Search
Search results
Fastlane Street Racing Lite - Driving With Full Throttle and Speed
Games
App
⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆Fastlane Street Racing is back – with 3D HD Graphics!⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆...
Weaphones WW2: Firearms Simulator
Games and Entertainment
App
Experience the weapons of World War II like never before. Weaphones WW2 Edition redefines what the...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Go Back to China (2020) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
Couldn't Hold My Interest
I’m always on the lookout for hidden gems, especially when it comes to films starring minorities. I was hoping to find that in Go Back to China but wasn’t as impressed as I thought it would be. In the movie, a woman living in the states is forced to go to China to work for her father in his toy factory after he cuts off her trust fund.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.
F-Sim Space Shuttle
Games and Education
App
Have you ever wondered what it’s like to land the Space Shuttle? Now you can find out. F-Sim Space...
In-Flight Assistant
Games and Utilities
App
Add a whole new dimension of realism to your Infinite Flight experience with this polished,...
Deer Hunter: African Safari
Games and Sports
App
NOW WITH GAME CENTER LEADERBOARDS & RETINA DISPLAY support!!! The most realistic hunting franchise...
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Apr 18, 2017
The Good, The Bad and The Editing
So...here's a movie that split so many fans and has caused COUNTLESS arguments online. My review may also cause arguments, but I'm willing to risk that as I have a fair bit to say about this movie, most importantly and foremost;
I enjoyed the movie!
The Good:
Let me start with what's good because I feel there's never enough positivity around this movie so here goes.
Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot were the two focuses of this movie because they had a lot of pressure on them to bring Batman and Wonder Woman to life and do the characters justice (terrible I know but I couldn't resist). All over the internet I saw hate for Ben Affleck and people saying Gal Gadot was too skinny. At first, I'll be honest, I did think Gal Gadot was really skinny and couldn't imagine her as Wonder Woman, BUT, unlike most people, I knew that before they would film her scenes, she would be 'buffing up' because I have faith in Zack Snyder because he is a fan and has made brilliant films. Man Of Steel made me like Superman, because of the way he was written as conflicted and the whole film made him more human and I loved it.
Here's where some people will disagree highly with me....I am not a big fan of the Nolan trilogy Batman. Now, before you throw a fit and verbally kick my ass, let me try and tell you why. The Voice! (it's not the only reason, but this is the reason I'm trying to make a point of) Batman a.k.a Bruce Wayne is a BILLIONAIRE, so who thought that the best way for him to disguise his voice would be to make him sound like he's fucked up his throat somehow? A billionaire with all those gadgets would surely think that what he needs is a voice modulator. Snyder brought in the voice modulator and I fell in love in that first trailer from hearing Batman talk through a voice modulator because I was sat there like "Hallelujah they finally worked out what a billionaire vigilante would do!" and I think it could be just me, but I honestly would prefer to think of Batman using one of those rather than grumbling his voice, because it just makes more sense.
So...Batfleck was incredible. My favourite portrayal so far and here's why:
- Arkham game fighting style
- Aged personality that says it all about why he's that violent
- He's definitely a great portrayal of the Dark Knight Returns version of Batman
- Ben Affleck is a great actor (in my opinion)
People's biggest complaint was 'Batman Kills' and I've had this discussion with my friends many times. Yes people died, IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE! It's rare but it's happened. You like the realism of Nolan's trilogy but there's a realism to Batfleck that you might not be seeing. He's been through all the same shit year in, year out for decades. Villains cause chaos, Batman fights villain, lets them live, puts them away, they break out, rinse repeat. Doing that for decades, losing people you love because of your choice not to kill, would surely cause a spark in your mind and Bruce Wayne says this in the movie through less words. "How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?"
If you think about it, he's essentially saying "I was a good guy but even I have had my boundaries pushed to the line and over". He's finally at the age where he has a state of mind that from his perspective...bad guys don't deserve to be shown mercy, but at the same time, he doesn't necessarily kill the bad guys directly.
Think of the warehouse scene. Bad Guy throws grenade, Batman kicks it back at him. Grenade goes BOOM. Bad guys die. BUT! If the guy hadn't have tried to throw the grenade, Batman wouldn't have kicked it back, and it wouldn't have ended in their death. Simple as that.
Let's move on though.
Superman is conflicted and the movie gets very political with a message of "Here's a God-Like figure. Should he be allowed to do what he wants or should we take away Choice by having under the Governments thumb?" and Superman personally is having internal issues of "I want this to be my home because it's the only home I've known, but these people don't want me and this stress is affecting both Clark Kent and Superman". He should have been able to see or hear the bomb in the wheelchair, but his mind was preoccupied with "Why does this government and these people hate me when I saved not only my city but the whole world?". Think about your stress with work, with college, school etc. and how it really does effect everything else around you. You might not want to go out with friends because you feel drained from the stress, now try to imagine that on the level of Superman! The poor guy just wanted to help.
My biggest enjoyment from this film was ALL OF THE DC REFERENCES! There were so many cool easter eggs, references etc. that I adored from Riddler Question Marks, to seeing Superman in a skeletal form after the Nuke explosion and then regaining his life force from the flowers through their Photosynthesis just like in the graphic novel! It was an incredible experience and I loved the film mainly for that.
The Bad:
Doomsday....I want to hope it's not the actual Doomsday and maybe just a failed experiment that Lex tried out but at the same time I know it probably is meant to be THE Doomsday.
The Editing:
The editing was jumpy and some cuts didn't make sense UNTIL the Ultimate Cut. The Ultimate Cut gives us some scenes with Clark Kent in Gotham BEFORE the big introduction to Batman in person, and hearing stories and investigating why people fear him, but also respect him. This would have worked so much better in the Theatrical Cut but sadly studios like to cut the film and people blame the Director for it which annoys me slightly.
Guaranteed this post might not change your mind, but I must say that you should try watching the film again if you've avoided it, watch the Ultimate Cut and really pay attention to how its being shown to the audience. Overall this is one of my favourite superhero movies and I will always stand up for it, BUT I'm not blind to it's faults.
I enjoyed the movie!
The Good:
Let me start with what's good because I feel there's never enough positivity around this movie so here goes.
Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot were the two focuses of this movie because they had a lot of pressure on them to bring Batman and Wonder Woman to life and do the characters justice (terrible I know but I couldn't resist). All over the internet I saw hate for Ben Affleck and people saying Gal Gadot was too skinny. At first, I'll be honest, I did think Gal Gadot was really skinny and couldn't imagine her as Wonder Woman, BUT, unlike most people, I knew that before they would film her scenes, she would be 'buffing up' because I have faith in Zack Snyder because he is a fan and has made brilliant films. Man Of Steel made me like Superman, because of the way he was written as conflicted and the whole film made him more human and I loved it.
Here's where some people will disagree highly with me....I am not a big fan of the Nolan trilogy Batman. Now, before you throw a fit and verbally kick my ass, let me try and tell you why. The Voice! (it's not the only reason, but this is the reason I'm trying to make a point of) Batman a.k.a Bruce Wayne is a BILLIONAIRE, so who thought that the best way for him to disguise his voice would be to make him sound like he's fucked up his throat somehow? A billionaire with all those gadgets would surely think that what he needs is a voice modulator. Snyder brought in the voice modulator and I fell in love in that first trailer from hearing Batman talk through a voice modulator because I was sat there like "Hallelujah they finally worked out what a billionaire vigilante would do!" and I think it could be just me, but I honestly would prefer to think of Batman using one of those rather than grumbling his voice, because it just makes more sense.
So...Batfleck was incredible. My favourite portrayal so far and here's why:
- Arkham game fighting style
- Aged personality that says it all about why he's that violent
- He's definitely a great portrayal of the Dark Knight Returns version of Batman
- Ben Affleck is a great actor (in my opinion)
People's biggest complaint was 'Batman Kills' and I've had this discussion with my friends many times. Yes people died, IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE! It's rare but it's happened. You like the realism of Nolan's trilogy but there's a realism to Batfleck that you might not be seeing. He's been through all the same shit year in, year out for decades. Villains cause chaos, Batman fights villain, lets them live, puts them away, they break out, rinse repeat. Doing that for decades, losing people you love because of your choice not to kill, would surely cause a spark in your mind and Bruce Wayne says this in the movie through less words. "How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?"
If you think about it, he's essentially saying "I was a good guy but even I have had my boundaries pushed to the line and over". He's finally at the age where he has a state of mind that from his perspective...bad guys don't deserve to be shown mercy, but at the same time, he doesn't necessarily kill the bad guys directly.
Think of the warehouse scene. Bad Guy throws grenade, Batman kicks it back at him. Grenade goes BOOM. Bad guys die. BUT! If the guy hadn't have tried to throw the grenade, Batman wouldn't have kicked it back, and it wouldn't have ended in their death. Simple as that.
Let's move on though.
Superman is conflicted and the movie gets very political with a message of "Here's a God-Like figure. Should he be allowed to do what he wants or should we take away Choice by having under the Governments thumb?" and Superman personally is having internal issues of "I want this to be my home because it's the only home I've known, but these people don't want me and this stress is affecting both Clark Kent and Superman". He should have been able to see or hear the bomb in the wheelchair, but his mind was preoccupied with "Why does this government and these people hate me when I saved not only my city but the whole world?". Think about your stress with work, with college, school etc. and how it really does effect everything else around you. You might not want to go out with friends because you feel drained from the stress, now try to imagine that on the level of Superman! The poor guy just wanted to help.
My biggest enjoyment from this film was ALL OF THE DC REFERENCES! There were so many cool easter eggs, references etc. that I adored from Riddler Question Marks, to seeing Superman in a skeletal form after the Nuke explosion and then regaining his life force from the flowers through their Photosynthesis just like in the graphic novel! It was an incredible experience and I loved the film mainly for that.
The Bad:
Doomsday....I want to hope it's not the actual Doomsday and maybe just a failed experiment that Lex tried out but at the same time I know it probably is meant to be THE Doomsday.
The Editing:
The editing was jumpy and some cuts didn't make sense UNTIL the Ultimate Cut. The Ultimate Cut gives us some scenes with Clark Kent in Gotham BEFORE the big introduction to Batman in person, and hearing stories and investigating why people fear him, but also respect him. This would have worked so much better in the Theatrical Cut but sadly studios like to cut the film and people blame the Director for it which annoys me slightly.
Guaranteed this post might not change your mind, but I must say that you should try watching the film again if you've avoided it, watch the Ultimate Cut and really pay attention to how its being shown to the audience. Overall this is one of my favourite superhero movies and I will always stand up for it, BUT I'm not blind to it's faults.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Chappie (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A little rough around the edges
District 9 was a tough act to follow for first-time director Neill Blomkamp. His follow up to 2009’s sci-fi sleeper hit was the mediocre Elysium that whilst having a gargantuan budget and the likes of Jodie Foster and Matt Damon, failed on the most basic of levels – storytelling.
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Great Zoo of China in Books
Nov 13, 2019
The Chinese government have been working for years to create the ultimate tourist attraction, a very special zoo stocking with only one kind of animal - dragons. Long considered a myth the Chinese have found that they do exist and now they are ready to astound the world by showing of these amazing creatures and the fantastic zoo they have created to house them.
CJ Cameron is one of those invited to attend a special press preview tour, on behalf of National Geographic. A renowned expert on all types of reptiles she takes her brother Hamish with her as a photographer as part of a small and select group so that they can be the first to reveal the zoo to the world.
But on this special day, the dragons have their own plan and soon the Chinese are fighting for control of the dragons and the zoo they have created, with Cameron and the other group of journalists caught in the middle as the fearsome beasts rampage through the complex. Cameron must rely on her wits and experience with crocodiles and alligators to survive.
The obvious four word description of this book is 'Jurassic Park with dragons' but also superficially that does describe it's also missing the point of both books. Indeed Reilly acknowledges the Jurassic Park angle, both in an off the cuff remark by Hamish at the start of the book and also in the interview at the back. Jurassic Park has Michael Crichton in full science-as-thriller mode, pondering the latest advances (at the time) of both DNA and fossil discoveries and then giving a glimpse of how these beasts must have been when they ruled the world. The thrill comes from the dinosaurs themselves, they are the stars of the book.
In The Great Zoo of China the dragons are very much a McGuffin. Any suitably fearsome creature would have done, real, historical, mythical or completely imagined. They are simply a powerful threat to humans and agents capable of wreaking huge amounts of death and destruction, as would be expected of Reilly. The star of the show is Cameron, and to a lesser extent her brother (and a few others).
Cameron is Reilly's first lead female character in an action role (The Tournament being a completely different kind of book) and this works really well in the novel, both in terms of setup and plot and she makes a convincing heroine using her knowledge and intelligence to combat each threat.
Of course there are moments where the reader has to suspend their belief. Reilly doesn't aim for gritty realism, he goes for the big and impressive set pieces, almost certain death and narrow escapes that clearly would be impossible in the real world. His novels are very much blockbuster movies transferred to the written word, with the added bonus that the special effects come free courtesy of the reader's imagination.
As usual the plot drives at a breathtaking pace although the real story doesn't start until Reilly has taken us on a tour of his ultimate zoo and shown off his dragons before letting them off the leash.
Yes some of it is pure hokum and there are a couple of plot holes, but at the end of the day this was not written to win any literary prizes. This was written to entertain and thrill and it does that with ease.
Rated: Strong language and graphic violence (i.e. lots of people eaten by dragons)
CJ Cameron is one of those invited to attend a special press preview tour, on behalf of National Geographic. A renowned expert on all types of reptiles she takes her brother Hamish with her as a photographer as part of a small and select group so that they can be the first to reveal the zoo to the world.
But on this special day, the dragons have their own plan and soon the Chinese are fighting for control of the dragons and the zoo they have created, with Cameron and the other group of journalists caught in the middle as the fearsome beasts rampage through the complex. Cameron must rely on her wits and experience with crocodiles and alligators to survive.
The obvious four word description of this book is 'Jurassic Park with dragons' but also superficially that does describe it's also missing the point of both books. Indeed Reilly acknowledges the Jurassic Park angle, both in an off the cuff remark by Hamish at the start of the book and also in the interview at the back. Jurassic Park has Michael Crichton in full science-as-thriller mode, pondering the latest advances (at the time) of both DNA and fossil discoveries and then giving a glimpse of how these beasts must have been when they ruled the world. The thrill comes from the dinosaurs themselves, they are the stars of the book.
In The Great Zoo of China the dragons are very much a McGuffin. Any suitably fearsome creature would have done, real, historical, mythical or completely imagined. They are simply a powerful threat to humans and agents capable of wreaking huge amounts of death and destruction, as would be expected of Reilly. The star of the show is Cameron, and to a lesser extent her brother (and a few others).
Cameron is Reilly's first lead female character in an action role (The Tournament being a completely different kind of book) and this works really well in the novel, both in terms of setup and plot and she makes a convincing heroine using her knowledge and intelligence to combat each threat.
Of course there are moments where the reader has to suspend their belief. Reilly doesn't aim for gritty realism, he goes for the big and impressive set pieces, almost certain death and narrow escapes that clearly would be impossible in the real world. His novels are very much blockbuster movies transferred to the written word, with the added bonus that the special effects come free courtesy of the reader's imagination.
As usual the plot drives at a breathtaking pace although the real story doesn't start until Reilly has taken us on a tour of his ultimate zoo and shown off his dragons before letting them off the leash.
Yes some of it is pure hokum and there are a couple of plot holes, but at the end of the day this was not written to win any literary prizes. This was written to entertain and thrill and it does that with ease.
Rated: Strong language and graphic violence (i.e. lots of people eaten by dragons)