Search
Search results
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated 47 Meters Down: Uncaged (2019) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
I love a good shark movie. Since as far back as I can remember, I have been fascinated by sharks. I think they’re some of the most interesting creatures on our planet. Even when I was a kid, I used to wear shark tooth necklaces because I thought they were so cool. Basically any time you’ve got sharks in a movie, I’m all in for it. Amusingly enough, that same sentiment does not apply to video games where I think they’re terrifying! (Jaws on the original Nintendo freaked-me-out as a child.) Having said all that, I was excited to see 47 Meters Down: Uncaged, even though I missed out on the original film back in 2017. Johannes Roberts, the director of the minimalistic first film, 47 Meters Down, returns for this sequel and brings back the great white sharks, but shakes up for the formula a bit by adding an underwater maze to the mix.
The sequel focuses on teenaged loner Mia (Sophie Nélisse) who has recently relocated to Mexico with her father and step-family. Her father Grant (John Corbett) scouts and maps out underwater locations for a living, and has recently discovered an ancient sunken Mayan city. With the help of his two assistants, he’s currently in the process of mapping out its maze-like design. One day, Mia joins her sister Sasha (Corinne Foxx) whose two friends, Alexa (Brianne Tju) and Nicole (Sistine Stallone), take them to a hidden local cove for a day of fun. This location turns out to be one of the entrances to the historic labyrinth that Mia’s father Grant has been exploring. Alexa, who once dated one of Grant’s assistants, had gone diving with this former boyfriend into the submerged city before. Upon finding enough extra scuba gear for all of them on a floating dock in this isolated cove, Alexa pressures her friends into joining her on a brief underwater tour that ends up being anything but.
This sunken Mayan labyrinth that the four girls go inside to explore is the setting for most of the film. They’re supposed to be following Alexa, who knows part of the maze well enough to navigate it without getting them lost, but their stubborn and defiant friend Nicole decides to venture off-course and winds up endangering them all. In the aftermath of Nicole’s senselessness, a pillar gets knocked over, creating a domino effect of destruction that causes the entrance they came in through to collapse and get sealed off. Now they’ll have to find another way out. With limited oxygen and even less light and visibility, the girls have to swim deeper into the maze to try to look for an exit.
Quickly the girls come to discover they’re not as alone in this labyrinth as they first thought, and they find themselves in the presence of great white sharks. These sharks, blind from living their whole lives in the darkness of this lost city, have their other senses heightened as a result, and they’re on the hunt for blood. The arrival of these sharks, however, opens up a big plot hole in the story. How is it that Mia’s father has never seen these deadly sharks nor made any reference to them when he’s already spent weeks, possibly even months, exploring this sunken city? I suppose it’s possible that in the collapse of the entrance, another passageway may have opened up that let the sharks in. However, that logic doesn’t hold up, because had they came in from outside, they wouldn’t be blind. These particular sharks evolved down here, so it’s hard to believe they were never noticed before, especially considering how violent and aggressive they are.
That’s far from being the only problem with these sharks, though. They also look flat out awful. The quality of their special effects in this film is simply pitiful. I’m not even exaggerating when I say they often reminded me of that infamously bad shark attack scene from Jaws 3D. They look so fake and unbelievable that instead of feeling any sense of fear when they randomly appeared, I couldn’t help but cringe. It literally looks almost as bad as the Sharknado movies, but the key difference is that unlike the intentionally campy Sharknado movies, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged is actually trying to take itself seriously. Plus it has even has double the budget to work with.
47 Meters Down: Uncaged takes a very lazy and bare-bones approach to filmmaking. The story lacks substance, the characters and dialogue lack depth, and the visuals throughout most of the film are muddied and unclear. It’s rough on the eyes because the visuals are so obscured and are shrouded in so much darkness that it’s hard to actually see what’s happening on screen. This is often exploited as a cheap tactic to create jump scares by having the sharks suddenly appear from literally out of nowhere, which seems especially hard to believe since it’s doubtful these large sharks could smoothly navigate most of these narrow passageways in the first place. Despite the restrictive maze design, the film fails to create a sense of claustrophobia, and instead just gave me a headache.
The story progression in the film mostly feels generic and expected. There are new complications that arise and circumstances that change, but it’s all pretty standard fare. The ending, however, sets up a decent scenario, but it ends up being ruined by how unrealistic it is. Besides, after wading through all of the garbage to get there, I couldn’t be bothered to care much at that point. The acting in the film is mostly poor, but truthfully they’re never given much to work with. It’s also difficult to keep track of who is who once they’re inside the maze anyway because the visuals are so muddled. The movie does feature its share of violence and death, but its light on the gore and to me it always felt unsatisfying.
In all, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged sinks right to the bottom of my rating list as the worst movie I’ve seen in 2019. It’s lazy and bland to the point of being exhausting. There’s ultimately not one single thing about it that I can sincerely commend. The only thing I’m probably going to remember this movie for is how dreadful it looks and the 90 minutes of boredom and disappointment it caused me.
The sequel focuses on teenaged loner Mia (Sophie Nélisse) who has recently relocated to Mexico with her father and step-family. Her father Grant (John Corbett) scouts and maps out underwater locations for a living, and has recently discovered an ancient sunken Mayan city. With the help of his two assistants, he’s currently in the process of mapping out its maze-like design. One day, Mia joins her sister Sasha (Corinne Foxx) whose two friends, Alexa (Brianne Tju) and Nicole (Sistine Stallone), take them to a hidden local cove for a day of fun. This location turns out to be one of the entrances to the historic labyrinth that Mia’s father Grant has been exploring. Alexa, who once dated one of Grant’s assistants, had gone diving with this former boyfriend into the submerged city before. Upon finding enough extra scuba gear for all of them on a floating dock in this isolated cove, Alexa pressures her friends into joining her on a brief underwater tour that ends up being anything but.
This sunken Mayan labyrinth that the four girls go inside to explore is the setting for most of the film. They’re supposed to be following Alexa, who knows part of the maze well enough to navigate it without getting them lost, but their stubborn and defiant friend Nicole decides to venture off-course and winds up endangering them all. In the aftermath of Nicole’s senselessness, a pillar gets knocked over, creating a domino effect of destruction that causes the entrance they came in through to collapse and get sealed off. Now they’ll have to find another way out. With limited oxygen and even less light and visibility, the girls have to swim deeper into the maze to try to look for an exit.
Quickly the girls come to discover they’re not as alone in this labyrinth as they first thought, and they find themselves in the presence of great white sharks. These sharks, blind from living their whole lives in the darkness of this lost city, have their other senses heightened as a result, and they’re on the hunt for blood. The arrival of these sharks, however, opens up a big plot hole in the story. How is it that Mia’s father has never seen these deadly sharks nor made any reference to them when he’s already spent weeks, possibly even months, exploring this sunken city? I suppose it’s possible that in the collapse of the entrance, another passageway may have opened up that let the sharks in. However, that logic doesn’t hold up, because had they came in from outside, they wouldn’t be blind. These particular sharks evolved down here, so it’s hard to believe they were never noticed before, especially considering how violent and aggressive they are.
That’s far from being the only problem with these sharks, though. They also look flat out awful. The quality of their special effects in this film is simply pitiful. I’m not even exaggerating when I say they often reminded me of that infamously bad shark attack scene from Jaws 3D. They look so fake and unbelievable that instead of feeling any sense of fear when they randomly appeared, I couldn’t help but cringe. It literally looks almost as bad as the Sharknado movies, but the key difference is that unlike the intentionally campy Sharknado movies, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged is actually trying to take itself seriously. Plus it has even has double the budget to work with.
47 Meters Down: Uncaged takes a very lazy and bare-bones approach to filmmaking. The story lacks substance, the characters and dialogue lack depth, and the visuals throughout most of the film are muddied and unclear. It’s rough on the eyes because the visuals are so obscured and are shrouded in so much darkness that it’s hard to actually see what’s happening on screen. This is often exploited as a cheap tactic to create jump scares by having the sharks suddenly appear from literally out of nowhere, which seems especially hard to believe since it’s doubtful these large sharks could smoothly navigate most of these narrow passageways in the first place. Despite the restrictive maze design, the film fails to create a sense of claustrophobia, and instead just gave me a headache.
The story progression in the film mostly feels generic and expected. There are new complications that arise and circumstances that change, but it’s all pretty standard fare. The ending, however, sets up a decent scenario, but it ends up being ruined by how unrealistic it is. Besides, after wading through all of the garbage to get there, I couldn’t be bothered to care much at that point. The acting in the film is mostly poor, but truthfully they’re never given much to work with. It’s also difficult to keep track of who is who once they’re inside the maze anyway because the visuals are so muddled. The movie does feature its share of violence and death, but its light on the gore and to me it always felt unsatisfying.
In all, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged sinks right to the bottom of my rating list as the worst movie I’ve seen in 2019. It’s lazy and bland to the point of being exhausting. There’s ultimately not one single thing about it that I can sincerely commend. The only thing I’m probably going to remember this movie for is how dreadful it looks and the 90 minutes of boredom and disappointment it caused me.
HyruleBalverine (16 KP) rated South Park: The Fractured But Whole in Video Games
Nov 26, 2017
The Fractured but Whole delivers fans a great experience!
With so many licensed properties out there being made into games with low budgets and by people who clearly have no idea what the property is about, including South Park games in the past, it comes as no surprise that most people were cautious to say the least when we heard that a new South Park game was being made. But hearing that Matt Stone and Trey Parker we're going to be involved every step of the way gave us hope for the Stick of Truth.
When the Stick of Truth came out, fans of the show were blown away by the attention to detail, the references that the casual fan would recognize, and the references that probably only the most die-hard fan would catch. It showed us what a licensed property could be properly made into a game. So when Ubisoft announced a sequel we were all expecting an amazing game. And quite frankly, the Fractured but Whole delivers on that promise.
I found myself laughing at the story as I would any episode of the show, as well as the references to past episodes, and even the off-handed and sometimes visual references to the previous game. And rather than just sitting on their laurels, Matt and Trey and the rest of the team at Ubisoft made a stellar game with updates and improvements from the previous entry.
Basically if you would like South Park and/or if you enjoyed the Stick of Truth you will definitely enjoy this game!
Not that the game is without it's flaws. Since I've completed the story I find that the only reason that I want to play the game a second time is because I messed up the difficulty achievement the first time, whereas the first game, I wanted to play it multiple times. I believe that a large part of this is the difference between the two games: how the game handles skills/abilities. In The Stick of Truth you choose a class and play that class, with it's abilities, through the whole game; the clothing/armor and weapon options edit your stats allowing you to customize your character to your play style. If you want to play a different class and try it's abilities, you have to start a new playthrough. This isn't the case in The Fractured But Whole; As you progress through the game, you gain the ability to be "multi class" adding the ability options of another class. This happens multiple times and near the end of the game you are given access to all classes and their abilities. The stat adjustments made by the clothing/armor and weapons have been replaced by "Artifacts" and "DNA", which works well as a super hero character, but this leaves the costume options as purely cosmetic; their only in game use is to work on one of the "Titles" in the Character Sheet for XP; once you've maxed that, it's just collecting them for the people who wish to try and get everything in the game. Of course, I've not found any way to keep track of what I'm missing, if anything, which makes doing that harder.
With that said, I still love the game. Just like it's predecessor, it feels like you're involved with an episode of the show. I just wish that I felt it had as much replay value as The Stick of Truth did for me.
When the Stick of Truth came out, fans of the show were blown away by the attention to detail, the references that the casual fan would recognize, and the references that probably only the most die-hard fan would catch. It showed us what a licensed property could be properly made into a game. So when Ubisoft announced a sequel we were all expecting an amazing game. And quite frankly, the Fractured but Whole delivers on that promise.
I found myself laughing at the story as I would any episode of the show, as well as the references to past episodes, and even the off-handed and sometimes visual references to the previous game. And rather than just sitting on their laurels, Matt and Trey and the rest of the team at Ubisoft made a stellar game with updates and improvements from the previous entry.
Basically if you would like South Park and/or if you enjoyed the Stick of Truth you will definitely enjoy this game!
Not that the game is without it's flaws. Since I've completed the story I find that the only reason that I want to play the game a second time is because I messed up the difficulty achievement the first time, whereas the first game, I wanted to play it multiple times. I believe that a large part of this is the difference between the two games: how the game handles skills/abilities. In The Stick of Truth you choose a class and play that class, with it's abilities, through the whole game; the clothing/armor and weapon options edit your stats allowing you to customize your character to your play style. If you want to play a different class and try it's abilities, you have to start a new playthrough. This isn't the case in The Fractured But Whole; As you progress through the game, you gain the ability to be "multi class" adding the ability options of another class. This happens multiple times and near the end of the game you are given access to all classes and their abilities. The stat adjustments made by the clothing/armor and weapons have been replaced by "Artifacts" and "DNA", which works well as a super hero character, but this leaves the costume options as purely cosmetic; their only in game use is to work on one of the "Titles" in the Character Sheet for XP; once you've maxed that, it's just collecting them for the people who wish to try and get everything in the game. Of course, I've not found any way to keep track of what I'm missing, if anything, which makes doing that harder.
With that said, I still love the game. Just like it's predecessor, it feels like you're involved with an episode of the show. I just wish that I felt it had as much replay value as The Stick of Truth did for me.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018 (Updated May 18, 2018)
Some razor sharp lines of dialogue (2 more)
Clever direction
Extremely funny from start to finish
The Merc With A Mouth Is Back
Contains spoilers, click to show
Deadpool 2 is the kind of sequel that knows exactly what it is. It doesn't pretend to be anything original and it's main focus is getting a laugh out of it's audience over anything else. It succeeds greatly at this with the film being hilarious throughout and it comes very close to being as funny as it's predecessor, it just doesn't quite get there. I think that the main reason for this is because it chooses to focus more on a story than the last one did and through that, the humour loses some of the momentum that it builds up.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
What ya gonna do
this time?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Apr 21, 2019
I've said it before, The Conjuring is my all time favourite scary movie. However, since the success of that first movie, there have been a number of spin off movies, in an bid to build what's now known as the 'Conjuring Universe'. These movies have all varied in quality, ranging from the not too bad (Annabelle Creation) to the downright awful (The Nun). With a third Annabelle movie due out this year, not to mention another Conjuring sequel and other planned universe movies such as The Crooked Man, there's no sign of them stopping anytime soon.
Which brings us to The Curse of La Llorona, the latest entry to the universe and one which is based on Mexican folklore. La Llorona, also known as "The Weeping Woman", is the ghost of a woman who drowned her children and now cries while looking for them in the river. Nowadays, children are told to be well behaved and respectful of their elders, otherwise La Llorona will come and take them away.
This movie wasn't originally billed as being part of the Conjuring universe, and featured a pretty dull first trailer. However, a subsequent trailer featured a familiar face from the Annabelle movies in the form of Father Perez (Tony Amendola), and a link to the Conjuring universe was later confirmed, despite his presence in this movie being somewhat brief.
We're in Los Angeles, 1976. Anna (Linda Cardellini) is a widow with two young kids and working in social services. She still mourns the death of her police officer husband while trying to keep her family together and maintain her demanding job. That job involves dealing with some difficult cases involving children and one such case takes her to the Alvarez home. The mother appears to have lost her mind, while her children are locked in a cupboard that has strange markings on the door. As the title of the movie suggests, there is a curse at play and it's not long before that curse, and the horror that brings with it, is passed onto Anna and her children.
Like The Nun, La Llorona is essentially just a woman with scary face makeup who shrieks at people every so often and tries to make you jump. But thankfully, there's a little more to La Llorona than just that. Some slow, effective reveals provide some pretty decent chills and scares, making this a much more solid and enjoyable movie as she begins to terrorise the children before eventually invading their home and going full on evil.
After Father Perez brings us all up to speed on the backstory of La Llorona, and a flashback to 1763 gives us a visual and graphic representation, the family are referred to an ex priest who is better suited in helping them shake off the curse. He comes to their home in order to prepare for the arrival, and hopefully the removal of, La Llorona. It all feels very formulaic, similar to countless movies we've seen before, such as Poltergeist.
The Curse of La Llorona is pretty corny at times, attempting to inject humour which doesn't always seem to work. However, I did like it. It's certainly a huge step up from last year's disappointing Nun movie and featured enough intensity and scares in its short 93 minute runtime to make it enjoyable enough.
Which brings us to The Curse of La Llorona, the latest entry to the universe and one which is based on Mexican folklore. La Llorona, also known as "The Weeping Woman", is the ghost of a woman who drowned her children and now cries while looking for them in the river. Nowadays, children are told to be well behaved and respectful of their elders, otherwise La Llorona will come and take them away.
This movie wasn't originally billed as being part of the Conjuring universe, and featured a pretty dull first trailer. However, a subsequent trailer featured a familiar face from the Annabelle movies in the form of Father Perez (Tony Amendola), and a link to the Conjuring universe was later confirmed, despite his presence in this movie being somewhat brief.
We're in Los Angeles, 1976. Anna (Linda Cardellini) is a widow with two young kids and working in social services. She still mourns the death of her police officer husband while trying to keep her family together and maintain her demanding job. That job involves dealing with some difficult cases involving children and one such case takes her to the Alvarez home. The mother appears to have lost her mind, while her children are locked in a cupboard that has strange markings on the door. As the title of the movie suggests, there is a curse at play and it's not long before that curse, and the horror that brings with it, is passed onto Anna and her children.
Like The Nun, La Llorona is essentially just a woman with scary face makeup who shrieks at people every so often and tries to make you jump. But thankfully, there's a little more to La Llorona than just that. Some slow, effective reveals provide some pretty decent chills and scares, making this a much more solid and enjoyable movie as she begins to terrorise the children before eventually invading their home and going full on evil.
After Father Perez brings us all up to speed on the backstory of La Llorona, and a flashback to 1763 gives us a visual and graphic representation, the family are referred to an ex priest who is better suited in helping them shake off the curse. He comes to their home in order to prepare for the arrival, and hopefully the removal of, La Llorona. It all feels very formulaic, similar to countless movies we've seen before, such as Poltergeist.
The Curse of La Llorona is pretty corny at times, attempting to inject humour which doesn't always seem to work. However, I did like it. It's certainly a huge step up from last year's disappointing Nun movie and featured enough intensity and scares in its short 93 minute runtime to make it enjoyable enough.
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Tattooist of Auschwitz in Books
May 29, 2019
“If you wake up in the morning, it is a good day.”
So I thought about it, and I’ve decided to write my review for this book. I’ve never read books that center around The Holocaust. I never thought I would, because I’ve seen several movies and just the sheer graphics of it alone made me sad. I know this was supposed to be based on a true story, but I went into it with the mindset that it wasn’t true, because most times, some of those stories are fabricated for drama purposes. I’ve read that even Heather Morris added some things to the story for that reason, so again, I saw it as just another story.
The story centers around Lale who is transferred to Auschwitz, but is given the job as a tattooist. From the descriptions, he has to use a really awful needle and has to press down hard enough for the numbers to be seen and never removed – a highly painful process that he has to perform even on children. Then one day, he tattoos a lady that catches his eye, Gita, and from then on he plans to love her and marry her WHEN they get out of Auschwitz.
Off the bat, something about the writing kind of bothered. I couldn’t quite pin point what it was. I read somewhere that this book was originally written as a screen play and I think that was it. To me, the style had a vagueness to it that made it feel like some parts I was reading something from an old story book from when I was in high school. I’m not saying that style was terrible. This particular writing style is not my favorite to read.
I liked the premise of the story. I can’t begin to imagine what it was truly like in those camps. I can’t comment on it either, but like I said, I also didn’t go into this book thinking it was all a true story about these two people. So, there were some bits of the story that I had a hard time believing, but then again, I’m not sure if it was a true part or a fabrication part.
All in all, the story wasn’t bad. I felt so horribly for Lale having to have that job, but he survived, and Gita. The remembering of their families and wondering if they are alive or dead struck me a bit. I know I’ve said this, but I can’t imagine that kind of pain. I feel horrible whenever Lale thought of his mother.
“His mother he can see perfectly. But how do you say goodbye to your mother? The person who gave you breath, who taught you how to live?”
You can’t, that’s the answer.
The book didn’t live up to the hype, in my opinion, but Morris wrote a nice and moving story in the end. I know there are some other stories like this. One of my Twitter friends recommend the Librarian of Auschwitz, so perhaps I will see about that book.
I don’t believe I’ll be seeking out the sequel to this book. I do hope it’s better than the first, but the story is still good.
So I thought about it, and I’ve decided to write my review for this book. I’ve never read books that center around The Holocaust. I never thought I would, because I’ve seen several movies and just the sheer graphics of it alone made me sad. I know this was supposed to be based on a true story, but I went into it with the mindset that it wasn’t true, because most times, some of those stories are fabricated for drama purposes. I’ve read that even Heather Morris added some things to the story for that reason, so again, I saw it as just another story.
The story centers around Lale who is transferred to Auschwitz, but is given the job as a tattooist. From the descriptions, he has to use a really awful needle and has to press down hard enough for the numbers to be seen and never removed – a highly painful process that he has to perform even on children. Then one day, he tattoos a lady that catches his eye, Gita, and from then on he plans to love her and marry her WHEN they get out of Auschwitz.
Off the bat, something about the writing kind of bothered. I couldn’t quite pin point what it was. I read somewhere that this book was originally written as a screen play and I think that was it. To me, the style had a vagueness to it that made it feel like some parts I was reading something from an old story book from when I was in high school. I’m not saying that style was terrible. This particular writing style is not my favorite to read.
I liked the premise of the story. I can’t begin to imagine what it was truly like in those camps. I can’t comment on it either, but like I said, I also didn’t go into this book thinking it was all a true story about these two people. So, there were some bits of the story that I had a hard time believing, but then again, I’m not sure if it was a true part or a fabrication part.
All in all, the story wasn’t bad. I felt so horribly for Lale having to have that job, but he survived, and Gita. The remembering of their families and wondering if they are alive or dead struck me a bit. I know I’ve said this, but I can’t imagine that kind of pain. I feel horrible whenever Lale thought of his mother.
“His mother he can see perfectly. But how do you say goodbye to your mother? The person who gave you breath, who taught you how to live?”
You can’t, that’s the answer.
The book didn’t live up to the hype, in my opinion, but Morris wrote a nice and moving story in the end. I know there are some other stories like this. One of my Twitter friends recommend the Librarian of Auschwitz, so perhaps I will see about that book.
I don’t believe I’ll be seeking out the sequel to this book. I do hope it’s better than the first, but the story is still good.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This one belongs to James Spader
I doubt that Joss Whedon and the team down at Marvel knew just how successful 2012’s Avengers Assemble would go on to be. After just a few months of release it became the third highest-grossing film of all time, by no means an easy feat to achieve.
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Great Ape-scape
Six years ago, I didn’t think I’d be telling you that a remake of the classic Planet of the Apes and its sequel would go on to be one of the finest double acts since The Two Ronnies, but that’s exactly what has happened.
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Only The Brave (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
One of the year's best films
Films based on true events are ten-a-penny these days. From 2015s stunning American Sniper and 2016s breath-taking Deepwater Horizon to the critically acclaimed Patriots Day, there seems to be no stopping the ‘true to life’ variety of movies that has suddenly become very popular.
The trouble is, getting the films right is trickier than for any other genre. Not only do you have to please the audience with bombastic spectacle, you have to respect the events that caused them to exist in the first place. The new kid on the block is Only the Brave. But does this tale of the Granite Mountain Hotshots do their incredibly tragic story justice?
Through hope, determination, sacrifice and the drive to protect families and communities, the Granite Mountain Hotshots become one of the most elite firefighting teams in the country. While most people run from danger, they run toward it — watching over lives, homes and everything people hold dear, forging a unique brotherhood that comes into focus with one fateful fire in Yarnell, Arizona.
With a cast that includes the likes of Jeff Bridges, Miles Teller, Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connelly and Andie MacDowell to name but a few, there’s no denying there is some seriously good talent on offer here. After researching the people these characters are based on, it appears that director Joseph Kosinski – who just so happens to be directing the long-awaited Top Gun sequel – has picked the perfect group of actors to portray them.
Teller is frankly, outstanding as troubled Brendan McDonough, joining the Hotshots after leaving his life of crime and addiction behind him. Josh Brolin is his ever-magnetic self as group leader Eric Marsh and the legendary Jeff Bridges really needs no introduction. The cast ooze class in every frame.
Cinematography wise, the lush landscapes of Arizona lend themselves perfectly to a beautifully shot film that features intense CGI and tasteful practical effects. Make no mistake though, this is not an action film and it feels all the better for it. While the fires themselves are mightily impressive and rendered with magnificent detail and precision, the real action here is in the human drama, of which there is an abundance.
The fact that this touching story is based on true events means that the subject matter needs to be handled as sensitively as possible and in that respect, Only the Brave has succeeded on every level. The touching tribute to these incredible men before the end credits proves to be a final emotional gut-punch after 2 hours of absolute excellence.
The script is good at making us feel for these people through their daily personal lives and their professional mentalities. In fact, it’s so well written, it may just be one of the best scripts I’ve had the pleasure of watching come to life all year and coupled with the glorious airborne shots, it makes for a deeply immersive film.
Only the Brave isn’t a film that shouts about any one thing it does well. Instead Joseph Kosinski rallies a phenomenal cast in a film that is beautifully written, exquisitely acted and is a fitting but perhaps most importantly, touching, tribute to the men who desperately tried to protect those around them.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/11/only-the-brave-review/
The trouble is, getting the films right is trickier than for any other genre. Not only do you have to please the audience with bombastic spectacle, you have to respect the events that caused them to exist in the first place. The new kid on the block is Only the Brave. But does this tale of the Granite Mountain Hotshots do their incredibly tragic story justice?
Through hope, determination, sacrifice and the drive to protect families and communities, the Granite Mountain Hotshots become one of the most elite firefighting teams in the country. While most people run from danger, they run toward it — watching over lives, homes and everything people hold dear, forging a unique brotherhood that comes into focus with one fateful fire in Yarnell, Arizona.
With a cast that includes the likes of Jeff Bridges, Miles Teller, Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connelly and Andie MacDowell to name but a few, there’s no denying there is some seriously good talent on offer here. After researching the people these characters are based on, it appears that director Joseph Kosinski – who just so happens to be directing the long-awaited Top Gun sequel – has picked the perfect group of actors to portray them.
Teller is frankly, outstanding as troubled Brendan McDonough, joining the Hotshots after leaving his life of crime and addiction behind him. Josh Brolin is his ever-magnetic self as group leader Eric Marsh and the legendary Jeff Bridges really needs no introduction. The cast ooze class in every frame.
Cinematography wise, the lush landscapes of Arizona lend themselves perfectly to a beautifully shot film that features intense CGI and tasteful practical effects. Make no mistake though, this is not an action film and it feels all the better for it. While the fires themselves are mightily impressive and rendered with magnificent detail and precision, the real action here is in the human drama, of which there is an abundance.
The fact that this touching story is based on true events means that the subject matter needs to be handled as sensitively as possible and in that respect, Only the Brave has succeeded on every level. The touching tribute to these incredible men before the end credits proves to be a final emotional gut-punch after 2 hours of absolute excellence.
The script is good at making us feel for these people through their daily personal lives and their professional mentalities. In fact, it’s so well written, it may just be one of the best scripts I’ve had the pleasure of watching come to life all year and coupled with the glorious airborne shots, it makes for a deeply immersive film.
Only the Brave isn’t a film that shouts about any one thing it does well. Instead Joseph Kosinski rallies a phenomenal cast in a film that is beautifully written, exquisitely acted and is a fitting but perhaps most importantly, touching, tribute to the men who desperately tried to protect those around them.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/11/only-the-brave-review/