Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Terrible film making at it's best
Michael Bay’s Transformers series has received a huge amount of criticism since the first film was released back in 2007, some of it fair, and some of it not. Now, 7 years on and three films later, Bay returns to the helm of one of the biggest movie franchises of all time with Transformers: Age of Extinction, but can it silence his critics?
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
What would you do if you discovered you had superpowers in adolescence? How would you juggle being a fighter for justice and try to have a normal teenage experience? Spider-Man: Homecoming offers a more realistic look at how this would take place. Where the previous series of films never seemed to make that connection of balancing one’s youth and the varied problems that come during that period with what it means to be a superhero. The Tobey Maguire and the forgettable Andrew Garfield portrayals relied on a more comic book look and storylines to bring audiences to the theaters. This is not the case for the newest iteration. The film is not presumptuous or pretentious in its approach.
Tom Holland returns to the Marvel Universe as Spider-Man after being introduced in Captain America: Civil War. In this version, the audience is not subjected to an origin story to carry the bulk of the film. Instead, it addresses the issues of Spider-Man’s genesis in the previous film so that audiences can arrive in their seats ready to watch the action unfold. From the first opening frames of the films, we bear witness to the development of this story which builds off of The Avengers as we are introduced to Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), owner of a salvage company tasked with cleaning up the city. Upon his operation, he and his crew begin to discover the power of the alien equipment that they begin to sell on the black market. The development of this character is done with more care than previous films where the villains’ backstories rely simply on jealousy, seeking power, or just a thirst for chaos. The film shows a man who feels wronged by the system and simply wants to provide for his family. We are allowed to make a connection with “The Vulture” that makes us question if whether we would do anything much differently than he.
The same development is demonstrated with Tom Holland’s portrayal of Spider-Man. He is thrust into this role through the encouragement of Tony Stark, but when Stark doesn’t return his calls or seem to express interest after the battle scene in Captain America: Civil War, he tries to demonstrate his worth through becoming a local superhero. With that new calling, to paraphrase a statement made popular in Spider-Man, comes great responsibility. He must balance his life and try to compartmentalize his existence. The film does not disappoint in allowing the viewers to see Peter Parker as more than Spider-Man. They begin to see all the varied aspects of who he is and his rationale for being a superhero. We bear witness to the pain that he feels in having to keep his identity a secret from his friends and Aunt Mae. His superpowers and abilities come to be seen as a heavy burden that begins pulling him apart. He has to grow and understand who he is in order to be capable of everything he seeks to be.
Spider-Man Homecoming does not disappoint. It is by far, the best Marvel film made due to its ability to connect with fans of different ages and interests. The film is fun, funny, creative, and will have viewers forget about any previous versions and films. Tom Holland is the perfect fit for Peter Parker and an even better fit for Spider-Man. The film is mature, filled with depth, emotion, and many connections to other superhero films in the Marvel cinematic universe. It is well on its way to ensuring that the franchise will have a long life.
Tom Holland returns to the Marvel Universe as Spider-Man after being introduced in Captain America: Civil War. In this version, the audience is not subjected to an origin story to carry the bulk of the film. Instead, it addresses the issues of Spider-Man’s genesis in the previous film so that audiences can arrive in their seats ready to watch the action unfold. From the first opening frames of the films, we bear witness to the development of this story which builds off of The Avengers as we are introduced to Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), owner of a salvage company tasked with cleaning up the city. Upon his operation, he and his crew begin to discover the power of the alien equipment that they begin to sell on the black market. The development of this character is done with more care than previous films where the villains’ backstories rely simply on jealousy, seeking power, or just a thirst for chaos. The film shows a man who feels wronged by the system and simply wants to provide for his family. We are allowed to make a connection with “The Vulture” that makes us question if whether we would do anything much differently than he.
The same development is demonstrated with Tom Holland’s portrayal of Spider-Man. He is thrust into this role through the encouragement of Tony Stark, but when Stark doesn’t return his calls or seem to express interest after the battle scene in Captain America: Civil War, he tries to demonstrate his worth through becoming a local superhero. With that new calling, to paraphrase a statement made popular in Spider-Man, comes great responsibility. He must balance his life and try to compartmentalize his existence. The film does not disappoint in allowing the viewers to see Peter Parker as more than Spider-Man. They begin to see all the varied aspects of who he is and his rationale for being a superhero. We bear witness to the pain that he feels in having to keep his identity a secret from his friends and Aunt Mae. His superpowers and abilities come to be seen as a heavy burden that begins pulling him apart. He has to grow and understand who he is in order to be capable of everything he seeks to be.
Spider-Man Homecoming does not disappoint. It is by far, the best Marvel film made due to its ability to connect with fans of different ages and interests. The film is fun, funny, creative, and will have viewers forget about any previous versions and films. Tom Holland is the perfect fit for Peter Parker and an even better fit for Spider-Man. The film is mature, filled with depth, emotion, and many connections to other superhero films in the Marvel cinematic universe. It is well on its way to ensuring that the franchise will have a long life.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Based on the famous and beloved novel by Charles Dickens, Armando Iannucci (Veep, The Thick of It, The Death of Stalin) brings us this fresh new take on David Copperfield. And it’s like no other Dickens adaptation you’ve ever seen before.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Year of Living Dangerously (1983) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
A Story That Falls Short
The Year of Living Dangerously follows the story of reporter Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) during a tumultuous time of civil unrest in Indonesia.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Angry Birds Movie (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new kids’ movie Angry Birds is a joint venture between Columbia Pictures and Rovio Animation.
I did not hold high hopes for this movie when I went to screen it, and really only went because I knew my 7 year old son would want to see it.
It has a wide range of actors and actresses voicing the characters: Jason Sudeikis as Red, Josh Gad as Chuck, Danny McBride as Bomb, Maya Rudolph as Matilda, Bill Hader as Leonard, Peter Dinklage as Mighty Eagle, Sean Penn as Terence, and Blake Shelton as Earl Pig.
If you have ever played the game by the same name, you will recognize the characters, as well as the soundtrack music.
It was a decent (kids) story, and the movie is certainly colorful and fast paced. In my opinion, the 3-D aspect helped.
We follow the main character, Red, as he tried to fit into a happy, steady society, that frowns upon and even penalizes outburst of bad temper, whether they are warranted or not.
He blows up at a customer, and has to go to court, where he is sentenced to anger management classes. The instructor, Matilda, has a hard time getting through to him and gets frustrated with his inability to control his anger responses.
In the middle of Red’s classes, the Pigs show up, bearing “gifts” and acting as if they are the Birds best friends. Red is suspicious and tries to both investigate to find out more, as well as warn the other birds that the pigs are after more than being “best friends”, but is shut down time after time as his warnings fall on deaf ears.
In the end, Red is right, and must organize a rescue. Ironically, he must encourage the other Birds to harness their anger in order to use it to help rescue their eggs.
I thought the movie was cute, and fun for a family afternoon out. I probably would not take very very young kids to it, more in the age group of 6 or 7 and up, but for my son it was just fine, and it was fun for him because he recognized the characters both from the game as well as the cartoon shorts that are on the internet.
For a family movie, I would give Angry Birds 2.75 out of 5 stars.
I did not hold high hopes for this movie when I went to screen it, and really only went because I knew my 7 year old son would want to see it.
It has a wide range of actors and actresses voicing the characters: Jason Sudeikis as Red, Josh Gad as Chuck, Danny McBride as Bomb, Maya Rudolph as Matilda, Bill Hader as Leonard, Peter Dinklage as Mighty Eagle, Sean Penn as Terence, and Blake Shelton as Earl Pig.
If you have ever played the game by the same name, you will recognize the characters, as well as the soundtrack music.
It was a decent (kids) story, and the movie is certainly colorful and fast paced. In my opinion, the 3-D aspect helped.
We follow the main character, Red, as he tried to fit into a happy, steady society, that frowns upon and even penalizes outburst of bad temper, whether they are warranted or not.
He blows up at a customer, and has to go to court, where he is sentenced to anger management classes. The instructor, Matilda, has a hard time getting through to him and gets frustrated with his inability to control his anger responses.
In the middle of Red’s classes, the Pigs show up, bearing “gifts” and acting as if they are the Birds best friends. Red is suspicious and tries to both investigate to find out more, as well as warn the other birds that the pigs are after more than being “best friends”, but is shut down time after time as his warnings fall on deaf ears.
In the end, Red is right, and must organize a rescue. Ironically, he must encourage the other Birds to harness their anger in order to use it to help rescue their eggs.
I thought the movie was cute, and fun for a family afternoon out. I probably would not take very very young kids to it, more in the age group of 6 or 7 and up, but for my son it was just fine, and it was fun for him because he recognized the characters both from the game as well as the cartoon shorts that are on the internet.
For a family movie, I would give Angry Birds 2.75 out of 5 stars.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Fright Night (1985) in Movies
Jan 19, 2021
Fright Night absolutely epitomizes everything that is great about its era and genre. Its just flat out top tier 80s horror.
It has great pacing for a start, wasting no time getting to business, as teenager Charley (William Ragsdale) is immediately sus of his new next door neighbour Jerry Dandrige (Chris Sarandon) before quickly (and correctly) accusing him of being a vampire.
Ragsdale is a good lead, even if his character is frustratingly written at times, but it's his teammates who shine here. Amanda Bearse is a scene stealer as Charley's girlfriend Amy, and is equally great when she's adorably likable for the most part, and when she is suitably creepy-as-fuck near the climax. Same goes for Stephen Geoffreys as Charley's friend Ed - typical bone headed teenager one minute, before gleefully relishing in being a creature of the night the next minute. Roddy McDowall plays Peter Vincent, a soon to be washed up horror TV personality who's services are enlisted to help defeat the vampire next door. The three of them together are a damn fine set of support characters.
Chris Sarandon is one smooth S.O.B as the vampyric villain. He manages to be both charming, and a truly evil shit at the same time, and commands attention in all of his scenes.
The narrative is fun, and manages to encapsulate the feeling of teenage adventure. The humour and horror are perfectly balanced throughout. The first half is witty as hell, especially the way that Jerry and his housemate Billy (Jonathan Stark) just fuck with Charley (before things get a little nastier) is low key hilarious. I would have enjoyed a whole movie of that kind of stuff easily. When things get a little messier, the practical effects on display are superb, and although Fright Night is more a light hearted experience, it still manages to pack in some great gory moments. The scene with Vincent and Ed in wolf mode is a perfect example of how practical horror will always be superior.
Fright Night is a truly fantastic horror gem, where everything just fell into place, from the great cast, to the wonderful screenplay. First time director Tom Holland (who would of course go on to direct Child's Play) hit the ground running with this one, and it's definitely a favourite of mine.
It has great pacing for a start, wasting no time getting to business, as teenager Charley (William Ragsdale) is immediately sus of his new next door neighbour Jerry Dandrige (Chris Sarandon) before quickly (and correctly) accusing him of being a vampire.
Ragsdale is a good lead, even if his character is frustratingly written at times, but it's his teammates who shine here. Amanda Bearse is a scene stealer as Charley's girlfriend Amy, and is equally great when she's adorably likable for the most part, and when she is suitably creepy-as-fuck near the climax. Same goes for Stephen Geoffreys as Charley's friend Ed - typical bone headed teenager one minute, before gleefully relishing in being a creature of the night the next minute. Roddy McDowall plays Peter Vincent, a soon to be washed up horror TV personality who's services are enlisted to help defeat the vampire next door. The three of them together are a damn fine set of support characters.
Chris Sarandon is one smooth S.O.B as the vampyric villain. He manages to be both charming, and a truly evil shit at the same time, and commands attention in all of his scenes.
The narrative is fun, and manages to encapsulate the feeling of teenage adventure. The humour and horror are perfectly balanced throughout. The first half is witty as hell, especially the way that Jerry and his housemate Billy (Jonathan Stark) just fuck with Charley (before things get a little nastier) is low key hilarious. I would have enjoyed a whole movie of that kind of stuff easily. When things get a little messier, the practical effects on display are superb, and although Fright Night is more a light hearted experience, it still manages to pack in some great gory moments. The scene with Vincent and Ed in wolf mode is a perfect example of how practical horror will always be superior.
Fright Night is a truly fantastic horror gem, where everything just fell into place, from the great cast, to the wonderful screenplay. First time director Tom Holland (who would of course go on to direct Child's Play) hit the ground running with this one, and it's definitely a favourite of mine.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
We have a problem
To say 2014’s Guardians of the Galaxy was a surprise hit is a slight understatement. Many had predicted Marvel’s gamble to sink the studio with its unknown characters and very unique sense of style, but it ended up being one of the year’s best films grossing nearly $800million.
Three years on, director James Gunn returns with the plucky group of space stars. But can lightning strike twice? Or have the Guardians had their time to shine?
Star Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Drax (Dave Bautista) and Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) struggle to keep their newfound family together as they desperately try to unravel the mystery of Peter Quill’s true parentage in the outer reaches of the galaxy.
To our cast of space vigilantes, James Gunn has thrown in a few new personas and fleshed out some secondary characters, resulting in a film that rivals Avengers: Age of Ultron for the amount of people jostling for screen-time. Unfortunately, Volume 2 also suffers from many of the same problems as its earthly stablemate.
The biggest joy of watching Guardians 2 is seeing those secondary characters getting their chance in the spotlight. In particular, Michael Rooker’s Yondu makes a massive impact throughout the running time and is a highlight throughout. Elsewhere, Karen Gillan’s villainous Nebula gets a similar treatment, though not quite to the same extent.
Moreover, the team we have all come to know and love is on fine form, even if they are split from one another for the majority of the film. Chris Pratt is probably the biggest star in Hollywood at the moment and he looks like he’s having the time of his life. However, it’s not Star Lord that shines brightest this time around. That honour goes to Dave Bautista’s Drax.
The addition of Kurt Russell as Pratt’s father, Ego is an ingenious piece of casting and his ‘pet’ Mantis, played wonderfully by Pom Klementieff steals the show in every scene. Her brief moments with Bautista are where the film really succeeds.
Another witty script crafted by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman ensures that Guardians 2 is absolutely hilarious. Some of the one-liners are absolute corkers and it often outdoes its predecessor, raising the bar very high for future Marvel projects in the process.
To look at, Volume 2 is pleasant if unspectacular. Colourful? Yes. Detailed? Not so much. With so much going on at once, it’s easy for the film to feel overwhelmed with some of the CGI being downright poor. The opening scene in which our heroes battle a hideous octopus-like beast, whilst fun to watch, isn’t crafted to the same level as its predecessor’s introductory sequence. The finale is a little anti-climactic, unfortunately falling into the same pitfalls that so many big blockbusters do nowadays – needless and frankly ugly CGI.
Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2 is another accomplished film in the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, like Avengers: Age of Ultron, it suffers from its predecessor’s popularity and is overstuffed with too many characters elbowing for screen-time.
Unfortunately, the new approach the first film took has disappeared a little this time around. Because Volume 1 was such a delightful change from the rest of the crowd-pleasing blockbusters, Guardians 2 was bound to be a bit of a disappointment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/28/we-have-a-problem-guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-review/
Three years on, director James Gunn returns with the plucky group of space stars. But can lightning strike twice? Or have the Guardians had their time to shine?
Star Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Drax (Dave Bautista) and Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) struggle to keep their newfound family together as they desperately try to unravel the mystery of Peter Quill’s true parentage in the outer reaches of the galaxy.
To our cast of space vigilantes, James Gunn has thrown in a few new personas and fleshed out some secondary characters, resulting in a film that rivals Avengers: Age of Ultron for the amount of people jostling for screen-time. Unfortunately, Volume 2 also suffers from many of the same problems as its earthly stablemate.
The biggest joy of watching Guardians 2 is seeing those secondary characters getting their chance in the spotlight. In particular, Michael Rooker’s Yondu makes a massive impact throughout the running time and is a highlight throughout. Elsewhere, Karen Gillan’s villainous Nebula gets a similar treatment, though not quite to the same extent.
Moreover, the team we have all come to know and love is on fine form, even if they are split from one another for the majority of the film. Chris Pratt is probably the biggest star in Hollywood at the moment and he looks like he’s having the time of his life. However, it’s not Star Lord that shines brightest this time around. That honour goes to Dave Bautista’s Drax.
The addition of Kurt Russell as Pratt’s father, Ego is an ingenious piece of casting and his ‘pet’ Mantis, played wonderfully by Pom Klementieff steals the show in every scene. Her brief moments with Bautista are where the film really succeeds.
Another witty script crafted by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman ensures that Guardians 2 is absolutely hilarious. Some of the one-liners are absolute corkers and it often outdoes its predecessor, raising the bar very high for future Marvel projects in the process.
To look at, Volume 2 is pleasant if unspectacular. Colourful? Yes. Detailed? Not so much. With so much going on at once, it’s easy for the film to feel overwhelmed with some of the CGI being downright poor. The opening scene in which our heroes battle a hideous octopus-like beast, whilst fun to watch, isn’t crafted to the same level as its predecessor’s introductory sequence. The finale is a little anti-climactic, unfortunately falling into the same pitfalls that so many big blockbusters do nowadays – needless and frankly ugly CGI.
Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2 is another accomplished film in the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, like Avengers: Age of Ultron, it suffers from its predecessor’s popularity and is overstuffed with too many characters elbowing for screen-time.
Unfortunately, the new approach the first film took has disappeared a little this time around. Because Volume 1 was such a delightful change from the rest of the crowd-pleasing blockbusters, Guardians 2 was bound to be a bit of a disappointment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/28/we-have-a-problem-guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Taxi Driver (1976) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Perfect blend of Director, Star and Place
Dark, dirty, rainy, dangerous, foggy, grimy, glorious - all words that would describe New York City in the late 1960's/early 1970's.
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
They are also words that would describe Martin Scorcese's 1976 film, TAXI DRIVER starring Robert DeNiro (fresh off his Oscar win for Godfather II) in another Oscar nominated performance.
This film is a perfect blend of Director, star and material. These 3 elements come together to blend a vivid portrayal of an outsider/loner observing the decay of the city he loves, finally culminating in his desire to correct some of the wrongs.
I still don't know if I'm talking about Travis Bickle, the character DeNiro is playing, or of Director Scorcese.
DeNiro is powerful in his portrayal of the titular Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle. He subtly underplays the character - especially at the beginning - showing a lost soul wandering the big city. Slowly, this character begins to gain his footing - and that footing is terrifying in the violence that is welling up in him. He has no social attachments - and the 2 that he attempts to gain during the course of this film slips through his grasp the harder he tries to clutch them.
Jodie Foster was Oscar nominated for her turn as 13 year old street walker Iris. It is a stunningly strong performance by an young actress who heretofore was known only for lighthearted "Disney-type" films and shows the strength of character and performer that Foster would become. Albert Brooks and Peter Boyle pop up in this film in somewhat comic-relief roles. Roles that are a needed, and welcome, change of pace for this film. As opposed to Harvey Keitel as "Sport" the pimp of Foster's character. You can sense that he is just as dangerous as Bickle and if these two were to go up against each other, violence is going to erupt.
The surprise of this movie for me was the performance of Cybill Shepherd as Betsy, the object of Travis' desire. She brings a power and grace to her role that is extremely attractive to watch. You are drawn to Betsy and can understand how Travis is drawn to her as well.
But, make no mistake, this is Scorcese's film. He captures the feel of New York City of this time. This film is mostly mood and atmosphere - and that is a good thing. You get the sense that you are there. This film is a time capsule of the "Mean Streets" times of NYC - and shows a Director that knows this city and knows how he wants to show it on film. I was shocked to find out that Scorcese was NOT nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is that good.
I also was surprised to find that the great Bernard Herrmann (Citizen Kane, Psycho, Vertigo) was the Composer of the film - and he is a great choice. His music perfectly matches - and enhances - the mood that is set up by Scorcese. This film would not be as atmospheric - or would capture the vibe of the time - without Herrmann's score. Unfortunately, Herrmann would pass away shortly after completing his work on this film, so his Oscar nomination was posthumous.
A wonderful blend of character, place and mood. Taxi Driver is timeless because it is about a specific time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023) in Movies
Jun 8, 2023
A Feast for the Eyes and the Heart
In 2018, Producer/Writers Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (THE LEGO MOVIE) presented the animated film SPIDER-MAN INTO THE SPIDERVERSE to unsuspecting audiences and this film burst onto the scene - and into our senses - with a visual cornucopia of comic-book styles that ushered in a new way to present a comic-book movie. In this film, multiple Spider-Mans from different “SpiderVerses” came to the home universe of the lead Spiderman (in this Universe, Spiderman is NOT Peter Parker, but rather Miles Morales), and they kept the comic book styles of their own universes while in the home universe of Miles.
Get it? If not, hang onto your hats, for these two just took it to a whole new level.
In SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE, our hero, Miles Morales (voiced again by Shameik Moore) leaves his home universe and travels TO multiple other Spider-verses with multiple other animated styles - as well as meeting a plethora of other Spider-folk.
The result of this is a visual feast that should be seen on the big screen. The artistry at work here is “next level” as the differing styles blend seamlessly with each other without becoming head-ache inducing. It is a master class of “Going for it” but wisely knowing how to “not go too far” and the filmmakers of this animated gem thread that the needle expertly.
But…that isn’t the best part of this film.
There is an underlying storyline that sets Miles off on his adventure and this part of the film is built upon relationships, love, duty and devotion. This film delves deeper into Miles’ relationship with his parents (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry, off of his Oscar Nominated role in CAUSEWAY and Luna Lauren Velez best known as Lt. LaGuerta on DEXTER) and this gives the film some heart.
But…that isn’t the best part of the film.
The best part of this film is Miles’ relationship with another Spider-person, Spider Gwen (Stacy) - voiced by Hailee Steinfeld (THE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN), this film wisely (there’s that word again) decide to have 1/2 of this film shown from her perspective and the depth of performance of love, loss and longing from Steinfeld is surprisingly deep and moving for an animated film and it is THIS relationship that really cements this film as something special.
Oh…and did I fail to mention the wonderful voice work by Jake Johnson, Jason Schwartzman, Issa Rae, Daniel Kaluuya and Oscar Isaac (amongst many, many others)? They all brought their “A” game to what is a tremendous movie going experience.
One does not need to see the first SPIDERVERSE film to enjoy this one - but it does help and one very much will need to see this film to enjoy the NEXT one (the 3rd film of the trilogy, SPIDER-MAN BEYOND THE SPIDERVERSE is set to be released next year), so if one is going to invest in these films, one should probably go “all-in”.
The filmmakers certainly did that - and the audience is the winner for their efforts.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Get it? If not, hang onto your hats, for these two just took it to a whole new level.
In SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE, our hero, Miles Morales (voiced again by Shameik Moore) leaves his home universe and travels TO multiple other Spider-verses with multiple other animated styles - as well as meeting a plethora of other Spider-folk.
The result of this is a visual feast that should be seen on the big screen. The artistry at work here is “next level” as the differing styles blend seamlessly with each other without becoming head-ache inducing. It is a master class of “Going for it” but wisely knowing how to “not go too far” and the filmmakers of this animated gem thread that the needle expertly.
But…that isn’t the best part of this film.
There is an underlying storyline that sets Miles off on his adventure and this part of the film is built upon relationships, love, duty and devotion. This film delves deeper into Miles’ relationship with his parents (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry, off of his Oscar Nominated role in CAUSEWAY and Luna Lauren Velez best known as Lt. LaGuerta on DEXTER) and this gives the film some heart.
But…that isn’t the best part of the film.
The best part of this film is Miles’ relationship with another Spider-person, Spider Gwen (Stacy) - voiced by Hailee Steinfeld (THE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN), this film wisely (there’s that word again) decide to have 1/2 of this film shown from her perspective and the depth of performance of love, loss and longing from Steinfeld is surprisingly deep and moving for an animated film and it is THIS relationship that really cements this film as something special.
Oh…and did I fail to mention the wonderful voice work by Jake Johnson, Jason Schwartzman, Issa Rae, Daniel Kaluuya and Oscar Isaac (amongst many, many others)? They all brought their “A” game to what is a tremendous movie going experience.
One does not need to see the first SPIDERVERSE film to enjoy this one - but it does help and one very much will need to see this film to enjoy the NEXT one (the 3rd film of the trilogy, SPIDER-MAN BEYOND THE SPIDERVERSE is set to be released next year), so if one is going to invest in these films, one should probably go “all-in”.
The filmmakers certainly did that - and the audience is the winner for their efforts.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)