Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Arctic (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
This week has been one of the coldest on record across much of the United States. The “polar vortex” has brought with it sub-zero temps complete with snow and ice. It seems only fitting that Arctic a survival movie co-written and directed by YouTube star Joe Penna would be releasing the very same week. In his first feature film directorial debut Penna brings both the beauty and the dangers of the Arctic (Iceland in this case) to the big screen.
A lone man identified only as Overgård (Mads Mikkelsen) has crashed his cargo plane somewhere in the arctic. We don’t know how long he has been stranded there, but long enough for him to have carved out a giant S.O.S in the snow. He has converted his downed plane into his new home and goes about the same routine every day. He sets his watch alarm to keep his schedule, which involves catching fish through the ice, and setting out in a different direction each day to manually wind his transponder in the hopes that a rescue will finally come.
One day, a day like countless days before it, Overgård’s transponder turns from red to green and in the distance a helicopter appears. His lucky day soon turns into tragedy as the harsh winds of the Arctic toss the helicopter around like a kite in a hurricane, crashing it to the ground. Overgård quickly runs to the crash site only to find that one of the pilots has died in the crash, and the other (Maria Thelma Smáradôttir) is barely conscious and has a gaping wound in her side. In a scene that could almost be described as humorous (if it wasn’t for the dire situation itself), Overgård crafts a sled out of the helicopter’s sliding door to carry the woman back to the safety of his plane, only to find out the next day that inside the helicopter was an actual rescue sled.
Sadly, it isn’t long before the young pilot’s wound begins to fester that Overgård must make a choice. Stay in the little slice of heaven that he has carved up for himself or risk the forces of nature in an effort to save the woman’s life. With a map he recovered from the downed helicopter, Overgård is able to identify an outpost and carefully plots out the journey that will take them there. The journey he plans for will take several days and has numerous obstacles to overcome. Yet, with a heart that clearly is as large as the vastness of the arctic itself, he realizes he has no choice.
Arctic is a movie with very little dialog, other than an occasional comment to himself or an attempt to rouse his unconscious guest. For a movie that says so little it’s the atmosphere that says so much. The film attempts to capture the harsh conditions that Overgård faces along his journey and does it so brilliantly that you can almost feel the icy weight as it bears down. The audience struggles with every wintery step as if they are not only spectators, but active participants in the journey. The scenery is as awe inspiring as it is deadly. The music seamlessly blends into the environment to a point where you are aware it’s there but doesn’t break the immersion.
Arctic could almost be mistaken as a documentary, a film about one mans survival in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. Its pacing is deliberate, even if it is a bit slow at times. There is little need to add extra flair or danger into the mix, because nature alone provides it in spades. Arctic is not a movie that will appeal to those looking for non-stop action. At its heart it is really a movie about man vs nature, and nature can be a beast all its own. Arctic is certainly a movie for those looking for something a bit different. For those who are looking for a survival movie that doesn’t take place on a deserted isle, then this is right up your alley. Arctic shows that sometimes realism is far more interesting than fiction.
A lone man identified only as Overgård (Mads Mikkelsen) has crashed his cargo plane somewhere in the arctic. We don’t know how long he has been stranded there, but long enough for him to have carved out a giant S.O.S in the snow. He has converted his downed plane into his new home and goes about the same routine every day. He sets his watch alarm to keep his schedule, which involves catching fish through the ice, and setting out in a different direction each day to manually wind his transponder in the hopes that a rescue will finally come.
One day, a day like countless days before it, Overgård’s transponder turns from red to green and in the distance a helicopter appears. His lucky day soon turns into tragedy as the harsh winds of the Arctic toss the helicopter around like a kite in a hurricane, crashing it to the ground. Overgård quickly runs to the crash site only to find that one of the pilots has died in the crash, and the other (Maria Thelma Smáradôttir) is barely conscious and has a gaping wound in her side. In a scene that could almost be described as humorous (if it wasn’t for the dire situation itself), Overgård crafts a sled out of the helicopter’s sliding door to carry the woman back to the safety of his plane, only to find out the next day that inside the helicopter was an actual rescue sled.
Sadly, it isn’t long before the young pilot’s wound begins to fester that Overgård must make a choice. Stay in the little slice of heaven that he has carved up for himself or risk the forces of nature in an effort to save the woman’s life. With a map he recovered from the downed helicopter, Overgård is able to identify an outpost and carefully plots out the journey that will take them there. The journey he plans for will take several days and has numerous obstacles to overcome. Yet, with a heart that clearly is as large as the vastness of the arctic itself, he realizes he has no choice.
Arctic is a movie with very little dialog, other than an occasional comment to himself or an attempt to rouse his unconscious guest. For a movie that says so little it’s the atmosphere that says so much. The film attempts to capture the harsh conditions that Overgård faces along his journey and does it so brilliantly that you can almost feel the icy weight as it bears down. The audience struggles with every wintery step as if they are not only spectators, but active participants in the journey. The scenery is as awe inspiring as it is deadly. The music seamlessly blends into the environment to a point where you are aware it’s there but doesn’t break the immersion.
Arctic could almost be mistaken as a documentary, a film about one mans survival in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. Its pacing is deliberate, even if it is a bit slow at times. There is little need to add extra flair or danger into the mix, because nature alone provides it in spades. Arctic is not a movie that will appeal to those looking for non-stop action. At its heart it is really a movie about man vs nature, and nature can be a beast all its own. Arctic is certainly a movie for those looking for something a bit different. For those who are looking for a survival movie that doesn’t take place on a deserted isle, then this is right up your alley. Arctic shows that sometimes realism is far more interesting than fiction.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Cruise the Storm (John McBride #2) in Books
Nov 12, 2019
A group of terrorist hijackers on board a cruise ship. An ex SAS soldier on board teaching watercolour painting. A huge storm bearing down on the ship.
This might sound like the plot of some Hollywood blockbuster full of explosions and witty one liners from the hero but Chilcott delivers something a lot more cerebral than that. The story and characters have a sense of reality and this is more like a game of chess between the chief hijacker and the crew, a game where the ship is the board and the pawns the passengers which the terrorists are only too willing to dispose of to meet their aims.
Keith Bourne is the founder and leader of the White Christian League, an extreme right wing terrorist organisation who specialise in violent demonstration and the odd mosque burning. Bourne wants cash to further his rather nasty aims and decides that hijacking a cruise liner will fit the bill nicely. MI5 have been watching him and manage to get one of their agents onto the boat in an attempt to thwart Bourne and his cronies.
John McBride is a watercolour artist of some renown who is drafted onto the cruise to teach any interested passengers how to paint in watercolours, the scenes in the various Mediterranean ports they will be visitng being ideal subjects. McBride also happens to be a former member of the elite SAS and when he is made aware of the plot to hijack the ship is able to advise the captain and MI5.
The tension cranks up nicely through the first half of the book, seen mostly from the point of view of Bourne and McBride as each becomes aware of each other and both their plans have to be changed by circumstance. Everything comes to a head on the night the storm hits the ship.
At this point, with everything poised on a knife edge of success or failure for both sides, Chilcott pulls a deft narrative twist and goes back and tells the story again from the point of view of the chairman of the cruise line and one of the passengers, once again building up to the crisis point. This has the nice effect of filling in details that were previously only mentioned but also did lose the momentum which took a while to get going again. It may have been better to tell the story purely sequentially but seeing events from different perspectives again was interesting.
The characters and situations are written with a real authenticity. There are no miraculous escapes, no amazing feats of marksmanship and this is a very real strength of Chilcott's writing. Everthing happens in a way that seems very authentic - and in the case of the actions of the hijackers, worryingly so. Every action and reaction of the characters is plausible and there are frequent points where the story could go one way or another just on a chance encounter or random event.
This realism also felt a little like a weakness to me. Some things happen which provide some dramatic tension at the time but ultimately don't really have a bearing on the eventual outcome. Although this is very much like real life, perhaps it is not what is expected in a thriller of this type. In particlar (and these aren't really spoilers) the ship is damaged in the storm but this doesn't really affect anything, and also what happens when events are told from the point of view of one of the passengers looks to be building to something interesting but ultimately fizzles away. I would have liked to see more of these sub plots carried forward to the end of the story.
Despite this, the book was a good and interesting read and I am looking forward to reading more of Chilcott's McBride novels. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes their thrillers character driven and cerebral rather than all action. Plus you will pick up some excellent tips on painting in watercolours as a bonus.
Rated: Some violence, language and sexual references
This might sound like the plot of some Hollywood blockbuster full of explosions and witty one liners from the hero but Chilcott delivers something a lot more cerebral than that. The story and characters have a sense of reality and this is more like a game of chess between the chief hijacker and the crew, a game where the ship is the board and the pawns the passengers which the terrorists are only too willing to dispose of to meet their aims.
Keith Bourne is the founder and leader of the White Christian League, an extreme right wing terrorist organisation who specialise in violent demonstration and the odd mosque burning. Bourne wants cash to further his rather nasty aims and decides that hijacking a cruise liner will fit the bill nicely. MI5 have been watching him and manage to get one of their agents onto the boat in an attempt to thwart Bourne and his cronies.
John McBride is a watercolour artist of some renown who is drafted onto the cruise to teach any interested passengers how to paint in watercolours, the scenes in the various Mediterranean ports they will be visitng being ideal subjects. McBride also happens to be a former member of the elite SAS and when he is made aware of the plot to hijack the ship is able to advise the captain and MI5.
The tension cranks up nicely through the first half of the book, seen mostly from the point of view of Bourne and McBride as each becomes aware of each other and both their plans have to be changed by circumstance. Everything comes to a head on the night the storm hits the ship.
At this point, with everything poised on a knife edge of success or failure for both sides, Chilcott pulls a deft narrative twist and goes back and tells the story again from the point of view of the chairman of the cruise line and one of the passengers, once again building up to the crisis point. This has the nice effect of filling in details that were previously only mentioned but also did lose the momentum which took a while to get going again. It may have been better to tell the story purely sequentially but seeing events from different perspectives again was interesting.
The characters and situations are written with a real authenticity. There are no miraculous escapes, no amazing feats of marksmanship and this is a very real strength of Chilcott's writing. Everthing happens in a way that seems very authentic - and in the case of the actions of the hijackers, worryingly so. Every action and reaction of the characters is plausible and there are frequent points where the story could go one way or another just on a chance encounter or random event.
This realism also felt a little like a weakness to me. Some things happen which provide some dramatic tension at the time but ultimately don't really have a bearing on the eventual outcome. Although this is very much like real life, perhaps it is not what is expected in a thriller of this type. In particlar (and these aren't really spoilers) the ship is damaged in the storm but this doesn't really affect anything, and also what happens when events are told from the point of view of one of the passengers looks to be building to something interesting but ultimately fizzles away. I would have liked to see more of these sub plots carried forward to the end of the story.
Despite this, the book was a good and interesting read and I am looking forward to reading more of Chilcott's McBride novels. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes their thrillers character driven and cerebral rather than all action. Plus you will pick up some excellent tips on painting in watercolours as a bonus.
Rated: Some violence, language and sexual references
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Bad Frank (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
I love it when a movie can come completely out of nowhere and surprise this humble reviewer. Bad Frank is exactly that, A movie that on paper looks and sounds like most other Kidnap Revenge thrillers you may have seen over the years. But let me tell you that Bad Frank is far from some of the copy and paste garbage out there.
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Hunger Games franchise has come at a time that is almost certain to gather box-office success. After Harry Potter finished two years ago and The Twilight Saga bowed out just 12 months ago, teenagers and young adults have been craving for a new series of blockbusters to ‘sink their teeth into’.
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Director Gary Ross had his work cut out trying to create a film which brought to life the startling realism of Suzanne Collins’ successful trilogy of novels and here we have the first, The Hunger Games.
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
Jessica - Where the Book Ends (15 KP) rated The Astonishing Color of After in Books
Jan 30, 2019
FEELS!!!!!!!! ALL THE FEELS!!!!!!!!!! The Astonishing Color of After brought to light feelings for me that I didn’t know I was feeling. I cried tears I didn’t know I needed to cry. This book resonated with me in ways I’ve never experience before while reading. This book rebroke my heart but it also healed it in ways I couldn’t heal myself.
Let me start at the beginning… Leigh’s mother commits suicide. Her mom’s name is Dorothy and goes by Dory for short. While my mom didn’t commit suicide, she did die unexpectedly in August of 2016. I know, I know you’re thinking what does this have to do with the book but just put your patient pants on. My mom’s name was Doria, and she went by Dory. While Leigh was lucky enough to be the one that didn’t find her mom, I wasn’t lucky enough to have the same luxury. I could relate to how Leigh was feeling on so many levels. So much so, it felt like the author had interviewed me and then written the book based on that interview. Leigh feels like she is to blame partly for her mother’s death. She feels like if she would have only done x better, if only she’d been in y place at z time she would have been able to save her mom. I know because I had these same thoughts and still do until this day. After reading this book and realizing there just wasn’t anything I could have done to change the outcome of what was destined to happen. But just because my mom isn’t physically here anymore doesn’t mean she’s gone forever. I still see her in myself every time I look in the mirror. She is always with me.
The magical realism aspect of this book brought the journey and the imagery to life for me. I could picture this big beautiful red bird soaring around Leigh. The more I read of this book the more I found myself looking to the sky to see what is out there for me, and then I realized that looking to the sky is something that I’ve done since the day my mom died. I find myself looking around at the clouds and the sky seeing if there is a trace of her looking down on me. Now my favorite time to look to the sky is at night and I imagine her as one of the stars looming overhead keeping an eye on me.
The characters in this book are so real. Leigh, her grandparents, her dad, and Axel. Though, I must admit I feel as though the story could have been just as good without Axel. Sometimes he just seemed to crowd the story and take away from what was happening. I think my most favorite character was Feng, and all the she represents. I absolutely loved this aspect of the book. I also loved Ghost Month as this was something I had never heard of before and it and it reminds me of one of my other favorite holidays El Dia de los Muertos. I loved learning about the Taiwanese culture.
The way the author wove this story together through her words brought the magic and the storytelling to life. Her writing style worked extremely well for the subject of this story and I can’t wait to see what she is going to write in the future. The only aspect of this story that just didn’t mesh for me was all the colors sprinkled throughout the story. Honestly though, that is such a minute detail that it’s barely worth mentioning.
As you can see this story hit me very close to home, and I am so incredibly grateful to the author for writing it. It rebroke my heart and then helped to heal that same broken heart.
Now, on to the important bits… Suicide… If you are ever in a position where you feel that you just absolutely can’t go on do me one solid. Pause. Pick up your phone, and text HELP to 741741. This is the number for the Crisis Text Line. You will be connected to one of their trained Crisis Counselors. I am a trained Crisis Counselor on the CTL and I can guarantee you that you are not alone in how you’re feeling. Ask for help, we’re here to listen, we’re trained to help you. You are not alone. Just remember 741741 and HELP. That’s all it takes and someone will be there for you.
Let me start at the beginning… Leigh’s mother commits suicide. Her mom’s name is Dorothy and goes by Dory for short. While my mom didn’t commit suicide, she did die unexpectedly in August of 2016. I know, I know you’re thinking what does this have to do with the book but just put your patient pants on. My mom’s name was Doria, and she went by Dory. While Leigh was lucky enough to be the one that didn’t find her mom, I wasn’t lucky enough to have the same luxury. I could relate to how Leigh was feeling on so many levels. So much so, it felt like the author had interviewed me and then written the book based on that interview. Leigh feels like she is to blame partly for her mother’s death. She feels like if she would have only done x better, if only she’d been in y place at z time she would have been able to save her mom. I know because I had these same thoughts and still do until this day. After reading this book and realizing there just wasn’t anything I could have done to change the outcome of what was destined to happen. But just because my mom isn’t physically here anymore doesn’t mean she’s gone forever. I still see her in myself every time I look in the mirror. She is always with me.
The magical realism aspect of this book brought the journey and the imagery to life for me. I could picture this big beautiful red bird soaring around Leigh. The more I read of this book the more I found myself looking to the sky to see what is out there for me, and then I realized that looking to the sky is something that I’ve done since the day my mom died. I find myself looking around at the clouds and the sky seeing if there is a trace of her looking down on me. Now my favorite time to look to the sky is at night and I imagine her as one of the stars looming overhead keeping an eye on me.
The characters in this book are so real. Leigh, her grandparents, her dad, and Axel. Though, I must admit I feel as though the story could have been just as good without Axel. Sometimes he just seemed to crowd the story and take away from what was happening. I think my most favorite character was Feng, and all the she represents. I absolutely loved this aspect of the book. I also loved Ghost Month as this was something I had never heard of before and it and it reminds me of one of my other favorite holidays El Dia de los Muertos. I loved learning about the Taiwanese culture.
The way the author wove this story together through her words brought the magic and the storytelling to life. Her writing style worked extremely well for the subject of this story and I can’t wait to see what she is going to write in the future. The only aspect of this story that just didn’t mesh for me was all the colors sprinkled throughout the story. Honestly though, that is such a minute detail that it’s barely worth mentioning.
As you can see this story hit me very close to home, and I am so incredibly grateful to the author for writing it. It rebroke my heart and then helped to heal that same broken heart.
Now, on to the important bits… Suicide… If you are ever in a position where you feel that you just absolutely can’t go on do me one solid. Pause. Pick up your phone, and text HELP to 741741. This is the number for the Crisis Text Line. You will be connected to one of their trained Crisis Counselors. I am a trained Crisis Counselor on the CTL and I can guarantee you that you are not alone in how you’re feeling. Ask for help, we’re here to listen, we’re trained to help you. You are not alone. Just remember 741741 and HELP. That’s all it takes and someone will be there for you.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A soft reboot that actually works
1987; feels like a long time ago doesn’t it? In fact, most of you reading this I imagine weren’t even born way back in the late 80s. I mean, I was only a twinkle in my parents’ eyes at that time. But I digress.
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/