Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 14, 2019 (Updated May 14, 2019)
A truly incredible end to the MCU Infinity Saga
SPOLIER FREE REVIEW
Avengers: Endgame is finally here after the shocking events of Infinity War.
First and foremost, a huge amount of respect is owed to the Russo brothers for managing to juggle so many characters across these two films (and Civil War) to a hugely satisfying degree.
But with a smaller cast to manage this time around, this is a film that is able to focus more on the original six Avengers from 2012.
The majority of the film is quite dialogue heavy, as the film focuses on a fun time travel plot, that takes us through a nostalgia filled trip through some of the past MCU films, filled with cameos galore.
The usual mix of thrilling set pieces, emotional beats (that scene set in 1970?), and comedy land just as well as they always have done, with Paul Rudd and Chris Hemsworth delivering most of the humour.
Robert Downey Jr and Scarlett Johansson shine as Tony Stark and Black Widow, as they always do, and I also enjoyed the amount of time they spent with characters like Hawkeye and Nebula, characters who would usually be considered secondary.
A concern I had going in was that they might use the recently added Captain Marvel, but thankfully isn't the case. She is used sparingly, and therefore effectively.
The only real gripe I have with Endgame, is that Thanos is forced more into a backseat role, after his incredible character arc throughout Infinity War, but is understandable, as mentioned above, this film is all about the original 6, and that's where the main focus lies. Saying that though, I did feel pretty unsatisfied with how they concluded the story arc for Black Widow...
As the movie approaches the inevitable big showdown, the ensuing battle is nothing short of thrilling, a pure scene of unobstructed comic book joy, that will have any Marvel fan trying not to shout at the screen.
All in all, it's a phenomenal ending to this chapter of the MCU, and I can't wait for what comes next (especially now that Marvel Studios have the Fox properties back)
Avengers: Endgame is finally here after the shocking events of Infinity War.
First and foremost, a huge amount of respect is owed to the Russo brothers for managing to juggle so many characters across these two films (and Civil War) to a hugely satisfying degree.
But with a smaller cast to manage this time around, this is a film that is able to focus more on the original six Avengers from 2012.
The majority of the film is quite dialogue heavy, as the film focuses on a fun time travel plot, that takes us through a nostalgia filled trip through some of the past MCU films, filled with cameos galore.
The usual mix of thrilling set pieces, emotional beats (that scene set in 1970?), and comedy land just as well as they always have done, with Paul Rudd and Chris Hemsworth delivering most of the humour.
Robert Downey Jr and Scarlett Johansson shine as Tony Stark and Black Widow, as they always do, and I also enjoyed the amount of time they spent with characters like Hawkeye and Nebula, characters who would usually be considered secondary.
A concern I had going in was that they might use the recently added Captain Marvel, but thankfully isn't the case. She is used sparingly, and therefore effectively.
The only real gripe I have with Endgame, is that Thanos is forced more into a backseat role, after his incredible character arc throughout Infinity War, but is understandable, as mentioned above, this film is all about the original 6, and that's where the main focus lies. Saying that though, I did feel pretty unsatisfied with how they concluded the story arc for Black Widow...
As the movie approaches the inevitable big showdown, the ensuing battle is nothing short of thrilling, a pure scene of unobstructed comic book joy, that will have any Marvel fan trying not to shout at the screen.
All in all, it's a phenomenal ending to this chapter of the MCU, and I can't wait for what comes next (especially now that Marvel Studios have the Fox properties back)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2020
The more films I see by James Mangold, the more I like him.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Faster (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
I've always wanted to like Dwayne Johnson as an actor. He was so entertaining when he was The Rock, why can't his movies be just as entertaining? Unfortunately his best received films are the more family oriented ones and watching an ex-wrestler who used to talk about his love for pie and "laying the smackdown on all your candy asses" seems a bit bittersweet. Films like Faster are what Johnson should be sticking to, but it doesn't live up to its potential and results in another flat action film.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Rage (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
If you get the option to see this film you really should take the chance.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I started out making a blog for movie reviews a short while ago for the purpose of making reviews for fans. However, I didn't expect to be sent films to review so soon. I was put in touch with film maker Chris Witherspoon, he is promoting an independent film that he wrote, produced, directed and starred in called Rage. He sent me a copy and asked if I would review it for him. Happily I accepted. This is what being a film critic and reviewer is all about. Then I started to think, an independent film? There are a lot of them around and a lot of them are made by people that believe they possess the talent and ability to make a film, but in reality they fall far short of the mark. To get a good and unbiased opinion of the film I only watched the trailer for it, I left all the promotional material I received alone. The film arrived and with a fair amount of trepidation I put it on.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has pixar got it's mojo back?
Pixar has been on something of a downward trend of late, and that’s something I never thought I’d say. As much as it hurts, films like Cars 3, Finding Dory and The Good Dinosaur just don’t cut the mustard when compared to some of the studio’s greats.
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Land of the Dead (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Twenty years after his last installment of the classic “Dead” zombie genre, landmark Horror writer/director George Romero has returned to the delight of fans worldwide.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
156Reviews (7 KP) rated True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
One of the main things that divides opinion on Ned Kelly is was he on the side of good or bad? Some see him as a kind of freedom fighter, standing up to the British, who at the time that looked to suppress and demean the Australian people. Some see him as a criminal, who murdered innocent people for reasons known only to him. Both of these opinions may be true, neither of them might be, but it's one hell of a gamble to base a film on someone that divides opinion that much.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Feb 13, 2018 (Updated Feb 14, 2018)
My inner 17 year old self loved DEADPOOL. It had everything that any 17 year old boy would want in a movie - sex, violence and a smart-alec attitude, all wrapped up in an unapologetic package that reveled in - and did not shy away from - these traits.
At this point in the review, you are either saying "f#*$ yeah! this movie is for me!" or you have stopped reading, will never see this movie, so it doesn't really matter what I write.
For the rest of you still reading, grab your raunchy comedy sense of humor and head to the theaters to see DEADPOOL, you won't be sorry. DP pokes fun at itself and the genre it represents right from the get-go. Get there early for the opening credits, they aren't quite like any opening credits you have seen before.
First time director Tim Miller cut his teeth on animated short films (most notably, the Oscar nominated animated short, GOPHER BROKE) and it shows in this film. DEADPOOL plays like a 100 minute Road Runner cartoon with star Ryan Reynolds constant patter sounding more and more like the RoadRunner's "Beep, Beep" as the film progresses.
Don't get me wrong, Reynolds does a nice job as the lead and brings humor and charm to the character, but after awhile it just didn't matter as it was just an excuse for fights, car chases, mayhem, violence and explosions - and I didn't mind one bit.
There are some interesting characters in this film, most notably played by Morena Baccarin and T.J. MIller - two actors who I felt FINALLY got decent roles to play, but they, too, take a back seat to the action and smart-assery in this film Even the great Leslie Uggams is brought in as an old, blind, smartass, and she acquits herself quite well.
The smartest things the filmmakers did with this movie is that they did not back away from what they were trying to do - make a superhero movie that was a mash-up of THE AVENGERS and DIRTY GRANDPA, they didn't flinch from this mission, which is why it is successful. They accomplished what the set out to accomplish - make a Superhero movie that any teenage boy would love.
7 (out of 10) stars - 10 out of 10, if you listen to my inner 17 year old - and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)
At this point in the review, you are either saying "f#*$ yeah! this movie is for me!" or you have stopped reading, will never see this movie, so it doesn't really matter what I write.
For the rest of you still reading, grab your raunchy comedy sense of humor and head to the theaters to see DEADPOOL, you won't be sorry. DP pokes fun at itself and the genre it represents right from the get-go. Get there early for the opening credits, they aren't quite like any opening credits you have seen before.
First time director Tim Miller cut his teeth on animated short films (most notably, the Oscar nominated animated short, GOPHER BROKE) and it shows in this film. DEADPOOL plays like a 100 minute Road Runner cartoon with star Ryan Reynolds constant patter sounding more and more like the RoadRunner's "Beep, Beep" as the film progresses.
Don't get me wrong, Reynolds does a nice job as the lead and brings humor and charm to the character, but after awhile it just didn't matter as it was just an excuse for fights, car chases, mayhem, violence and explosions - and I didn't mind one bit.
There are some interesting characters in this film, most notably played by Morena Baccarin and T.J. MIller - two actors who I felt FINALLY got decent roles to play, but they, too, take a back seat to the action and smart-assery in this film Even the great Leslie Uggams is brought in as an old, blind, smartass, and she acquits herself quite well.
The smartest things the filmmakers did with this movie is that they did not back away from what they were trying to do - make a superhero movie that was a mash-up of THE AVENGERS and DIRTY GRANDPA, they didn't flinch from this mission, which is why it is successful. They accomplished what the set out to accomplish - make a Superhero movie that any teenage boy would love.
7 (out of 10) stars - 10 out of 10, if you listen to my inner 17 year old - and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)
Jason (7 KP) rated The Light Between Oceans in Books
Jul 9, 2017
Better Than The Film
Yes, yes, I know this has been made into a film. I'm always a little disappointed when a good book becomes a film. With the book, the characters look how you think they should and the locations look how you think they should and so on . . .
With the film, you have the directors vision not yours and I always seem to think the director has it wrong. I even felt this with the Harry Potters. In my head, everything was how I imagined it and the films were not.
Anyways, nothing exists to serve my point as much as this book. I read it a long time before the film came out and it made me feel things more than the subsequent film did.
If you didn't know, this is the story of a man who comes back from the First World War and seeks solitude manning a lighthouse on a lonely island.
He meets the love of his life and they marry and co-exist on the island very happily. They try to have a family but sadly it is not to be as his wife suffers miscarriages.
One day, a boat washes up with a dead man and a live baby inside. What follows is nothing short of heart rending. I won't go into too much detail as you need to read this yourself and please, I implore you to avoid the film until you have read the book.
It's an emotional read, but worth it.
With the film, you have the directors vision not yours and I always seem to think the director has it wrong. I even felt this with the Harry Potters. In my head, everything was how I imagined it and the films were not.
Anyways, nothing exists to serve my point as much as this book. I read it a long time before the film came out and it made me feel things more than the subsequent film did.
If you didn't know, this is the story of a man who comes back from the First World War and seeks solitude manning a lighthouse on a lonely island.
He meets the love of his life and they marry and co-exist on the island very happily. They try to have a family but sadly it is not to be as his wife suffers miscarriages.
One day, a boat washes up with a dead man and a live baby inside. What follows is nothing short of heart rending. I won't go into too much detail as you need to read this yourself and please, I implore you to avoid the film until you have read the book.
It's an emotional read, but worth it.