Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019
Good but nothing special
I feel a little let down by Captain Marvel. It isn't a bad film but neither was it up to the standard of other Marvel films. And I'm not entirely sure why.
Something about this felt a bit meh and lacklustre, especially the first half hour or so. And even when Nick Fury comes in, it still feels like there's something missing at times. Brie Larson is good and I do quite like her, Samuel L Jackson is great as a less serious rookie Fury and the rest of the supporting cast too are good. Although there could have been a little more Jude Law. The star of the show is definitely Goose by far, and this film would've been a lot worse off without him in it. I think the major issue with me is it seemed to be lacking in humour. And when there was jokes and one liners, the majority of these fell flat. It seemed to be lacking a bit if the usual Marvel pizzazz. The soundtrack is pretty good though.
My only other criticism is the weak excuse that has been put forward to explain her absence in the rest of the Marvel universe so far. I've never read any back story or comics etc so I dont know if it's it ties in with them, but it was a little disappointing.
Something about this felt a bit meh and lacklustre, especially the first half hour or so. And even when Nick Fury comes in, it still feels like there's something missing at times. Brie Larson is good and I do quite like her, Samuel L Jackson is great as a less serious rookie Fury and the rest of the supporting cast too are good. Although there could have been a little more Jude Law. The star of the show is definitely Goose by far, and this film would've been a lot worse off without him in it. I think the major issue with me is it seemed to be lacking in humour. And when there was jokes and one liners, the majority of these fell flat. It seemed to be lacking a bit if the usual Marvel pizzazz. The soundtrack is pretty good though.
My only other criticism is the weak excuse that has been put forward to explain her absence in the rest of the Marvel universe so far. I've never read any back story or comics etc so I dont know if it's it ties in with them, but it was a little disappointing.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018 (Updated Feb 9, 2018)
The Vietnam Movie That Time Forgot
Surprisingly effective and entertaining attempt to combine classic monster movie structure with a Vietnam War movie vibe. The secret monster-hunting agency of the US government organises an expedition to the mysterious Skull Island; everyone gets more than they bargained for. Is it a spoiler to reveal there's quite a big gorilla called Kong in residence?
Leading players Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson seem a bit all at sea but there is some good work from the supporting cast, who know just how much of the scenery to chew - Samuel L Jackson, John Goodman, and John C Reilly all raise a smile. The monster mashes are good fun, too. You could probably argue that doing a King Kong movie where Kong never gets off the island kind of misses the point entirely, but this is still arguably the most faithful take on the general tone of the original movie since the 1930s.
Altogether much lighter on its feet and less portentous than the most recent American Godzilla, with which it is in continuity - they don't make a big deal out of this, thankfully, but all-in-all you do rather hope the forthcoming Godzilla: King of the Monsters and Godzilla Vs Kong are closer in style to this than the 2014 movie. Toho fans should stick around for the post-credits bit.
Leading players Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson seem a bit all at sea but there is some good work from the supporting cast, who know just how much of the scenery to chew - Samuel L Jackson, John Goodman, and John C Reilly all raise a smile. The monster mashes are good fun, too. You could probably argue that doing a King Kong movie where Kong never gets off the island kind of misses the point entirely, but this is still arguably the most faithful take on the general tone of the original movie since the 1930s.
Altogether much lighter on its feet and less portentous than the most recent American Godzilla, with which it is in continuity - they don't make a big deal out of this, thankfully, but all-in-all you do rather hope the forthcoming Godzilla: King of the Monsters and Godzilla Vs Kong are closer in style to this than the 2014 movie. Toho fans should stick around for the post-credits bit.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Feb 11, 2018 (Updated Feb 11, 2018)
Oh, Mummy.
Laborious attempt by Universal to grab a slice of Marvel's meta-franchise pie by launching a series of fantasy blockbusters based on their stable of famous monster characters. Tom Cruise plays an annoying mercenary who catches the eye of an ancient and evil supernatural creature unearthed in Iraq.
There's a good reason why sensible studios don't try to make horror blockbusters, and especially horror blockbusters starring Tom Cruise - every time the film starts to be effectively creepy or atmospheric, along comes a CGI-enhanced chase sequence, or Tom Cruise doing that smirk, or some other manifestation of corporate blandness. Isn't Tom Cruise too old for this sort of thing? Watching him flirting with a considerably younger actress is by far the creepiest thing in the movie, and he seems quite incapable of the moral ambiguity the part probably requires - Russell Crowe, in the Samuel L Jackson plot-device-character role, acts him off the screen.
You scratch your head wondering how this thing is supposed to work - are all the monsters going to team up together? And do what, exactly? No-one seems to have thought this through. It's much more of a zombie movie than one about an actual mummy, anyway. The depiction of the one-way system in Oxford City Centre is also very misleading; I nearly knocked off a point because of it.
There's a good reason why sensible studios don't try to make horror blockbusters, and especially horror blockbusters starring Tom Cruise - every time the film starts to be effectively creepy or atmospheric, along comes a CGI-enhanced chase sequence, or Tom Cruise doing that smirk, or some other manifestation of corporate blandness. Isn't Tom Cruise too old for this sort of thing? Watching him flirting with a considerably younger actress is by far the creepiest thing in the movie, and he seems quite incapable of the moral ambiguity the part probably requires - Russell Crowe, in the Samuel L Jackson plot-device-character role, acts him off the screen.
You scratch your head wondering how this thing is supposed to work - are all the monsters going to team up together? And do what, exactly? No-one seems to have thought this through. It's much more of a zombie movie than one about an actual mummy, anyway. The depiction of the one-way system in Oxford City Centre is also very misleading; I nearly knocked off a point because of it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
Lucy Ellis (1 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Jan 13, 2018 (Updated Jan 13, 2018)
Character Development (2 more)
Fight Scenes
It gave me the feels
Better than I expected
Contains spoilers, click to show
I heard a lot of bad things about this film before I saw it so I was apprehensive but it was so much better than I expected it to be.
Everyone was saying it’s nowhere near as good as the first one and to be honest I’d have to disagree. Yes it did pay homage to the first film a lot and it’s storyline relied slightly more on suspension of disbelief than the first one but as a film separate from its predecessor i genuinely thought it was good.
There was a clear story arc that felt like something that could be told as an extension to the first film without it seeming as though they were milking it dry for some dollar. There was a higher quality of characterisation in this film - particularly with secondary characters. And it didn’t have Samuel L Jackson playing a lisp twat so that was a bonus.
The only issue for me was Harry’s character. The fact that they brought him back from the dead so he could flail around as a useless butterfly enthusiast for half an hour before coming back to the film with some form of immature portrayal of PTSD flashbacks just made me frustrated. Don’t even get me started on Merlin. (Although his death was beautiful and a lovely addition to the film I still miss him and I cried so no)
Everyone was saying it’s nowhere near as good as the first one and to be honest I’d have to disagree. Yes it did pay homage to the first film a lot and it’s storyline relied slightly more on suspension of disbelief than the first one but as a film separate from its predecessor i genuinely thought it was good.
There was a clear story arc that felt like something that could be told as an extension to the first film without it seeming as though they were milking it dry for some dollar. There was a higher quality of characterisation in this film - particularly with secondary characters. And it didn’t have Samuel L Jackson playing a lisp twat so that was a bonus.
The only issue for me was Harry’s character. The fact that they brought him back from the dead so he could flail around as a useless butterfly enthusiast for half an hour before coming back to the film with some form of immature portrayal of PTSD flashbacks just made me frustrated. Don’t even get me started on Merlin. (Although his death was beautiful and a lovely addition to the film I still miss him and I cried so no)
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Deep Blue Sea (1999) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Deep Blue Sea will always have a special place in my heart. At the time of its release, I was eight years old and it’s one of the few horror movies (if you can call it that) that I was allowed to watch. With that said, it’s a guilty pleasure and finding it on Netflix the other night was pretty amazing.
They say the path to Hell is paved with good intentions and Deep Blue Sea reminds us exactly how such proverbs can come true. Dr. Susan McAlester’s unhealthy obsession with finding a cure for Alzheimer’s guides her to costly extremes – and no price is too high in her book. It’s a classic example of sacrificing the few to aid the many, and it is, admittedly, a little overdone.
That said, this movie has some pretty awesome, if dated, death scenes – which I won’t go into detail about in case you haven’t seen it. What I can say is that this is actually a movie where Samuel L. Jackson doesn’t say “motherfucking.” (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall hearing it at all, which was a shocker.)
Naturally, Deep Blue Sea isn’t something that’s breathtakingly amazing. It’s got its moments though, and it is a fun jaunt through what goes wrong when you mess with things you don’t know about. Seriously, it’s worth a watch for some of its silly little comedic moments, at that. Pretty solid three out of five.
They say the path to Hell is paved with good intentions and Deep Blue Sea reminds us exactly how such proverbs can come true. Dr. Susan McAlester’s unhealthy obsession with finding a cure for Alzheimer’s guides her to costly extremes – and no price is too high in her book. It’s a classic example of sacrificing the few to aid the many, and it is, admittedly, a little overdone.
That said, this movie has some pretty awesome, if dated, death scenes – which I won’t go into detail about in case you haven’t seen it. What I can say is that this is actually a movie where Samuel L. Jackson doesn’t say “motherfucking.” (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall hearing it at all, which was a shocker.)
Naturally, Deep Blue Sea isn’t something that’s breathtakingly amazing. It’s got its moments though, and it is a fun jaunt through what goes wrong when you mess with things you don’t know about. Seriously, it’s worth a watch for some of its silly little comedic moments, at that. Pretty solid three out of five.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For professional Bodyguard Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds), life is good. As an elite member of his craft, he is well paid and lives a very good life keeping high-profile targets safe the world over. When things unexpectedly take a turn we find Michael two years on having hit the skids and struggling to claw his way back to prominence in the new film “The Hitman’s Bodyguard”.
Things become complicated for Michael as a despotic tyrant named Dukhovich (Gary Oldman) is on trial for war crimes and countless atrocities, and is about to go free due to removing all those who would be able to testify against him with credible evidence. That is with the exception of one Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson). Darius is incarcerated but makes a deal to testify in exchange for his wife (Selma Hayek), being granted freedom. Darius knows he is a marked man but takes the chance and under the watch of Interpol Agent Roussel (Elodie Yung), they set off.
Naturally things do not go as planned and the two find themselves fleeing for their lives with numerous deadly assassins hot on their heels. Unsure who she can trust, Roussel calls in Michael even though they have some seriously unresolved issues about one another that destroyed their previous relationship. Further complicating matters is the history Michael and Darius share which makes them naturally hostile to one another.
Nevertheless, Michael and Darius set off to reach the courtroom but the imposed deadline and face numerous dangers and hilarious situations along the way.
Jackson and Reynolds work very well with one another and their banter and chiding comes across as very natural. The jokes come more often than I expected but the film is very much an action film, and the sequences are intense, funny, and gripping, especially and extended chase and fight sequence along the canals and shopping district of Amsterdam.
While some may say that the film is just a variation on the Buddy Cop genre of old, the strong cast and the winning mix of jokes and action make the film a very pleasant surprise and one of my more enjoyable films of 2017. It was a highly-enjoyable thrill ride and one of the best films this summer.
If you are a fan of action, comedies, and the pairing of Jackson and Reynolds, do not miss this film.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/17/the-hitmans-bodyguard/
Things become complicated for Michael as a despotic tyrant named Dukhovich (Gary Oldman) is on trial for war crimes and countless atrocities, and is about to go free due to removing all those who would be able to testify against him with credible evidence. That is with the exception of one Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson). Darius is incarcerated but makes a deal to testify in exchange for his wife (Selma Hayek), being granted freedom. Darius knows he is a marked man but takes the chance and under the watch of Interpol Agent Roussel (Elodie Yung), they set off.
Naturally things do not go as planned and the two find themselves fleeing for their lives with numerous deadly assassins hot on their heels. Unsure who she can trust, Roussel calls in Michael even though they have some seriously unresolved issues about one another that destroyed their previous relationship. Further complicating matters is the history Michael and Darius share which makes them naturally hostile to one another.
Nevertheless, Michael and Darius set off to reach the courtroom but the imposed deadline and face numerous dangers and hilarious situations along the way.
Jackson and Reynolds work very well with one another and their banter and chiding comes across as very natural. The jokes come more often than I expected but the film is very much an action film, and the sequences are intense, funny, and gripping, especially and extended chase and fight sequence along the canals and shopping district of Amsterdam.
While some may say that the film is just a variation on the Buddy Cop genre of old, the strong cast and the winning mix of jokes and action make the film a very pleasant surprise and one of my more enjoyable films of 2017. It was a highly-enjoyable thrill ride and one of the best films this summer.
If you are a fan of action, comedies, and the pairing of Jackson and Reynolds, do not miss this film.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/17/the-hitmans-bodyguard/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Twisted (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
For newly promoted Homicide Detective Jessica Shepard (Ashley Judd), life is about to take an unexpected twist that will leave the most private aspects of her life on display and her very sanity questioned.
Sheppard has just been promoted to the San Francisco Homicide unit after bringing in suspected serial killer Edmund Cutler (Leland Orser). Sheppard ignored protocol and almost became a victim herself so there are those in the department who resent her promotion and credit it to her gender and the fact that she is sponsored by a high ranking official named John Mills (Samuel L. Jackson) who has raised her since Shepard’s parents were killed years earlier.
Sheppard is soon called in to investigate a body floating in the bay, and is shocked to discover the victim is a man she picked up in a bar previously. When a second body is discovered also with a connection to Shepard, her partner Mike Delmarco (Andy Garcia), thinks that Jessica may have an obsessive stalker following her.
Jessica is soon a suspect in the killings and the fact that she is blacking out at night is causing Jessica to suspect that she may be responsible for the killings.
What should be a tense thriller never emerges as the film plods along never allowing any tension to build. There are attempts to plant a few red-herrings as the film draws to the conclusion but the identity of the killer is so obvious that all that is missing is a neon sign proclaiming the obvious. To further add to the failure of the film, I was able to see events coming far in advance including the events of the final confrontation.
Judd and Garcia do the best they can with the material but Jackson is woefully underused in a story that seems better suited for a movie of the week. It is a shame that an interesting premise such as this is wasted, as “Twisted” is a whodunit that will leave you saying who cares.
Sheppard has just been promoted to the San Francisco Homicide unit after bringing in suspected serial killer Edmund Cutler (Leland Orser). Sheppard ignored protocol and almost became a victim herself so there are those in the department who resent her promotion and credit it to her gender and the fact that she is sponsored by a high ranking official named John Mills (Samuel L. Jackson) who has raised her since Shepard’s parents were killed years earlier.
Sheppard is soon called in to investigate a body floating in the bay, and is shocked to discover the victim is a man she picked up in a bar previously. When a second body is discovered also with a connection to Shepard, her partner Mike Delmarco (Andy Garcia), thinks that Jessica may have an obsessive stalker following her.
Jessica is soon a suspect in the killings and the fact that she is blacking out at night is causing Jessica to suspect that she may be responsible for the killings.
What should be a tense thriller never emerges as the film plods along never allowing any tension to build. There are attempts to plant a few red-herrings as the film draws to the conclusion but the identity of the killer is so obvious that all that is missing is a neon sign proclaiming the obvious. To further add to the failure of the film, I was able to see events coming far in advance including the events of the final confrontation.
Judd and Garcia do the best they can with the material but Jackson is woefully underused in a story that seems better suited for a movie of the week. It is a shame that an interesting premise such as this is wasted, as “Twisted” is a whodunit that will leave you saying who cares.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Deep Blue Sea (1999) in Movies
Jan 2, 2020
Fun in parts, but showing its age
The premise for Deep Blue Sea is painfully simple - it's Jurassic Park in the ocean.
A deep sea research facility, housing genetically modified great white sharks, is compromised during a tropical storm - everyone panics, people get eaten.
Like I said - Jurassic Park in the ocean. Unfortunately, the execution and quality is nowhere near the same level as it's dinosaur counterpart.
Deep Blue Sea is fun for sure. It's a sure fire way to mindlessly enjoy a couple of hours. At the time of it's release, it was firmly in the so-bad-its-great category, but as the years have gone by, the film has ages terribly in terms of special effects. The sharks look horrible these days. Like, original PlayStation cut scene kind of horrible. When films like JP, and Terminator 2 still look more than passable, it's hard to defend!
The dialogue is cheesy as all hell, and the whole thing is shot in a pretty sub-standard action film style - in summary, it's pretty awful.
That being said, it's a difficult film to hate too much. The cast are pretty fun for the most part - Thomas Jane, Samuel L. Jackson, Stellan Skarsgård and even LL Cool J are all pretty entertaining (apart from that god awful Head is Like a Sharks Fin song) and there are some genuinely gory and tense moments (as tense as people being chased by shiny pixels can be).
Is definitely an ok-crap film but the chances are that I'll watch it when it's on TV...
A deep sea research facility, housing genetically modified great white sharks, is compromised during a tropical storm - everyone panics, people get eaten.
Like I said - Jurassic Park in the ocean. Unfortunately, the execution and quality is nowhere near the same level as it's dinosaur counterpart.
Deep Blue Sea is fun for sure. It's a sure fire way to mindlessly enjoy a couple of hours. At the time of it's release, it was firmly in the so-bad-its-great category, but as the years have gone by, the film has ages terribly in terms of special effects. The sharks look horrible these days. Like, original PlayStation cut scene kind of horrible. When films like JP, and Terminator 2 still look more than passable, it's hard to defend!
The dialogue is cheesy as all hell, and the whole thing is shot in a pretty sub-standard action film style - in summary, it's pretty awful.
That being said, it's a difficult film to hate too much. The cast are pretty fun for the most part - Thomas Jane, Samuel L. Jackson, Stellan Skarsgård and even LL Cool J are all pretty entertaining (apart from that god awful Head is Like a Sharks Fin song) and there are some genuinely gory and tense moments (as tense as people being chased by shiny pixels can be).
Is definitely an ok-crap film but the chances are that I'll watch it when it's on TV...
Erika (17788 KP) Mar 13, 2019