Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
May 16, 2021
Reinventing the wheel has always come with some sceptical reactions from me, and Tom and Jerry has always been one of those treasured memories for me.
Jerry sets up a new home in the Royal Gate Hotel just before a high profile wedding is scheduled. When new hire Kayla is tasked with solving the hotel's new found mouse problem, she brings Tom into the fold to help.
Tom and Jerry is a classic I love and the thought of reimagining it in this way made me dubious to say the least. Traditionally you're only supposed to see humans from (roughly speaking) the knees down after all... and there are a lot of humans in this.
I'm not sure that the story here really matters all that much, Tom and Jerry should be about their action-y interactions. And there's the initial problem, because they should be the focus, and they're not. The human contingent takes up a hefty amount of screen time, and that to me sort of goes against the original concept.
The animation style isn't great, I have issues with CG animation, especially when it comes to things with a strong existing style. Once the film found its footing though I did find that I wasn't noticing it much, and in the end, dare I say it, I quite liked the successful animation of Toots and how it encompassed the stereotypical evils of feline nature.
When you combine the story with the cast (human and animated) you do get an amusing film, but it does feel a lot like the first Garfield film in how long it will be in people's minds.
What I will congratulate this film for is that it give you so wonderfully nostalgic moments, I loved seeing the "what's in my hands" gag... or maybe I'm easily pleased.
Chloë Grace Moretz and Michael Peña make for fun allies and adversaries to Tom and Jerry. But I think my favourite humans were Patsy Ferran as Joy the Bell Girl and Rob Delaney as the hotel manager. Though not on screen very often they broke up the "serious" moments nicely and added a much-needed break from everything else.
Tom and Jerry was exactly what I wanted, though I don't think it was what I expected. It won't be winning any awards, but I was pleasantly surprised by what it brought to the screen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/tom-jerry-2021-movie-review.html
Jerry sets up a new home in the Royal Gate Hotel just before a high profile wedding is scheduled. When new hire Kayla is tasked with solving the hotel's new found mouse problem, she brings Tom into the fold to help.
Tom and Jerry is a classic I love and the thought of reimagining it in this way made me dubious to say the least. Traditionally you're only supposed to see humans from (roughly speaking) the knees down after all... and there are a lot of humans in this.
I'm not sure that the story here really matters all that much, Tom and Jerry should be about their action-y interactions. And there's the initial problem, because they should be the focus, and they're not. The human contingent takes up a hefty amount of screen time, and that to me sort of goes against the original concept.
The animation style isn't great, I have issues with CG animation, especially when it comes to things with a strong existing style. Once the film found its footing though I did find that I wasn't noticing it much, and in the end, dare I say it, I quite liked the successful animation of Toots and how it encompassed the stereotypical evils of feline nature.
When you combine the story with the cast (human and animated) you do get an amusing film, but it does feel a lot like the first Garfield film in how long it will be in people's minds.
What I will congratulate this film for is that it give you so wonderfully nostalgic moments, I loved seeing the "what's in my hands" gag... or maybe I'm easily pleased.
Chloë Grace Moretz and Michael Peña make for fun allies and adversaries to Tom and Jerry. But I think my favourite humans were Patsy Ferran as Joy the Bell Girl and Rob Delaney as the hotel manager. Though not on screen very often they broke up the "serious" moments nicely and added a much-needed break from everything else.
Tom and Jerry was exactly what I wanted, though I don't think it was what I expected. It won't be winning any awards, but I was pleasantly surprised by what it brought to the screen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/tom-jerry-2021-movie-review.html
The Abyssal Plain: The R'lyeh Cycle
1.0
Rate It
Book
With The Abyssal Plain, Holloway and Talley have managed to transform the Cthulhu Mythos into...
Wake Up, Sir!
Jonathan Ames and Jamie Keenan
Book
A brilliant contemporary reimagining of the greatest comic relationship of all time, which goes far...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
An absolute snooze
Here comes yet another superhero film. Ending Marvel’s year that has included the charming Big Hero 6, the overstuffed Avengers: Age of Ultron and the surprisingly excellent Ant-Man, the Fox produced Fantastic Four reboot has a tough job trying to get audiences to forget the horror that came before it.
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dad's Army (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Full of wasted British talent
I may be fairly young in years, but I grew up around comedies like Only Fools & Horses, One Foot in the Grave and of course Dad’s Army. I remember many evenings sitting at home with my dad as he cried with laughter at all three, though it was the latter’s influence that stuck with me the most.
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
MasterSolace (19 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019
The Music(it's Disney) (4 more)
The Special Effects(it's Disney)
The Atmosphere
The Cast & Characters
One last bit... in the review
Live-Action Magic
Contains spoilers, click to show
Disney has been on a kick of redoing their animated masterpieces into live action masterpieces. It worked with Cinderella... Jungle Book was flawed, but still wild... and Beauty and the Beast was simply Beautiful. So... was this reimagining of Aladdin up to par...
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 14, 2021
Well, here we are... I'm not really sure I remember the original, but I suspect that's a bit of a blessing.
When a young boy encounters a strange and frightening woman his grandmother tells him about the existence of witches. In an attempt to hide from the woman, they take a trip that accidentally drops them in the middle of a witch convention led by the Grand High Witch.
At 1 hour 46 the witches feels like a short film to watch, but on reflection that runtime seems incredibly long for what was actually presented. The opening feels long, while somehow empty. There's obviously a need to get the backstory out, but I'm not sure I enjoyed the Chris Rock voiceover combined with the condensed story from Grandma.
I don't think there's a whole lot to grumble about with the storyline, witches exist, they hate children, plan to obliterate them all... blah blah blah. While I'm not entirely convinced there's a place for some of Roald Dahl's stories these days, but this sort of kids in peril and magic plots are fairly easy ones to get along with.
I love seeing Octavia Spencer in things, though I refuse to accept her as a grandmother. There were some moments with her that I really enjoyed, but there were quite a few scenes where the reactions didn't feel right for the situation. This wasn't something isolated to Spencer's performance, a combination of odd script and strangely edited transitions and effects left me with a lot of moments to pause.
Jahzir Bruno as Hero Boy was very good once the setting moved to the hotel, and I loved his reactions to hearing his gran explaining how to identify a witch.
Let's talk about the Grand High Witch shall we? Anne Hathaway definitely felt like the only one who was all in on their performance... and that's maybe the only positive thing I have to say about it. It was so incredibly difficult to understand what was being said half of the time, you can take an educated guess, but that doesn't really help when you're watching a film.
While all the witches have effects on them it's mainly Hathaway that had the screen time with it. As a scary creation it's pretty good, the mouth and teeth give a very sinister vibe... but at times I felt like it was overused. There were times when the effects really shone. The Grand High Witch's features looked spookily realistic, and here movements flowed seamlessly. But then you got the throwing of objects, and the animals, and it falls apart. The cat in particular reminded me of early, dubious, Harry Potter effects. (And that's not the only Harry Potter element I felt, there are strong Dudley vibes too.)
This reimagining of The Witches may have enough rodent action and face-pulling for the kids to get some enjoyment out of it, but this empty feeling film left me with little to remember apart from the negatives.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-witches-movie-review.html
When a young boy encounters a strange and frightening woman his grandmother tells him about the existence of witches. In an attempt to hide from the woman, they take a trip that accidentally drops them in the middle of a witch convention led by the Grand High Witch.
At 1 hour 46 the witches feels like a short film to watch, but on reflection that runtime seems incredibly long for what was actually presented. The opening feels long, while somehow empty. There's obviously a need to get the backstory out, but I'm not sure I enjoyed the Chris Rock voiceover combined with the condensed story from Grandma.
I don't think there's a whole lot to grumble about with the storyline, witches exist, they hate children, plan to obliterate them all... blah blah blah. While I'm not entirely convinced there's a place for some of Roald Dahl's stories these days, but this sort of kids in peril and magic plots are fairly easy ones to get along with.
I love seeing Octavia Spencer in things, though I refuse to accept her as a grandmother. There were some moments with her that I really enjoyed, but there were quite a few scenes where the reactions didn't feel right for the situation. This wasn't something isolated to Spencer's performance, a combination of odd script and strangely edited transitions and effects left me with a lot of moments to pause.
Jahzir Bruno as Hero Boy was very good once the setting moved to the hotel, and I loved his reactions to hearing his gran explaining how to identify a witch.
Let's talk about the Grand High Witch shall we? Anne Hathaway definitely felt like the only one who was all in on their performance... and that's maybe the only positive thing I have to say about it. It was so incredibly difficult to understand what was being said half of the time, you can take an educated guess, but that doesn't really help when you're watching a film.
While all the witches have effects on them it's mainly Hathaway that had the screen time with it. As a scary creation it's pretty good, the mouth and teeth give a very sinister vibe... but at times I felt like it was overused. There were times when the effects really shone. The Grand High Witch's features looked spookily realistic, and here movements flowed seamlessly. But then you got the throwing of objects, and the animals, and it falls apart. The cat in particular reminded me of early, dubious, Harry Potter effects. (And that's not the only Harry Potter element I felt, there are strong Dudley vibes too.)
This reimagining of The Witches may have enough rodent action and face-pulling for the kids to get some enjoyment out of it, but this empty feeling film left me with little to remember apart from the negatives.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-witches-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
If I had a pound for every time someone said they wanted a live-action Power Rangers reboot, I’d have exactly… nothing. The popular television series isn’t the first franchise that comes to mind when imagining films that’ll draw in the crowds, especially considering its era was very much the 90s.
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/