Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of Dishonored 2 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
In a tale of revenge that would be worthy of Shakespeare, Dishonored 2 has arrived and is one of the best games of 2016.
Players have the option to play as Corvo or his daughter Emily, and each has their own unique abilities that will come in handy as the game is loaded with challenges.
Once a player has selected the persona they wish to play as, they will be forced to make a daring escape after a faction brutally seizes power and forces the player to exact no small measure of revenge as they strive to restore order in the kingdom.
Like the previous game in the series, players will have a very open and detailed world to explore and will have multiple options for combat, problem solving, and exploration. There are numerous things to explore and players will have the option to take a more stealth approach and avoid combat, or come in guns blazing. They will also have the option to help locales such as giving coins to a bagger, and so on.
There are numerous notes and journals as well along the way which allow the player a greater awareness of the world in which they are in as well as the overall story and the characters within them.
I am a more run and gun style player so the stealth gameplay that is at times needed took some getting used to, but once I was in the third chapter of the game, I was deeply engaged and found myself adapting to the demanding challenges that the game presented at times.
Ammunition such as bullets, crossbow bolts, and such are in short supply, so using your blade in hit and run tactics is the best bet, but at times when you must engage multiple enemies, being crafty pays off.
I loved to call up a swarm of rats using one of my abilities that players are able to select and modify as they find artifacts in game. Watching from a distance while the swarm decimates a pack of enemies and then swinging in for the kill was great fun.
However with various traps and enemies, this was not always practical. I found one area that was loaded with dangerous enemies and with no ammunition and only my blade; several futile attempts resulted in my demise time and again.
In a feat of inspiration, I remembered a Whale Oil dispenser at the earlier stage of the level so I backtracked and obtained a container which I then filled with oil and used as a highly explosive projectile by throwing this into masses of enemies. I repeated this tactic four or five times, saving the game after each run and was able to successfully clear away the hostiles.
Once inside the building my tactics had to change again as there was much danger lurking in the dark halls.
Dishonored 2 was a very enjoyable and challenging game with deeply engrossing story. I really enjoyed the brutal combat as well as the ability to find multiple solutions to the challenges the game presented. Graphically the game is solid but not cutting edge, but thanks to the great story and setting, you should not mind this or the at times monotone voice work of the game.
The game offers two free DLC modes to date for players who complete the game and with the ability to have new abilities playing as a different character, there is great replay value.
In the end, Dishonored 2 is a real bright spot and as such, is easily a game of the year candidate as it is some of the best gameplay of 2016 or any other year and is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/22/85969/
Players have the option to play as Corvo or his daughter Emily, and each has their own unique abilities that will come in handy as the game is loaded with challenges.
Once a player has selected the persona they wish to play as, they will be forced to make a daring escape after a faction brutally seizes power and forces the player to exact no small measure of revenge as they strive to restore order in the kingdom.
Like the previous game in the series, players will have a very open and detailed world to explore and will have multiple options for combat, problem solving, and exploration. There are numerous things to explore and players will have the option to take a more stealth approach and avoid combat, or come in guns blazing. They will also have the option to help locales such as giving coins to a bagger, and so on.
There are numerous notes and journals as well along the way which allow the player a greater awareness of the world in which they are in as well as the overall story and the characters within them.
I am a more run and gun style player so the stealth gameplay that is at times needed took some getting used to, but once I was in the third chapter of the game, I was deeply engaged and found myself adapting to the demanding challenges that the game presented at times.
Ammunition such as bullets, crossbow bolts, and such are in short supply, so using your blade in hit and run tactics is the best bet, but at times when you must engage multiple enemies, being crafty pays off.
I loved to call up a swarm of rats using one of my abilities that players are able to select and modify as they find artifacts in game. Watching from a distance while the swarm decimates a pack of enemies and then swinging in for the kill was great fun.
However with various traps and enemies, this was not always practical. I found one area that was loaded with dangerous enemies and with no ammunition and only my blade; several futile attempts resulted in my demise time and again.
In a feat of inspiration, I remembered a Whale Oil dispenser at the earlier stage of the level so I backtracked and obtained a container which I then filled with oil and used as a highly explosive projectile by throwing this into masses of enemies. I repeated this tactic four or five times, saving the game after each run and was able to successfully clear away the hostiles.
Once inside the building my tactics had to change again as there was much danger lurking in the dark halls.
Dishonored 2 was a very enjoyable and challenging game with deeply engrossing story. I really enjoyed the brutal combat as well as the ability to find multiple solutions to the challenges the game presented. Graphically the game is solid but not cutting edge, but thanks to the great story and setting, you should not mind this or the at times monotone voice work of the game.
The game offers two free DLC modes to date for players who complete the game and with the ability to have new abilities playing as a different character, there is great replay value.
In the end, Dishonored 2 is a real bright spot and as such, is easily a game of the year candidate as it is some of the best gameplay of 2016 or any other year and is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/22/85969/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 400 Days (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 400 Days starts with our four main characters Captain Theo (Routh), Emily (Lotz), Cole (Cook) and Bug (Feldman) being put in a social simulation for 400 days to show what it will be like to travel through space over long periods of time. We follow the four as they get put hiccups as the learn to manage them after losing connect to mission control early on but it is dealing with the psychological side of the mission that will test them the most.
When they open the hatch they find themselves questioning what happened but more worrying where they are now.
400 days really seems to be a film that is two different incomplete films, the first half is all psychological but when they leave the hatch it turns into a post-apocalyptic film that never really ends up being dealt with. Each side of the story works well as a single film but both don’t have enough time to really pull off what is really happen. As for the ending it is all left up to you what you think happens which doesn’t help and what happens to two of the character never really gets answered either. This has problems but really could have been great.
Actor Review
Caity Lotz: Emily is the medical officers who is also the former partner of Theo who has to make sure the crew remains sane over the course of the mission as well as keeping the medication up to date. Caity gives us a solid performance but really doesn’t get a chance shine.
Brandon Routh: Theo is the captain of the mission; he has to make the big decision with the information provided by his crew. He doesn’t want to be on the mission and has been on a four-day bender before the mission. Brandon continued to show why he is struggling to live up to the hype he once had early in his career.
Dane Cook: Cole is the engineer on the mission, he is easily the most unpopular on the crew and his cocky attitude leads him to become distant to the rest of the crew. Dane is another actor in this film who hasn’t made much of his career and even with this choice because he tries to do something different.
Ben Feldman: Bug is the brains of the crew making all the hard decisions and is clearly the smartest of the four crew members on the ship. He had to leave his young family behind for the mission which haunts him every day of the mission. Ben does a good job even if he does end up being a very generic character for the genre.
Support Cast: 400 days has a supporting you only see half way through the film but they end up being very generic.
Director Review: Matt Osterman – Matt brings us a great idea that doesn’t quite get pulled off effectively.
Mystery: 400 days keep you guessing what is actually happening to our characters.
Sci-Fi: 400 days puts our character in the experiment which would include space travel and a post-apocalyptic world.
Thriller: 400 days does keep us guessing from start to finish.
Settings: 400 days has two good settings the space ship which creates the isolation and the town the end up in that shocks.
Special Effects: 400 days uses the effects for certain moments but tries to keep everything need to the minimum.
Suggestion: 400 days is one to try, it does have a few flaws but you can see a couple of good points. (Try It)
Best Part: The ideas are good.
Worst Part: Not enough time for each story, both sides could have been short to increase the second one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes
Overall: Something Missing but good ideas being created.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/11/02/400-days-2015/
When they open the hatch they find themselves questioning what happened but more worrying where they are now.
400 days really seems to be a film that is two different incomplete films, the first half is all psychological but when they leave the hatch it turns into a post-apocalyptic film that never really ends up being dealt with. Each side of the story works well as a single film but both don’t have enough time to really pull off what is really happen. As for the ending it is all left up to you what you think happens which doesn’t help and what happens to two of the character never really gets answered either. This has problems but really could have been great.
Actor Review
Caity Lotz: Emily is the medical officers who is also the former partner of Theo who has to make sure the crew remains sane over the course of the mission as well as keeping the medication up to date. Caity gives us a solid performance but really doesn’t get a chance shine.
Brandon Routh: Theo is the captain of the mission; he has to make the big decision with the information provided by his crew. He doesn’t want to be on the mission and has been on a four-day bender before the mission. Brandon continued to show why he is struggling to live up to the hype he once had early in his career.
Dane Cook: Cole is the engineer on the mission, he is easily the most unpopular on the crew and his cocky attitude leads him to become distant to the rest of the crew. Dane is another actor in this film who hasn’t made much of his career and even with this choice because he tries to do something different.
Ben Feldman: Bug is the brains of the crew making all the hard decisions and is clearly the smartest of the four crew members on the ship. He had to leave his young family behind for the mission which haunts him every day of the mission. Ben does a good job even if he does end up being a very generic character for the genre.
Support Cast: 400 days has a supporting you only see half way through the film but they end up being very generic.
Director Review: Matt Osterman – Matt brings us a great idea that doesn’t quite get pulled off effectively.
Mystery: 400 days keep you guessing what is actually happening to our characters.
Sci-Fi: 400 days puts our character in the experiment which would include space travel and a post-apocalyptic world.
Thriller: 400 days does keep us guessing from start to finish.
Settings: 400 days has two good settings the space ship which creates the isolation and the town the end up in that shocks.
Special Effects: 400 days uses the effects for certain moments but tries to keep everything need to the minimum.
Suggestion: 400 days is one to try, it does have a few flaws but you can see a couple of good points. (Try It)
Best Part: The ideas are good.
Worst Part: Not enough time for each story, both sides could have been short to increase the second one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes
Overall: Something Missing but good ideas being created.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/11/02/400-days-2015/
Ross (3284 KP) rated Killer Dungeon (Euphoria Online Book 3) in Books
Jan 4, 2019
So much of the previous books is lost (3 more)
Sudden epic scope creep
Loose ends
deus ex machina abounds
I am (slightly) disappoint
I loved the first two books in this trilogy. The narrative was so detailed and descriptive that you truly lived the action along with the protagonist, you felt every blow, you were part of every strategy, you celebrated every unlikely victory. We knew we were in an epic online world that we hadn't explored yet but were happy with the dangerous little corner we knew inside out.
The book starts off with Chris, low-ranked newbie with a knack for strategy, being the new leader/castellan of Castle Winter, charged with defending, repairing and upgrading the castle, caring for its inhabitants, fending off the nearby army of the undead and still trying to discover the hidden treasure in the dungeon.
This change in his status obviously precipitated a change in focus for him, which is understandable - a castellan with all these responsibilities can't still go off exploring. But this started to feel like those boring aspects of games like the Witcher/Red Dead Redemption where you have to go shopping, play card games, train a horse, collect herbs etc and was relatively dull.
While a raft of super-strength gamers try to tackle the seemingly unbeatable Dungeon, Chris decides he needs to buy goods and services in-game with the help of the deus-ex style pot of money he suddenly inherits. He is taken to explore some of the online world in order to do so. This is where I started to lose interest, as the shopping and political aspects of the world and narrative now takes over, when all you want to do is get into that dungeon (you know, the one mentioned in the title of the book) with the rest of the true gamers.
In all the dungeon is just sort of solved. It just happens. We are treated to a re-telling of the action from some of those gamers but this was totally unsatisfactory. Three perilous rooms are in that dungeon and we get to see next to none of the action in solving them.
There is something of a race against time as Chris has a deadline looming to find the treasure hidden in the dungeon to deliver to the lord of the undead. This adds to the thrill somewhat but then the genre-required conspiracy starts to grow (the game was designed by the all-powerful AI to help save mankind from itself), and then the book loses a lot of its original charm for me.
I loved this trilogy, but can't help but feel Tucker had designed a massive world for the story to take place in, and suddenly realised two books in that he hadn't explored any of it (the first two books were very narrow in scope considering the size of the online world but did not suffer for that) and was nearing the end of the three books he had planned. In my view this story had at least another two or three books in it, I would have loved to have seen the dungeon rooms solved in the same detailed manner as the puzzles in the first two books, and would have liked a lot less metaphysical elephant-god mumbo jumbo. I can't help but feel Tucker realised he had set himself up with unsolvable situations and a character who couldn't really put himself in those positions.
In short: Great story, rushed ending ("sod it, say everyone else does the hard work and then an elephant god solves the unsolvable")
The book starts off with Chris, low-ranked newbie with a knack for strategy, being the new leader/castellan of Castle Winter, charged with defending, repairing and upgrading the castle, caring for its inhabitants, fending off the nearby army of the undead and still trying to discover the hidden treasure in the dungeon.
This change in his status obviously precipitated a change in focus for him, which is understandable - a castellan with all these responsibilities can't still go off exploring. But this started to feel like those boring aspects of games like the Witcher/Red Dead Redemption where you have to go shopping, play card games, train a horse, collect herbs etc and was relatively dull.
While a raft of super-strength gamers try to tackle the seemingly unbeatable Dungeon, Chris decides he needs to buy goods and services in-game with the help of the deus-ex style pot of money he suddenly inherits. He is taken to explore some of the online world in order to do so. This is where I started to lose interest, as the shopping and political aspects of the world and narrative now takes over, when all you want to do is get into that dungeon (you know, the one mentioned in the title of the book) with the rest of the true gamers.
In all the dungeon is just sort of solved. It just happens. We are treated to a re-telling of the action from some of those gamers but this was totally unsatisfactory. Three perilous rooms are in that dungeon and we get to see next to none of the action in solving them.
There is something of a race against time as Chris has a deadline looming to find the treasure hidden in the dungeon to deliver to the lord of the undead. This adds to the thrill somewhat but then the genre-required conspiracy starts to grow (the game was designed by the all-powerful AI to help save mankind from itself), and then the book loses a lot of its original charm for me.
I loved this trilogy, but can't help but feel Tucker had designed a massive world for the story to take place in, and suddenly realised two books in that he hadn't explored any of it (the first two books were very narrow in scope considering the size of the online world but did not suffer for that) and was nearing the end of the three books he had planned. In my view this story had at least another two or three books in it, I would have loved to have seen the dungeon rooms solved in the same detailed manner as the puzzles in the first two books, and would have liked a lot less metaphysical elephant-god mumbo jumbo. I can't help but feel Tucker realised he had set himself up with unsolvable situations and a character who couldn't really put himself in those positions.
In short: Great story, rushed ending ("sod it, say everyone else does the hard work and then an elephant god solves the unsolvable")
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Escape Room (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
TL;DR - I'm never doing an escape room ever again, and potentially never going anywhere that begins with a mysterious invitation.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Willy's Wonderland (2021) in Movies
Mar 20, 2021
Could’ve been so much better
If you’ve seen the trailer for Willy’s Wonderland, you were no doubt wondering what on earth your eyes had just been witness to, and I’m afraid the full film doesn’t get any less demented. Willy’s Wonderland is a 2021 horror comedy from director Kevin Lewis that is every bit a modern day B-movie, complete with cheesy script and questionable acting. On paper it sounds like it should be entertainingly bad but silly, but unfortunately in reality it’s just bad.
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
At over 4 hours it's still bloated and sprawling (1 more)
4:3 ratio is a needless gimmick
Does Lipstick on the Pig work?
In Zack Snyder’s much-discussed director’s cut of “Justice League”, Superman (Henry Cavill) is dead (post the events of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and a grieving Lois Lane (Amy Adams) can’t move on. Even Martha Kent (Diane Lane) has had the family farm repossessed. But the world is in deadly danger due to the work of Steppenwolf and his army of parademons. They are trying to reunite three ‘Mother Boxes’, previously hidden on earth. If joined and synchronized they will form ‘The Unity’, creating a gateway for Steppenwolf’s boss – Darkseid – to arrive and control the universe by invoking the “anti-life equation” (basically lockdown 3!).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Kristina (502 KP) rated It Ends With Us in Books
Dec 7, 2020
Holy mother of God. I don't know where to start, honestly. Colleen is very good at stunning me into silence, so it's difficult to put my emotions into words - which is why you'll notice I either have no reviews or pretty vague reviews for her books. But I just can't do that with this one. There's no way. What I read wrung me dry and had me staring at the wall for a full 5 minutes before I could even move. What Lily experiences is so real and raw, so emotional, I felt like I was her. Her thoughts were true to who she was and honest. As I read Lily's diary entries, I felt a kinship, because I had experienced some of the same growing up. I felt her fear, her worry, her anger, her curiosity. To watch your mother go through that is no fun. I found it endearing that Lily wrote her diary in the form of letters to Ellen DeGeneres - she's an awesome woman. I fell in love twice in the span of one book. Even though I hoped I was wrong, I had a strong premonition, and I was right about it. I truly wish I wasn't. After reading the Author's note, I completely agree with Colleen. I kind of wish she had written it differently; I kind of wish she hadn't used the plot that she did. But, as she also said, it would have ruined the whole point of writing this story, and I understand that. I still love the story, because it's beautiful (yet heartbreaking) in all its glory, and it gets the meaning across just the way Colleen meant it to. I'm ashamed to say I was like many of the others: "Why doesn't she just leave?" Sure, I questioned the opposite spouse, but this question has always been the first to enter my mind. After reading It Ends With Us, I feel even worse that I've ever had that thought. It's true, life isn't just black and white, and niether is any situation. We never truly know what it's like for anyone unless we were in that same situation - and no two situations are exactly alike. All I can say is that while I fell in love twice, my heart broke a million times, and it still didn't feel completely whole by the time the story ended. I do hope Colleen decides to write a short novella about Lily's future, because I feel like I need more closure. My heart needs more closure. Nothing could have prepared me for this book and I have absolutely no regrets about going in blind. The Queen never ceases to amaze me. Once again, I'm adding a CoHo book to my favorites shelf. Bravo, Colleen.
***Spoiler***
Naked truth?
I think a part of me still loves Ryle. I worried that he was too perfect in the beginning. I knew there had to be a flaw and I was scared Lily's mom's situation would have something to do with it. What I'm most scared about is the fact I kind of wanted Lily to forgive him and take him back. Because who knows, having a daughter could have knocked the abusive side of him right out. And, sure, she loved Atlas, but I felt like it could have blossomed into a mature, familial type love. I'm so very proud of Lily and the decision she made, especially because it was for little Emmy. But a part of me mourns the loss of Ryle. Because his pain was real, his regret was real. Still... No matter how sorry he was, as Lily stated, there is no excuse; she did what she had to do.
***Spoiler***
Naked truth?
I think a part of me still loves Ryle. I worried that he was too perfect in the beginning. I knew there had to be a flaw and I was scared Lily's mom's situation would have something to do with it. What I'm most scared about is the fact I kind of wanted Lily to forgive him and take him back. Because who knows, having a daughter could have knocked the abusive side of him right out. And, sure, she loved Atlas, but I felt like it could have blossomed into a mature, familial type love. I'm so very proud of Lily and the decision she made, especially because it was for little Emmy. But a part of me mourns the loss of Ryle. Because his pain was real, his regret was real. Still... No matter how sorry he was, as Lily stated, there is no excuse; she did what she had to do.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Army of Thieves (2021) in Movies
Nov 4, 2021
“Did He Just Say Gulp?”
I have Covid-19, and am confined to quarters. So time to catch up on some streaming films. New on Netflix is “Army of Thieves”, a quirky prequel, of sorts, to Zac Snyder’s “Army of the Dead“.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Big Hero 6 (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Genuinely Moving
The Marvel Studios movie train has been non-stop over the last few years, from Iron Man to The Avengers, it shows no signs of slowing. Now though, a take-over by Disney has ensured both studios enter into rather unknown territory.
The first film from this collaboration is Big Hero 6, an animated superhero film in the same vein as Pixar’s The Incredibles. But does it reach those dizzying heights?
Big Hero 6 follows Hiro Hamada, a 14-year-old robotics prodigy as he goes about his life in the fictional city of San Fransokyo alongside his brother Tadashi. Hiro has lost his way after a family tragedy and it takes his brother’s robot Baymax to help find himself again.
The story unfortunately is the film’s weakest link, being predictable at best and downright clichéd at its worst. In this respect, Big Hero 6 falls well short of the standards set by the majority of Pixar’s movies.
Thankfully, the visuals are absolutely stunning, a match for Disney’s best, if not quite up to the level of last year’s How to Train YourBig_Hero_6_Poster_2 Dragon 2. The city of San Fransokyo is beautifully realised in sweeping, gloriously colourful shots that show of the animation best when they’re from above.
The characters themselves are rendered in painstaking detail and in particular sequences it becomes difficult to tell the film apart from a live-action feature.
Vocal performances are also very good. Ryan Potter plays Hiro as a vulnerable, pre-pubescent teen who by the end of the film comes to realise just who he is exceptionally well. James Cromwell, Maya Rudolph and Damon Wayans also lend their recognisable voices to people in the film.
However, by far the stand-out is Baymax, a hilariously funny healthcare robot. Disney’s animators should be given plaudits for crafting a character which despite its lack of facial features and emotive tones is so engaging to watch.
Unfortunately, when Baymax evolves into super-Baymax, his characterisation suffers and the funny, caring nature of him is lost somewhat.
The final third of the film delves into generic superhero fodder, but picks up again just before the end credits role with a deeply emotive.
Big Hero 6 also gets increasingly dark the further into the movie you get, the comedic elements get muddled in a plot which isn’t quite sure which way it wants to go and young children may find it a little to scary to stomach.
Thankfully the negatives here are far outweighed by the positives and Big Hero 6 steamrolls itself into a moving finale which leaves itself open for a sequel nicely.
Overall, from stunning visuals to engaging characters, Big Hero 6 continues Disney’s penchant for creating fun and watchable films. Despite a lack of originality, the character of Baymax makes up for most of the other shortcomings and ensures the generic story is genuinely moving.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/05/genuinely-moving-big-hero-6-review/
The first film from this collaboration is Big Hero 6, an animated superhero film in the same vein as Pixar’s The Incredibles. But does it reach those dizzying heights?
Big Hero 6 follows Hiro Hamada, a 14-year-old robotics prodigy as he goes about his life in the fictional city of San Fransokyo alongside his brother Tadashi. Hiro has lost his way after a family tragedy and it takes his brother’s robot Baymax to help find himself again.
The story unfortunately is the film’s weakest link, being predictable at best and downright clichéd at its worst. In this respect, Big Hero 6 falls well short of the standards set by the majority of Pixar’s movies.
Thankfully, the visuals are absolutely stunning, a match for Disney’s best, if not quite up to the level of last year’s How to Train YourBig_Hero_6_Poster_2 Dragon 2. The city of San Fransokyo is beautifully realised in sweeping, gloriously colourful shots that show of the animation best when they’re from above.
The characters themselves are rendered in painstaking detail and in particular sequences it becomes difficult to tell the film apart from a live-action feature.
Vocal performances are also very good. Ryan Potter plays Hiro as a vulnerable, pre-pubescent teen who by the end of the film comes to realise just who he is exceptionally well. James Cromwell, Maya Rudolph and Damon Wayans also lend their recognisable voices to people in the film.
However, by far the stand-out is Baymax, a hilariously funny healthcare robot. Disney’s animators should be given plaudits for crafting a character which despite its lack of facial features and emotive tones is so engaging to watch.
Unfortunately, when Baymax evolves into super-Baymax, his characterisation suffers and the funny, caring nature of him is lost somewhat.
The final third of the film delves into generic superhero fodder, but picks up again just before the end credits role with a deeply emotive.
Big Hero 6 also gets increasingly dark the further into the movie you get, the comedic elements get muddled in a plot which isn’t quite sure which way it wants to go and young children may find it a little to scary to stomach.
Thankfully the negatives here are far outweighed by the positives and Big Hero 6 steamrolls itself into a moving finale which leaves itself open for a sequel nicely.
Overall, from stunning visuals to engaging characters, Big Hero 6 continues Disney’s penchant for creating fun and watchable films. Despite a lack of originality, the character of Baymax makes up for most of the other shortcomings and ensures the generic story is genuinely moving.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/05/genuinely-moving-big-hero-6-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Typical Oscar Fodder
There are two types of film critic when it comes to the Academy Awards. Those who enjoy the glamour that the Oscars bring every spring and those who despise what the awards mean for film. I’m in the latter camp, I find them out of touch with what movie-watching audiences enjoy and feel an overhaul is necessary to reflect that.
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/