Search
Search results
Batman: Resurrection
5.0
Rate It
Book
After The Joker’s death, Batman and Gotham City face a mysterious new threat in this direct sequel...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Do you like time travel
“It feels like a movie born from a different era.” That is the thought that immediately flooded my brain upon leaving the cinema after watching Venom. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing of course. Hundreds of amazing films have been born well before superhero films became the successful genre they are today.
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Welcome back to Jumanji
How dare they make a sequel/remake/reboot of Jumanji? I mean that film was a classic. Admittedly a very average classic that doesn’t really live up to your childhood memory of it, but still. And, yeah, Zathura was a kind of remake given it was adapted from a book by the same writer and explored the same themes, but nobody watched that, so how dare they do a new Jumanji film? I mean it’s only 22 years since the original came out!
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Purge: Anarchy (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Last year audiences got a glimpse into a future America where crime, unemployment, and other social factors were at an all-time low. The cost for such radical social transformation was an annual Purge where for 12 hours; all crimes including murder are legal.
The film was made for less than $4 million and went on to become a surprise hit which naturally gave rise to sequel plans.
“The Purge: Anarchy” picks up a year later shortly before the annual Purge commences. The story follows three main groups of people who are preparing for the pending evening in Los Angeles.
Eva, (Carmen Ejogo), is a single mom who works as a waitress when she is not caring for her daughter and father, Shane and Liz a coupling facing a possible separation, ( Zach Gilford, Kiele Sanchez), and a mysterious man known as Sargent (Frank Grillo).
Although strangers at the start of the evening, fate brings them all together on an evening where not everyone can be trusted as people can turn on one another over long standing grudges or simply to ‘free the beast” as they call it citing their right to do so as granted by the new founding fathers.
The streets have become a battlefield as the carnage builds up and people locked in their buildings soon find themselves under attack from black armor clad shock troops supported by chain gun equipped semi-trailers.
The main characters of the film must work with one another to stay alive as Sergeant as desperate need of a car to replace the one he lost saving his companions, but to the others he is a dangerous wildcard that they are not sure can be trusted.
As the group moves through the streets looking for safety, danger is all around them and as they evening progresses they learn more and more about the Purge and who in society benefits the most from this annual event.
With death a constant companion, the group must survive against all odds in a world gone mad for 12 hours and with limited options, they must take on the deadliest threats ever assembled for The Purge.
The film is a rare sequel that is actually better than the original. The increased budget shows as the ability to set the story in a city rather than a single home has allowed a more diverse cast of characters, motivations, and scenarios to be presented.
Aside from the solid mix of action and suspense, I enjoyed the fact that the characters came across as real people rather than stereotypical fodder for films of this type. While there is not tons of depth given to them, we are given enough information to understand their motivations and find a reason to care for them.
The film also takes on some very touchy subjects such as social injustices, the needs of the poor vs the seemingly uncaring attitudes of the wealthy and how laws seem to be made often to appease only the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.
Taking on such difficult subject matter without becoming overly preachy was a strong point of the film as it not only entertained but raised some very good questions and social commentary while allowing the audience to make up their own minds.
This reminded me in many ways of the original Star Trek series as they were pioneers in taking on topics that the network censors would not allow by hiding it in the cloak of fantasy. The powers that be had little knowledge of what was being presented but those who did watch the show clearly got the message.
This was evident in the film when the tables turned on a sadistic and elite socialite which resulted in loud cheers and applause from the audience.
There has been talk that the next film in the series may be a prequel and deal with the original Purge and how it came to be. I for one would love to see more as the nature of the premise gives rise to so many stories and scenarios in one night alone, and the fact that the Purge is an annual event, and then perhaps we will see films in this series on a regular basis. If they keep up the quality of this one, then I say bring them on.
http://sknr.net/2014/07/18/the-purge-anarchy/
The film was made for less than $4 million and went on to become a surprise hit which naturally gave rise to sequel plans.
“The Purge: Anarchy” picks up a year later shortly before the annual Purge commences. The story follows three main groups of people who are preparing for the pending evening in Los Angeles.
Eva, (Carmen Ejogo), is a single mom who works as a waitress when she is not caring for her daughter and father, Shane and Liz a coupling facing a possible separation, ( Zach Gilford, Kiele Sanchez), and a mysterious man known as Sargent (Frank Grillo).
Although strangers at the start of the evening, fate brings them all together on an evening where not everyone can be trusted as people can turn on one another over long standing grudges or simply to ‘free the beast” as they call it citing their right to do so as granted by the new founding fathers.
The streets have become a battlefield as the carnage builds up and people locked in their buildings soon find themselves under attack from black armor clad shock troops supported by chain gun equipped semi-trailers.
The main characters of the film must work with one another to stay alive as Sergeant as desperate need of a car to replace the one he lost saving his companions, but to the others he is a dangerous wildcard that they are not sure can be trusted.
As the group moves through the streets looking for safety, danger is all around them and as they evening progresses they learn more and more about the Purge and who in society benefits the most from this annual event.
With death a constant companion, the group must survive against all odds in a world gone mad for 12 hours and with limited options, they must take on the deadliest threats ever assembled for The Purge.
The film is a rare sequel that is actually better than the original. The increased budget shows as the ability to set the story in a city rather than a single home has allowed a more diverse cast of characters, motivations, and scenarios to be presented.
Aside from the solid mix of action and suspense, I enjoyed the fact that the characters came across as real people rather than stereotypical fodder for films of this type. While there is not tons of depth given to them, we are given enough information to understand their motivations and find a reason to care for them.
The film also takes on some very touchy subjects such as social injustices, the needs of the poor vs the seemingly uncaring attitudes of the wealthy and how laws seem to be made often to appease only the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.
Taking on such difficult subject matter without becoming overly preachy was a strong point of the film as it not only entertained but raised some very good questions and social commentary while allowing the audience to make up their own minds.
This reminded me in many ways of the original Star Trek series as they were pioneers in taking on topics that the network censors would not allow by hiding it in the cloak of fantasy. The powers that be had little knowledge of what was being presented but those who did watch the show clearly got the message.
This was evident in the film when the tables turned on a sadistic and elite socialite which resulted in loud cheers and applause from the audience.
There has been talk that the next film in the series may be a prequel and deal with the original Purge and how it came to be. I for one would love to see more as the nature of the premise gives rise to so many stories and scenarios in one night alone, and the fact that the Purge is an annual event, and then perhaps we will see films in this series on a regular basis. If they keep up the quality of this one, then I say bring them on.
http://sknr.net/2014/07/18/the-purge-anarchy/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 28 Days Later (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Verdict: Modern Zombie Gem
Story: 28 Days Later starts by showing a group of activists breaking into a laboratory where chimps are forced to watch some of the most gruesome sites in human history. This was designed to create pure rage and when the chimps are released an epidemic starts. 28 Days Later (title drop) we meet Jim (Murphy) who wakes up in a hospital, alone he searches looking for help but the hospital, streets and everywhere is empty. Wonder around the empty London Jim finds a church filled with infected that chase him before getting save by Mark (Huntley) and Selena (Harris) who also fill in the blanks of what happened.
Jim finds out the harsh reality of the world now but meeting Frank (Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Burns) gives them a chance to go to a radio signal left by the military. The group soon find the military holding up in a mansion lead by Major Henry West (Eccleston) but not everything is as it seems.
28 Days Later brings the modern infected zombie film to life in one of the best story ideas we have seen. It is good to see a story that the infection can only be spread rather than you turn when you die which is big change to all we have seen. The journey itself is been there seen that but what we get is a revenge film with infected around once we meet the military. This shows us that the enemy could come from all direction and our characters are never going to be safe in the world now. This is easily one of the best zombie based films in recent years. (9/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Cillian Murphy: Jim waking up alone in a hospital he wonders the empty city before being found by other survivors, with a group he heads to the military safe zone where he ends up having to fight to save the rest of his group from not only infected but the soldiers. Cillian gives a great performance and this put him on the map for bigger roles. (9/10)
jim
Naomie Harris: Selena the nonsense survivor who takes no prisoners which we see from the moment her fellow survivor gets infected. Naomie gives a good performance showing that she was always going to be in bigger films. (8/10)
Brendan Gleeson: Frank caring father who has waited for support before taking his daughter to a radio signal he has been hearing. This character may only be a supporting character but his final moments are one of the most memorable turns in this genre history. Brendan does a good job in what is just a supporting performance. (8/10)
Christopher Eccleston: Major Henry West who is running the military unit that has been calling for the survivors but his motives are not what they seem. Christopher gives a good performance in the role. (7/10)
Support Cast: 28 Days Later doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast we have a couple of other survivors as well as the soldiers in the military unit. They all help as they show us what the characters are capable off.
Director Review: Danny Boyle – Danny does a great job directing this zombie classic that is easily one of the best in the genre. (9/10)
Horror: 28 Days Later uses plenty of horror elements with survival horror shinning through. (10/10)
Music: 28 Days Later uses brilliant scores to build the tension up through the scenes. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Days Later uses the settings really well to show how empty busy places could be when the world comes to an end. (9/10)
Special Effects: 28 Days Later uses great special effects with the infected creation. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Days Later is one to watch for every horror fan out there. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Suspense building.
Worst Part: Nothing
Action Scene Of The Film: Jim breaks into the mansion
REPORT THIS AD
Kill Of The Film: Frank
Scariest Scene: Jim’s returns home
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has one sequel with talks of another always around.
Post Credits Scene: There is the alternative ending
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $82 Million
Budget: $8 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: His fear began when he woke up alone. His terror began when he realised he wasn’t.
Trivia: The scene where Jim and Selena celebrate with Frank and Hannah was shot on September 11, 2001. Danny Boyle said it felt extremely strange to shoot a celebratory scene on that particular day.
Overall: Brilliant Infected Film
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/14/28-days-later-2002/
Story: 28 Days Later starts by showing a group of activists breaking into a laboratory where chimps are forced to watch some of the most gruesome sites in human history. This was designed to create pure rage and when the chimps are released an epidemic starts. 28 Days Later (title drop) we meet Jim (Murphy) who wakes up in a hospital, alone he searches looking for help but the hospital, streets and everywhere is empty. Wonder around the empty London Jim finds a church filled with infected that chase him before getting save by Mark (Huntley) and Selena (Harris) who also fill in the blanks of what happened.
Jim finds out the harsh reality of the world now but meeting Frank (Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Burns) gives them a chance to go to a radio signal left by the military. The group soon find the military holding up in a mansion lead by Major Henry West (Eccleston) but not everything is as it seems.
28 Days Later brings the modern infected zombie film to life in one of the best story ideas we have seen. It is good to see a story that the infection can only be spread rather than you turn when you die which is big change to all we have seen. The journey itself is been there seen that but what we get is a revenge film with infected around once we meet the military. This shows us that the enemy could come from all direction and our characters are never going to be safe in the world now. This is easily one of the best zombie based films in recent years. (9/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Cillian Murphy: Jim waking up alone in a hospital he wonders the empty city before being found by other survivors, with a group he heads to the military safe zone where he ends up having to fight to save the rest of his group from not only infected but the soldiers. Cillian gives a great performance and this put him on the map for bigger roles. (9/10)
jim
Naomie Harris: Selena the nonsense survivor who takes no prisoners which we see from the moment her fellow survivor gets infected. Naomie gives a good performance showing that she was always going to be in bigger films. (8/10)
Brendan Gleeson: Frank caring father who has waited for support before taking his daughter to a radio signal he has been hearing. This character may only be a supporting character but his final moments are one of the most memorable turns in this genre history. Brendan does a good job in what is just a supporting performance. (8/10)
Christopher Eccleston: Major Henry West who is running the military unit that has been calling for the survivors but his motives are not what they seem. Christopher gives a good performance in the role. (7/10)
Support Cast: 28 Days Later doesn’t have the biggest supporting cast we have a couple of other survivors as well as the soldiers in the military unit. They all help as they show us what the characters are capable off.
Director Review: Danny Boyle – Danny does a great job directing this zombie classic that is easily one of the best in the genre. (9/10)
Horror: 28 Days Later uses plenty of horror elements with survival horror shinning through. (10/10)
Music: 28 Days Later uses brilliant scores to build the tension up through the scenes. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Days Later uses the settings really well to show how empty busy places could be when the world comes to an end. (9/10)
Special Effects: 28 Days Later uses great special effects with the infected creation. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Days Later is one to watch for every horror fan out there. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Suspense building.
Worst Part: Nothing
Action Scene Of The Film: Jim breaks into the mansion
REPORT THIS AD
Kill Of The Film: Frank
Scariest Scene: Jim’s returns home
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has one sequel with talks of another always around.
Post Credits Scene: There is the alternative ending
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $82 Million
Budget: $8 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: His fear began when he woke up alone. His terror began when he realised he wasn’t.
Trivia: The scene where Jim and Selena celebrate with Frank and Hannah was shot on September 11, 2001. Danny Boyle said it felt extremely strange to shoot a celebratory scene on that particular day.
Overall: Brilliant Infected Film
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/14/28-days-later-2002/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 300 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 300 starts by telling us about Leonidas and how he was put through his training as a child before becoming King Leonidas (Butler). When a Persian messenger comes to Sparta with a message from King Xerxes (Santoro) about an impending war Leonidas refuses to back down. Leonidas draws up a battle plan to go against the Persian’s against that out numbers them drastically. The oracles warn Leonidas about going into the battle but Leonidas refuses to back down.
Leonidas selects 300 warriors who have sons to carry on their names to go and fight leaving Sparta behind. One the way to the battle Leonidas and his men learn what the Persians are capable off as they prepare for the battle. We follow King Leonidas and his 300 as they plough through the Persian army defying all of the odds, while another battle for power rages on back at Sparta.
300 shows how determined one group of people were to protect their own land, sure we have comic book style which helps the film enter the fantasy side. It doesn’t have the most original screen story but this is clearly made for the action. We do see how the warriors of Sparta would have been the better in battle even if the actual battle turned into something very fantasy based. Just remember you won’t need to be thinking too much through this film, just relax and enjoy. (7/10)
Actor Review
Gerard Butler: King Leonidas fearless warrior who leads his army of 300 into battle against the Persians against all odds. He goes against all the gods and wishes of their oracle to battle for his people. Gerard gives a good performance showing how he was going to be a lead actor. (8/10)
leonidas
Lena Headey: Queen Gorgo who is left to rule Sparta while the King goes into battle. She has to deal with Theron who stays back might not be as loyal as first thought. Lena gives a good performance and shows how she was always going to be playing a Queen. (7/10)
lena
Dominic West: Theron Spartan who stays behind and tries to use his power in the city to gain power over the people while Leonidas is battling for their freedom. Dominic gives a solid performance as the scheming villain. (6/10)
dom
David Wenham: Dilios warrior who is also the story telling, he provides narration for the story and fills us in on Leonidas’ past. David gives a good performance as the story teller but also warrior who fights for Sparta. (6/10)
david
Michael Fassbender: Stelios one of the fearless warriors who has never faced a real challenge and hopes to find one in this battle. Michael gives a good performance as the greatest warrior of the army in what was his debut role. (7/10)
stelios
Support Cast: 300 supporting cast is filled with warriors on both sides of the fight, they all have their moments in the battle.
Director Review: Zack Snyder – Zack showed why he is such a popular director with his newer style of directing which is both unique and entertaining. (8/10)
Action: 300 has plenty of fights but what did you expect from this kind of war film. (9/10)
Fantasy: 300 uses fantasy for its battles showing how different types of warriors could be looked and the legend created by fear. (8/10)
War: 300 shows of the great battles between the Persians and the Spartans. (10/10)
Settings: 300 creates the settings to look very authentic looking scenery for the battle scenes. (9/10)
Special Effects: 300 uses great effects for the fights and to create the different style of fighters. (9/10)
Suggestion: 300 is one for the action fans to enjoy, it has plenty of fighting but not much in the way of thinking needed. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Stelios Now.
Worst Part: Lots of shouting from Leonidas.
Action Scene Of The Film: The first battle.
Kill Of The Film: Monster creature man vs Leonidas.
Favourite Quote: King Leonidas ‘This is Sparta!’
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has a sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $456 Million
Budget: $65 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes
Tagline: Spartans, prepare for glory!
Overall: THIS IS ‘JUST’ GOOD!
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/16/300-2006/
Leonidas selects 300 warriors who have sons to carry on their names to go and fight leaving Sparta behind. One the way to the battle Leonidas and his men learn what the Persians are capable off as they prepare for the battle. We follow King Leonidas and his 300 as they plough through the Persian army defying all of the odds, while another battle for power rages on back at Sparta.
300 shows how determined one group of people were to protect their own land, sure we have comic book style which helps the film enter the fantasy side. It doesn’t have the most original screen story but this is clearly made for the action. We do see how the warriors of Sparta would have been the better in battle even if the actual battle turned into something very fantasy based. Just remember you won’t need to be thinking too much through this film, just relax and enjoy. (7/10)
Actor Review
Gerard Butler: King Leonidas fearless warrior who leads his army of 300 into battle against the Persians against all odds. He goes against all the gods and wishes of their oracle to battle for his people. Gerard gives a good performance showing how he was going to be a lead actor. (8/10)
leonidas
Lena Headey: Queen Gorgo who is left to rule Sparta while the King goes into battle. She has to deal with Theron who stays back might not be as loyal as first thought. Lena gives a good performance and shows how she was always going to be playing a Queen. (7/10)
lena
Dominic West: Theron Spartan who stays behind and tries to use his power in the city to gain power over the people while Leonidas is battling for their freedom. Dominic gives a solid performance as the scheming villain. (6/10)
dom
David Wenham: Dilios warrior who is also the story telling, he provides narration for the story and fills us in on Leonidas’ past. David gives a good performance as the story teller but also warrior who fights for Sparta. (6/10)
david
Michael Fassbender: Stelios one of the fearless warriors who has never faced a real challenge and hopes to find one in this battle. Michael gives a good performance as the greatest warrior of the army in what was his debut role. (7/10)
stelios
Support Cast: 300 supporting cast is filled with warriors on both sides of the fight, they all have their moments in the battle.
Director Review: Zack Snyder – Zack showed why he is such a popular director with his newer style of directing which is both unique and entertaining. (8/10)
Action: 300 has plenty of fights but what did you expect from this kind of war film. (9/10)
Fantasy: 300 uses fantasy for its battles showing how different types of warriors could be looked and the legend created by fear. (8/10)
War: 300 shows of the great battles between the Persians and the Spartans. (10/10)
Settings: 300 creates the settings to look very authentic looking scenery for the battle scenes. (9/10)
Special Effects: 300 uses great effects for the fights and to create the different style of fighters. (9/10)
Suggestion: 300 is one for the action fans to enjoy, it has plenty of fighting but not much in the way of thinking needed. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Stelios Now.
Worst Part: Lots of shouting from Leonidas.
Action Scene Of The Film: The first battle.
Kill Of The Film: Monster creature man vs Leonidas.
Favourite Quote: King Leonidas ‘This is Sparta!’
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has a sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $456 Million
Budget: $65 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes
Tagline: Spartans, prepare for glory!
Overall: THIS IS ‘JUST’ GOOD!
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/16/300-2006/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
John Rollins is a guy who's just trying to catch a break. He lives on a farm with his wife and two children, but his crops just won't grow. His cornfield is infested with crows and his water pump won't work. Stress and fatigue don't begin to describe what John is currently going through. He's a man of faith that's just trying to figure out how he can support his family with no income. He's pretty much lost all hope until he stumbles upon the scarecrow in his barn. After being convinced by his neighbor, he puts the scarecrow up in his cornfield. Besides, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. John wakes up to a field full of dead crows and his water pump begins working again. Everything looks to finally be turning in John's favor, but there's two sides to every coin. People that get in the way of John's crops or his family begin to turn up dead. What makes matters worse is that John finds possessions of the victims in his cornfield and he is the only person all the evidence points to. Once he realizes that the scarecrow is the root of his newfound problems and that he could wind up losing his family, John knows he has to get rid of it but he may already be too late...
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Open, black and white apart from Nimue's red dress.
Production notes: Try and make it noir-esque, but we need it done quickly so don't be too bothered by any of the class that goes with it.
As openings go it summed up the backstory quite nicely and Ian McShane's voiceover was good, but despite all of that it wasn't saved from it being quite badly shot.
I didn't want to start this review by moaning, but it's nearly impossible as there's a lot to moan about. I think I'm going to get it all out of the way now and then move on.
That CGI... at one point I wrote down that it was Harry Potter bad, I'm talking Voldemort on the back of the head bad. I'm trying to think of an obvious effect where it was actually good but I'm drawing a blank. Gruagach, our pig-demon-thing, looked like he was wearing a Halloween mask, but had it been real life I suspect it would look better.
Generally the creature effects are terrible, I was briefly hopeful for the giants but then the fight started and things got progressively worse. The blood was a particularly bad offering. I was particularly annoyed with this scene because the bits where Hellboy is thrown around were actually quite good and with a little work it could have been amazing.
Major Ben Daimio, played by Daniel Dae Kim, also got some punishing CGI for his transformation, unfortunately the negativity doesn't stop there. I just couldn't understand what that accent was about... I just... what the... ugh.
He's not the only character that's treated badly. Alice has so much potential in her but it isn't until the end that she discovers what she's really capable of. I can't help but think that they could have used her more to boost the movie.
David Harbour as Hellboy doesn't have me convinced. he's got the laid back attitude and some of the banter that the part needs, but there was a spark missing for me. Perhaps he was slightly more horizontal than laid back.
Quite possibly the best scene in the movie is right at the end when we see the group back together briefly. This scene was so well done that I was a little irritated they didn't manage to replicate that earlier in the film.
Hellboy is probably too long, there are definitely pieces to cut out. As much as I love her, Big Mo has to go, I'd also cut out Baba Yaga. The effects were overly creepy and the scenes added hardly anything apart from what felt like an obvious set up for a sequel.
The story overall isn't that bad, I like the origin of Hellboy, although baby Hellboy felt a lot like they'd taken the Ally McBeal baby and painted it red. I also liked the fact that they didn't let him instantly take the easy route to victory, that really worked in his favour.
I've realised at this point that I haven't really mentioned Nimue. She's one of the main villains, I probably should have talked about her by now but apart from the assembly scene she's not overly memorable, much like most of the other bad guys.
As a last passing note I want to mention the music. I noticed it a lot and it was frequently very good, it certainly helped the transition scenes. I probably would have turned the volume down a bit, but it was a great selection so I don't think it's too much of a problem.
I should probably stop waffling at this point. Despite what has amounted to a lot of moaning and griping Hellboy wasn't a waste of my time. I know lots of you are going to disagree with me on that point. To be entertaining given all of those faults I nitpicked was a great achievement. It delivers on daft action and sometimes that's all I need to have an amusing time at the cinema. We probably just need to keep our fingers crossed for better effects if they come out with a sequel.
What you should do
I would go and see it at the cinema if I were you. If you can get past the fact it isn't Ron Perlman and there's a severe lack of kittens then you're bound to have some fun.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some spirit powers would be quite fun, minus the vomiting part.
Production notes: Try and make it noir-esque, but we need it done quickly so don't be too bothered by any of the class that goes with it.
As openings go it summed up the backstory quite nicely and Ian McShane's voiceover was good, but despite all of that it wasn't saved from it being quite badly shot.
I didn't want to start this review by moaning, but it's nearly impossible as there's a lot to moan about. I think I'm going to get it all out of the way now and then move on.
That CGI... at one point I wrote down that it was Harry Potter bad, I'm talking Voldemort on the back of the head bad. I'm trying to think of an obvious effect where it was actually good but I'm drawing a blank. Gruagach, our pig-demon-thing, looked like he was wearing a Halloween mask, but had it been real life I suspect it would look better.
Generally the creature effects are terrible, I was briefly hopeful for the giants but then the fight started and things got progressively worse. The blood was a particularly bad offering. I was particularly annoyed with this scene because the bits where Hellboy is thrown around were actually quite good and with a little work it could have been amazing.
Major Ben Daimio, played by Daniel Dae Kim, also got some punishing CGI for his transformation, unfortunately the negativity doesn't stop there. I just couldn't understand what that accent was about... I just... what the... ugh.
He's not the only character that's treated badly. Alice has so much potential in her but it isn't until the end that she discovers what she's really capable of. I can't help but think that they could have used her more to boost the movie.
David Harbour as Hellboy doesn't have me convinced. he's got the laid back attitude and some of the banter that the part needs, but there was a spark missing for me. Perhaps he was slightly more horizontal than laid back.
Quite possibly the best scene in the movie is right at the end when we see the group back together briefly. This scene was so well done that I was a little irritated they didn't manage to replicate that earlier in the film.
Hellboy is probably too long, there are definitely pieces to cut out. As much as I love her, Big Mo has to go, I'd also cut out Baba Yaga. The effects were overly creepy and the scenes added hardly anything apart from what felt like an obvious set up for a sequel.
The story overall isn't that bad, I like the origin of Hellboy, although baby Hellboy felt a lot like they'd taken the Ally McBeal baby and painted it red. I also liked the fact that they didn't let him instantly take the easy route to victory, that really worked in his favour.
I've realised at this point that I haven't really mentioned Nimue. She's one of the main villains, I probably should have talked about her by now but apart from the assembly scene she's not overly memorable, much like most of the other bad guys.
As a last passing note I want to mention the music. I noticed it a lot and it was frequently very good, it certainly helped the transition scenes. I probably would have turned the volume down a bit, but it was a great selection so I don't think it's too much of a problem.
I should probably stop waffling at this point. Despite what has amounted to a lot of moaning and griping Hellboy wasn't a waste of my time. I know lots of you are going to disagree with me on that point. To be entertaining given all of those faults I nitpicked was a great achievement. It delivers on daft action and sometimes that's all I need to have an amusing time at the cinema. We probably just need to keep our fingers crossed for better effects if they come out with a sequel.
What you should do
I would go and see it at the cinema if I were you. If you can get past the fact it isn't Ron Perlman and there's a severe lack of kittens then you're bound to have some fun.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some spirit powers would be quite fun, minus the vomiting part.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Graveyard Book in Books
Sep 30, 2019
A different look at ghosts (1 more)
Flow of writing is great
Questions left unanswered (1 more)
There won't be a sequel
Neil Gaiman knows how to turn an innocent childhood into a terror-filled one. 'The Graveyard Book' revolves around a young boy named Nobody Owens. What makes him different from everyone else is that he lives in a graveyard where he's being raised by the ghostly residents. Nobody, or Bod (as his friends call him), ended up here after his family was brutally murdered, which actually doesn't seem to bother him too much throughout the story. Right from the beginning, readers get to follow the murderer as he makes his way through Bod's house, killing all the members of the family except for Bod, who fortunately manages to get away.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Yet, when Bod showed up at the graveyard, not all the residents wanted to keep the boy, but when a woman in grey appears, she settles the argument by telling them to keep him - - - bringing in the woman in grey seemed as though it only happened to introduce the character, which, unfortunately she is only seen one other time throughout the entire novel; this character really wasn't necessary. When Bod is kept, he is given the "Freedom of the Graveyard," which gives him the ability to see and talk to ghosts, as well as other things. This makes for a very intriguing adventure for us readers.
This book is almost flawless with the concept being very original. I honestly have nothing bad to say about the story. Gaiman doesn't use the usual horror tropes, instead he describes horrific events through the eyes of Bod, as he becomes more familiar with the world outside of the graveyard. Gaiman explains all of Bod's natural needs effortlessly within a graveyard, such as Bod learning to read and spell by using the letters on headstones. This book will surely change the way you look at graveyards for the rest of your life, if you hadn't already seen them in this way. 'The Graveyard Book' is a different type of ghost story, where the reader isn't afraid of the spirits, but rather of the living.
Later on in 'the Graveyard Book,' we meet a character named Scarlett. She is one of the only friends that Bod makes who is alive. For the majority of the book, Scarlett believes that Bod is just her imaginary friend, as her mother brings her to the graveyard every day to play (by this time, it is a claimed nature reserve) . But later on, when Scarlett returns as a teenager, she realizes that Bod is actually a real person. My only complaint about Scarlett's character is that the reader gets to see her dream walk- - - something we have been told only ghosts, supernatural creatures and Bod can do- - - yet, this is never explained why she is able to do this. It leaves one to wonder if Scarlett is a supernatural being or just a human with a particular ability?
" One grave in every graveyard belongs to the ghouls. Wander any graveyard long enough and you will find it- - - waterstained and bulging, with cracked or broken stone, scraggly grass or rank weeds about it, and a feeling, when you reach it, of abandonment. It may be colder than the other gravestones, too, and the name on the stone is all too often impossible to read. If there is a statue on the grave it will be headless or so scabbed with fungus and lichens as to look like a fungus itself. If one grave in a graveyard looks like a target for petty vandals, that is the ghoul-gate. If the grave makes you want to be somewhere else, that is the ghoul-gate. " The ghoul-gate has it's own entire scene in the book, but I wish the ghouls had been in the story quite a bit more. Overall, Gaiman wrote a very pleasing book that looks at ghosts in a different light. He brings up real life fears and fictional ones as well. Unfortunately, the book was written in 2008, and it doesn't seem that Gaiman is working on a sequel, so some questions may never be answered for the readers.
I really liked this book, and I think readers who enjoy paranormal aspects will love this story, too. As far as a ghost story goes, this one I highly recommend, but if you are looking for scares, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 23, 2019
It’s always surprising when a truly awful film performs well at the box-office, but that’s exactly what happened with 2017’s London Has Fallen. Despite overwhelmingly poor reviews, the sequel to 2013’s marginally better Olympus Has Fallen made over four times its production budget in ticket sales.
Naturally, a sequel in the now originally named ‘Fallen’ film series was greenlit soon after with the majority of the cast returning for the third instalment. But is the finished product, Angel Has Fallen as bad as its predecessor? Or is this the turning point?
Authorities take Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) into custody for the failed assassination attempt of U.S. President Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). After escaping from his captors, Banning must evade the FBI and his own agency to find the real threat to the president. Desperate to uncover the truth, he soon turns to unlikely allies to help clear his name and save the country from imminent danger.
First thing’s first. This is better than London Has Fallen in every conceivable area. Where that film was packed full of grainy stock footage, poor CGI and laughable dialogue, Angel Has Fallen at least attempts to create a reasonably coherent film, even if the end result is completely forgettable.
The script for one attempts to focus on the mental and physical strain Gerard Butler’s job has taken on both aspects of his health. We join the film with Butler working his way through an assault course of sorts, so far so Gerard. However, as the film progresses the audience realises that Agent Banning is suffering from a lot of demons, impacting his clarity and causing him to lose focus.
To be fair, Butler does his best with the material he’s given, but three films in, even he is starting to look a little bored. The rest of the cast don’t fare any better. Morgan Freeman dons his tried and tested President persona, but the 82-year-old legend struggles with the physical demands of the role – and the all too obvious body doubles are a jarring mismatch with a film that is occasionally nicely choreographed and edited.
Only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success
The highlight comes about half way through the film as we are introduced to a dishevelled Nick Nolte playing Clay Banning, Mike’s foul-mouthed father, living off grid in rural Virginia. The casting is a little odd at first but the pair share good on-screen chemistry with each other and are much better than any relationship we saw in the film’s two predecessors. One of the action sequences the two of them have together is absurd but genuinely funny.
While the script has improved somewhat (there’s no unnecessary racism to be had), there are still huge flaws here. A third-act twist is one of the most ridiculously predictable twists in movie history, made all the more insulting by the fact that there are no red herrings in the story whatsoever. Come on guys, at least give us something else to think about! Instead of an “oooo” when the twist is revealed, the collective response from the audience was practically an eye-roll.
Elsewhere, the film’s finale, which feels like it goes on for far too long, is pure cinematic nonsense of the highest degree but does utilise this instalment’s bigger budget reasonably well. There are instances of poor CGI and very very obvious green screen dotted throughout, but nothing as bad as the laughably rubbish explosions and CG helicopters that riddled London Has Fallen.
Angel Has Fallen (2019 Movie) Official Trailer - Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman - YouTube
Overall, only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success but the increased focus on the human elements of the lead characters rather than the outright racism featured in the previous films is a welcome change, and while the action scenes are filmed with a little too much shaky cam for my liking, they’re decently watchable if lacking in any real originality.
The problem we have is that this film will undoubtedly be yet another success if the sold-out screening I attended is anything to go by. Inevitably, this will then pave the way for more similarly themed movies. However, these films aren’t created for those of us who love cinema or to show off the craft of film-making, they’re made for people who want to check their phones every now and then or have a chat to the person next to them. And to be frank, that’s a cinematic world I’d rather not be a part of.
Naturally, a sequel in the now originally named ‘Fallen’ film series was greenlit soon after with the majority of the cast returning for the third instalment. But is the finished product, Angel Has Fallen as bad as its predecessor? Or is this the turning point?
Authorities take Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) into custody for the failed assassination attempt of U.S. President Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). After escaping from his captors, Banning must evade the FBI and his own agency to find the real threat to the president. Desperate to uncover the truth, he soon turns to unlikely allies to help clear his name and save the country from imminent danger.
First thing’s first. This is better than London Has Fallen in every conceivable area. Where that film was packed full of grainy stock footage, poor CGI and laughable dialogue, Angel Has Fallen at least attempts to create a reasonably coherent film, even if the end result is completely forgettable.
The script for one attempts to focus on the mental and physical strain Gerard Butler’s job has taken on both aspects of his health. We join the film with Butler working his way through an assault course of sorts, so far so Gerard. However, as the film progresses the audience realises that Agent Banning is suffering from a lot of demons, impacting his clarity and causing him to lose focus.
To be fair, Butler does his best with the material he’s given, but three films in, even he is starting to look a little bored. The rest of the cast don’t fare any better. Morgan Freeman dons his tried and tested President persona, but the 82-year-old legend struggles with the physical demands of the role – and the all too obvious body doubles are a jarring mismatch with a film that is occasionally nicely choreographed and edited.
Only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success
The highlight comes about half way through the film as we are introduced to a dishevelled Nick Nolte playing Clay Banning, Mike’s foul-mouthed father, living off grid in rural Virginia. The casting is a little odd at first but the pair share good on-screen chemistry with each other and are much better than any relationship we saw in the film’s two predecessors. One of the action sequences the two of them have together is absurd but genuinely funny.
While the script has improved somewhat (there’s no unnecessary racism to be had), there are still huge flaws here. A third-act twist is one of the most ridiculously predictable twists in movie history, made all the more insulting by the fact that there are no red herrings in the story whatsoever. Come on guys, at least give us something else to think about! Instead of an “oooo” when the twist is revealed, the collective response from the audience was practically an eye-roll.
Elsewhere, the film’s finale, which feels like it goes on for far too long, is pure cinematic nonsense of the highest degree but does utilise this instalment’s bigger budget reasonably well. There are instances of poor CGI and very very obvious green screen dotted throughout, but nothing as bad as the laughably rubbish explosions and CG helicopters that riddled London Has Fallen.
Angel Has Fallen (2019 Movie) Official Trailer - Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman - YouTube
Overall, only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success but the increased focus on the human elements of the lead characters rather than the outright racism featured in the previous films is a welcome change, and while the action scenes are filmed with a little too much shaky cam for my liking, they’re decently watchable if lacking in any real originality.
The problem we have is that this film will undoubtedly be yet another success if the sold-out screening I attended is anything to go by. Inevitably, this will then pave the way for more similarly themed movies. However, these films aren’t created for those of us who love cinema or to show off the craft of film-making, they’re made for people who want to check their phones every now and then or have a chat to the person next to them. And to be frank, that’s a cinematic world I’d rather not be a part of.