. Honestly, I did not like the quick action controls because for me it detracted from the story immersion and often felt like a chore to do especially if I missed it the first time. There were times where it was vital that I not miss the quick action moment and it could be very frustrating when I did miss it.
The aspect of Jodie and Aiden learning and growing together as the story progresses is definitely interesting. There are great emotional moments in the story with Jodie as she is trying to navigate what it means to be herself while trying to adjust and separate herself from Aiden. You also get to see how her relationships change with people like Nathan as she grows. The time skips through the fifteen year span of Jodie's life fill in some of the gaps in the story, but there are times where it feels a bit muddled because in some aspects it takes away the player control and just takes you along for the ride. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because Ellen Page does a phenomenal job as Jodie and I found myself caring a lot about this character and wanting to protect her from all the people who were trying to control or manipulate her.
There are multiple endings to Beyond depending on choices you make as Jodie, but it doesn't always seem like there are a ton of choices because you are basically there to see Jodie's story unfold and see how she came to be where she is. The voice acting and motion capture of the game is incredible and everyone did a fantastic job telling this story. That's not to say Beyond isn't flawed. As I said before, I did not like the quick action event sequences. I felt this detracted from the story a bit. I also felt there were a couple of writing choices that could have been done better and in a more thoughtful manner such as a troubling scene in one of Jodie's teen years memories. I also felt the ending could have been stronger because it took an odd cliffhanger turn. That being said, I did enjoy Beyond: Two Souls because of the great casting and the story. Ellen Page as Jodie is the real deal bringing a great sincerity to the character that made me care genuinely about Jodie and wanting her to be okay. That is the sign of some good storytelling. Beyond is definitely worth playing through at least once to see the story unfold through Jodie's eyes.
As the story progresses, you learn that the young woman's name is Jodie and she has a psychic connection with an entity known as Aiden. Jodie can communicate and work with Aiden to use telepathic abilities such as moving objects or possessing people's minds. This is where the game has time jumps between Jodie's childhood, her teen years, and adulthood. It seems the story does this on purpose, showing that memories in Jodie's mind are jumbled so there are frequent time jumps back and forth. It can be a little confusing at times, but it seems to meld well with the story.
You can adjust the difficulty settings in the game from easy to normal depending on your play style which is nice. Since this was my first time playing the game, I went with the easy setting so I could get a feel for things and just enjoy the story. As the story switched back and forth in the timeline you get to see the things Jodie went through as a kid with Aiden and how she came to be with the lead scientist of the paranormal department, Nathan who is played by Willem Dafoe. Throughout Jodie's childhood, Nathan is a constant presence and a bit of a father figure to her as they run tests to see how strong Jodie's abilities are as well as testing her connection to Aiden. This is where the game introduces you to the controls and the quick action button events.
You can also switch views between Jodie and Aiden. There are many points in the game where Jodie relies on Aiden for certain parts of the story in order to move objects, possess people, or fight enemies. This is where the quick action controls come in. Honestly, I did not like the quick action controls because for me it detracted from the story immersion and often felt like a chore to do especially if I missed it the first time. There were times where it was vital that I not miss the quick action moment and it could be very frustrating when I did miss it.
The aspect of Jodie and Aiden learning and growing together as the story progresses is definitely interesting. There are great emotional moments in the story with Jodie as she is trying to navigate what it means to be herself while trying to adjust and separate herself from Aiden. You also get to see how her relationships change with people like Nathan as she grows. The time skips through the fifteen year span of Jodie's life fill in some of the gaps in the story, but there are times where it feels a bit muddled because in some aspects it takes away the player control and just takes you along for the ride. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because Ellen Page does a phenomenal job as Jodie and I found myself caring a lot about this character and wanting to protect her from all the people who were trying to control or manipulate her.
There are multiple endings to Beyond depending on choices you make as Jodie, but it doesn't always seem like there are a ton of choices because you are basically there to see Jodie's story unfold and see how she came to be where she is. The voice acting and motion capture of the game is incredible and everyone did a fantastic job telling this story. That's not to say Beyond isn't flawed. As I said before, I did not like the quick action event sequences. I felt this detracted from the story a bit. I also felt there were a couple of writing choices that could have been done better and in a more thoughtful manner such as a troubling scene in one of Jodie's teen years memories. I also felt the ending could have been stronger because it took an odd cliffhanger turn. That being said, I did enjoy Beyond: Two Souls because of the great casting and the story. Ellen Page as Jodie is the real deal bringing a great sincerity to the character that made me care genuinely about Jodie and wanting her to be okay. That is the sign of some good storytelling. Beyond is definitely worth playing through at least once to see the story unfold through Jodie's eyes.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019 (Updated Jul 3, 2019)
"None of that matters now, you're my friend"
After the worldwide success of the first two "Spider-Man" films, director Sam Raimi and the cast decided to take a break. The first two had been shot almost back-to-back, with very little "down time" in between. So, in late 2005, about 18 months after the release of "Spider-Man 2", Raimi began fleshing out ideas for a third storyline. For this chapter, the director wanted to teach Peter Parker about forgiveness; to do so, he'd need a villain with personal ties. The problem was that, besides the Osborn family and Otto Octavius, no villains in the comics had such a huge connection. Raimi didn't want to contradict a well-established character, so he sought one out whose backstory had never been fully realized: the Sandman, whose literary incarnation was little more than a random thief. Connecting the character to the death of Ben Parker gave Peter a huge obstacle that needed facing. Wrapping up Harry Osborn's story was also necessary, since Marvel wasn't sure if James Franco would agree to more chapters in the franchise. The addition of Gwen Stacy (who in the comics, was Peter's first love) was done mainly for the fans, and to create a conflicted love triangle with Peter & Mary Jane. Satisfied with his concept, Raimi told his plans to Marvel Comics; the result was less than expected.
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?