Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Horror films have been in a steady decline for the past few years with countless remakes and sequels to some of the most loved horror franchises. After an 8 year hiatus, Wes Craven resurrects the seemingly dead Scream series with some fantastic results. Scream 4 does for horror what the original did way back in 1996; it carves out a new direction for what has been a lifeless genre.
Scre4m sees Neve Campbell return as Sidney Prescott alongside the much loved Courtney Cox and David Arquette as Gale Riley (previously Weathers) and Dewey Riley respectively. This time, the story focuses on Sidney Prescott returning to her hometown of Woodsboro promoting a book about her life. Of course, this is Scream; so it’s not all plain sailing and her arrival beckons the return of ‘Ghostface’ and his (or her) grisly murders.
The first Scream was well-known for poking fun at the genre and the latest instalment is no exception. It wraps a sublime mix of comedy and self-awareness with the sharp horror which made the first trilogy such a hit. The success in this film is that it never takes itself too seriously, and neither do the cast who look like they’re having a bloody good time. 8 years on and they don’t look like they’re too long in the tooth for this kind of madness, which is an unusual thing. By far the standout performance is from Courtney Cox who slips seamlessly back into the role of Gale and shows the audience why she was the perfect choice for her part.
However, it isn’t all about the veteran stars, some new talent joins the ranks and what better place to start than in a film which has the opportunity of revitalising a tarnished and battered genre. Nico Torterella joins the franchise as Trevor Sheldon, playing a similar part to that of Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis in the original. Torterella, with his limited characterisation does very well and steps into the shoes of the creepy ex-boyfriend role exceptionally. But who is he the ex-boyfriend of I hear you cry? Well, Emma Roberts comes to the series for the first time as Jill Roberts, Sidney Prescott’s cousin. Emma plays the part well and in fact provides some of the standout lines throughout the entire film.
Anna Paquin also gets a short cameo in the introduction of the film; much like Drew Barrymore did in the first.
Scream 4 is much like the first with its comedic timing and as such is one of the better instalments in the series, stopping short of being the best. It has been directed very well but is slightly too long and the constant guessing game of who is to blame for the murders can wear thin if you’re not in the mood for Cluedo. The fantastic characters, portrayed brilliantly by their real-life counterparts and the excellent story really are the highlights of a film which has succeeded in what it set out to achieve. Here, 8 years on from Scream 3 and 15 years; yes 15 years on from the original, Scream 4 revitalises the horror genre and is in every respect, brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/04/30/scream-4-2011/
Scre4m sees Neve Campbell return as Sidney Prescott alongside the much loved Courtney Cox and David Arquette as Gale Riley (previously Weathers) and Dewey Riley respectively. This time, the story focuses on Sidney Prescott returning to her hometown of Woodsboro promoting a book about her life. Of course, this is Scream; so it’s not all plain sailing and her arrival beckons the return of ‘Ghostface’ and his (or her) grisly murders.
The first Scream was well-known for poking fun at the genre and the latest instalment is no exception. It wraps a sublime mix of comedy and self-awareness with the sharp horror which made the first trilogy such a hit. The success in this film is that it never takes itself too seriously, and neither do the cast who look like they’re having a bloody good time. 8 years on and they don’t look like they’re too long in the tooth for this kind of madness, which is an unusual thing. By far the standout performance is from Courtney Cox who slips seamlessly back into the role of Gale and shows the audience why she was the perfect choice for her part.
However, it isn’t all about the veteran stars, some new talent joins the ranks and what better place to start than in a film which has the opportunity of revitalising a tarnished and battered genre. Nico Torterella joins the franchise as Trevor Sheldon, playing a similar part to that of Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis in the original. Torterella, with his limited characterisation does very well and steps into the shoes of the creepy ex-boyfriend role exceptionally. But who is he the ex-boyfriend of I hear you cry? Well, Emma Roberts comes to the series for the first time as Jill Roberts, Sidney Prescott’s cousin. Emma plays the part well and in fact provides some of the standout lines throughout the entire film.
Anna Paquin also gets a short cameo in the introduction of the film; much like Drew Barrymore did in the first.
Scream 4 is much like the first with its comedic timing and as such is one of the better instalments in the series, stopping short of being the best. It has been directed very well but is slightly too long and the constant guessing game of who is to blame for the murders can wear thin if you’re not in the mood for Cluedo. The fantastic characters, portrayed brilliantly by their real-life counterparts and the excellent story really are the highlights of a film which has succeeded in what it set out to achieve. Here, 8 years on from Scream 3 and 15 years; yes 15 years on from the original, Scream 4 revitalises the horror genre and is in every respect, brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/04/30/scream-4-2011/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 1914, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) traveled from his poverty-stricken existence in Madras, India to Trinity College, Cambridge in the hope that he would have his theories published and be recognized for the mathematical genius he was. While there, despite facing racism, hostility and severe illness, he formed an important relationship with G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) that would lead to breakthroughs in mathematics that are still relevant today.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
May 14, 2022
Not As Bad As You Heard
“It’s Not As Bad As You Heard” is the very definition of damning with faint praise, but that phrase accurately describes one of the highest profile film failures of 2021 - HOUSE OF GUCCI.
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ex-government assassin Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) takes it upon himself to right the wrongs of those who have been exploited. He spends his days driving a Lyft around making chance encounters with people. When one of those people is in need he will go to any length to dispense justice. His brand of justice is brutal and swift but he always give the oppressors the chance to redeem themselves. He does this for people passing though his life but when his best friend, and one of the only former colleges to know his alive, Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed while on an investigation he sets out to dispatch vengeance rather than justice. He will stop at nothing to find out why his friend was murdered and eliminate those responsible. Robert must first reveal that he is still alive to his former partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal) so he can have access to the investigation. Once he has access the pair will try and find the killers and exact revenge. That is before the killers find them.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jan 28, 2020
Pleasantly Surprising
As I've mentioned before, I grew up during the 90s, and therefore, the Disney movies I have the fondest memories of run between Beauty & the Beast and Mulan. The original Aladdin's release in 1992 places it firmly it that era, and as such, is one that I lived as a kid. Couple this with the fact that I haven't particularly liked any of the live action Disney remakes so far, and this was one I was prepared to loathe.
But, dammit, Guy Ritchie wasn't going to let that happen! Aladdin is an adaption that is full with to the brim with positives.
The cast for one thing. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott (as Aladdin and Jasmine) are likeable leads and carry the main bulk of the story with minimal effort. They share good chemistry and are instantly charming.
Will Smith was obviously the big talking point before the films release. I though he did a great job at bringing Genie to life. He doesn't try to imitate what Robin Williams did back in 1992, and manages to stop short of turning into a full blown Will Smith vehicle, and this results in a respectful and fun portrayal of one of Disney's most beloved characters.
Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) was fine - he never really goes full Disney villain and felt quite subdued. Both a little underwhelming, but maybe a bit more grounded?
Even the CGI characters of Apu and The Magic Carpet have a respectable amount of personality!
The CGI is actually (and maybe predictably) where one of the few negatives stems from. The CG effects use in Will Smith when he's in full blown genie mode are pretty jarring at first. I feel myself getting used to it, and accepting that it actually looked fine seeing as he is a magical being and all, but then there another close up of his face and it's terrifying again. The infamous carpet ride hand a few dodgy moments as well, but other than that, it was all pretty good. The wider shots of Agrabar looked stunning and full of colour, and the film is gorgeous looking for the most part.
I've also mentioned before that I'm not a massive musical fan, but the nostalgia in me give films like Aladdin a bit of a pass. The songs here are all fine (if you ignore the autotune here and there) and the cast all seem like they can sing mostly unaided. I didn't care much for the new song they put in - it absolutely reeked of Frozen, right down to Jasmine's posturing - and added nothing to the narrative, even if the message is an empowering one.
The film also gets a bit carried away during the pre-credits, with it's reliance on the audiences tolerance for the songs.
Other than that handful of gripes, I would say that Aladdin is safely the best of the bunch so far when it comes to these live action Disney remakes. It actually feels like that cast and crew care about what they're doing, and it's doesn't come across as a money grab anywhere near as much as say The Lion King.
If you haven't yet given it a chance due to your fondness for the original, try not to worry about that and enjoy it for what it is. It could have been a lot worse!
But, dammit, Guy Ritchie wasn't going to let that happen! Aladdin is an adaption that is full with to the brim with positives.
The cast for one thing. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott (as Aladdin and Jasmine) are likeable leads and carry the main bulk of the story with minimal effort. They share good chemistry and are instantly charming.
Will Smith was obviously the big talking point before the films release. I though he did a great job at bringing Genie to life. He doesn't try to imitate what Robin Williams did back in 1992, and manages to stop short of turning into a full blown Will Smith vehicle, and this results in a respectful and fun portrayal of one of Disney's most beloved characters.
Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) was fine - he never really goes full Disney villain and felt quite subdued. Both a little underwhelming, but maybe a bit more grounded?
Even the CGI characters of Apu and The Magic Carpet have a respectable amount of personality!
The CGI is actually (and maybe predictably) where one of the few negatives stems from. The CG effects use in Will Smith when he's in full blown genie mode are pretty jarring at first. I feel myself getting used to it, and accepting that it actually looked fine seeing as he is a magical being and all, but then there another close up of his face and it's terrifying again. The infamous carpet ride hand a few dodgy moments as well, but other than that, it was all pretty good. The wider shots of Agrabar looked stunning and full of colour, and the film is gorgeous looking for the most part.
I've also mentioned before that I'm not a massive musical fan, but the nostalgia in me give films like Aladdin a bit of a pass. The songs here are all fine (if you ignore the autotune here and there) and the cast all seem like they can sing mostly unaided. I didn't care much for the new song they put in - it absolutely reeked of Frozen, right down to Jasmine's posturing - and added nothing to the narrative, even if the message is an empowering one.
The film also gets a bit carried away during the pre-credits, with it's reliance on the audiences tolerance for the songs.
Other than that handful of gripes, I would say that Aladdin is safely the best of the bunch so far when it comes to these live action Disney remakes. It actually feels like that cast and crew care about what they're doing, and it's doesn't come across as a money grab anywhere near as much as say The Lion King.
If you haven't yet given it a chance due to your fondness for the original, try not to worry about that and enjoy it for what it is. It could have been a lot worse!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Life Of Pi (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Ang Lee has directed some very artistic and emotionally charged films in his career and his new movie, Life of Pi is certainly no exception. But can his take on Yann Martel’s 2001 novel of the same name live up to his usual high standards?
In short, the answer is a resounding yes. From the stunning special effects and beautiful acting to the heart-warming story, it captivates from beginning to end like no other film released this year.
The film begins with a pet hate of mine, the credits. I always think a movie that starts with its credits is usually a huge let-down but something was different here, as soon as the brilliantly filmed names flash across the screen, I knew this film was going to be spectacular, just how spectacular however, I was not prepared for.
The story is, essentially what the title says it is, the life of a boy called Pi and his extraordinary journey from childhood, through adolescence and finally into adulthood. It seems quite simple and perhaps nothing too innovative or different, but the way Lee has captured the magic of the novel really does shine through on screen.
In the present day, Rafe Spall plays a budding writer searching for inspiration for his next big book. He comes across Irrfan Khan who plays the adult Pi and has an unbelievable story to tell. So, as he begins to narrate this incredible journey, the viewer is transported to when Pi was a boy.
It’s true that the film takes a while to get going and the scenes in Pi’s native India are perhaps the most testing of the entire film. The momentum is built up slowly as the boy travels through school life whilst his family run a small zoo in their hometown. Alas, the perfection of his childhood is ruined when his entire family decide to relocate to Canada due to an economic crisis. They are packed onto a tanker with the zoo animals on-board and begin the journey to their new life.
Whilst on the last leg of their journey, their ship is ravaged by a severe storm and Pi’s family is lost, along with most of the zoo animals and, in a scene that even betters the emotionally charged sinking in Titanic and the CGI packed sinking in Poseidon, their tanker is lost to the ocean.
Thankfully he survives, along with an injured zebra, a naughty hyena and a motherly orangutan in a small life-boat. It’s safe to say that the zebra and ape don’t last too long on-board a ship with a hyena and they are picked off as lunch. However, also sailing with them is Richard Parker, a Bengal tiger and he forms the basis of the film, along with Pi. At first, after Richard Parker makes light work of the hyena, the relationship between Pi and his new shipmate is somewhat strained, a constant battle between who is going to eat who and the only sensible option is for Pi to live on separate raft tied to the life-boat.
However, a few days pass and finally they can share a boat, albeit after a couple of amusing scenes involving urine and some flying fish.
Richard Parker is a beautiful animal to say the least, a mixture of live action tigers, CGI animation and animatronics really brings him to life, which is good considering he is the only other character in the film. This is where Ang Lee’s brilliance as a director shines, bringing warmth and heart to a character that is not only not real, but an animal, without the ability to talk and share feelings. Credit must also be given to newcomer Suraj Sharma who plays Pi Patel absolutely brilliantly. I simply could not believe this was his first big acting role; his performance is nothing short of stunning.
Then there are the special effects and 3D. Everything is a wonder to behold and the 3D is a help in enjoying the film, rather than a hindrance which it continues to be in other movies. There are two scenes in particular which really stand out, including a lot of jellyfish and a few thousand meerkats. I won’t say anything else, as they need to be seen to be believed.
Moreover, in the depths of this film lies a huge emotional core, the story of a boy and his ‘pet’ and the perils they face, the togetherness they bring to one another is touching to say the least and let’s just say there were more than a few sniffles coming from the rows behind me in the cinema. However, it is more than just a story of companionship; there is a deep religious message about believing in god even if he seems to not be there 100% of the time. Whether or not you choose to read into this is your decision, but it’s there throughout.
Life of Pi is something really special, a magical journey that needs to be seen to be believed. Very rarely, a film comes along that touches your heart, your soul and your head and this is one of those films. Everything from the performances of all the actors, the beautiful recreation of Richard Parker and stunning special effects make this film as revolutionary as Avatar was in 2009. It is not only the best film of 2012; it is one of the best films ever made. Please, I urge all of you who read this, go see it, and witness history in the making.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/22/life-of-pi-review-2012/
In short, the answer is a resounding yes. From the stunning special effects and beautiful acting to the heart-warming story, it captivates from beginning to end like no other film released this year.
The film begins with a pet hate of mine, the credits. I always think a movie that starts with its credits is usually a huge let-down but something was different here, as soon as the brilliantly filmed names flash across the screen, I knew this film was going to be spectacular, just how spectacular however, I was not prepared for.
The story is, essentially what the title says it is, the life of a boy called Pi and his extraordinary journey from childhood, through adolescence and finally into adulthood. It seems quite simple and perhaps nothing too innovative or different, but the way Lee has captured the magic of the novel really does shine through on screen.
In the present day, Rafe Spall plays a budding writer searching for inspiration for his next big book. He comes across Irrfan Khan who plays the adult Pi and has an unbelievable story to tell. So, as he begins to narrate this incredible journey, the viewer is transported to when Pi was a boy.
It’s true that the film takes a while to get going and the scenes in Pi’s native India are perhaps the most testing of the entire film. The momentum is built up slowly as the boy travels through school life whilst his family run a small zoo in their hometown. Alas, the perfection of his childhood is ruined when his entire family decide to relocate to Canada due to an economic crisis. They are packed onto a tanker with the zoo animals on-board and begin the journey to their new life.
Whilst on the last leg of their journey, their ship is ravaged by a severe storm and Pi’s family is lost, along with most of the zoo animals and, in a scene that even betters the emotionally charged sinking in Titanic and the CGI packed sinking in Poseidon, their tanker is lost to the ocean.
Thankfully he survives, along with an injured zebra, a naughty hyena and a motherly orangutan in a small life-boat. It’s safe to say that the zebra and ape don’t last too long on-board a ship with a hyena and they are picked off as lunch. However, also sailing with them is Richard Parker, a Bengal tiger and he forms the basis of the film, along with Pi. At first, after Richard Parker makes light work of the hyena, the relationship between Pi and his new shipmate is somewhat strained, a constant battle between who is going to eat who and the only sensible option is for Pi to live on separate raft tied to the life-boat.
However, a few days pass and finally they can share a boat, albeit after a couple of amusing scenes involving urine and some flying fish.
Richard Parker is a beautiful animal to say the least, a mixture of live action tigers, CGI animation and animatronics really brings him to life, which is good considering he is the only other character in the film. This is where Ang Lee’s brilliance as a director shines, bringing warmth and heart to a character that is not only not real, but an animal, without the ability to talk and share feelings. Credit must also be given to newcomer Suraj Sharma who plays Pi Patel absolutely brilliantly. I simply could not believe this was his first big acting role; his performance is nothing short of stunning.
Then there are the special effects and 3D. Everything is a wonder to behold and the 3D is a help in enjoying the film, rather than a hindrance which it continues to be in other movies. There are two scenes in particular which really stand out, including a lot of jellyfish and a few thousand meerkats. I won’t say anything else, as they need to be seen to be believed.
Moreover, in the depths of this film lies a huge emotional core, the story of a boy and his ‘pet’ and the perils they face, the togetherness they bring to one another is touching to say the least and let’s just say there were more than a few sniffles coming from the rows behind me in the cinema. However, it is more than just a story of companionship; there is a deep religious message about believing in god even if he seems to not be there 100% of the time. Whether or not you choose to read into this is your decision, but it’s there throughout.
Life of Pi is something really special, a magical journey that needs to be seen to be believed. Very rarely, a film comes along that touches your heart, your soul and your head and this is one of those films. Everything from the performances of all the actors, the beautiful recreation of Richard Parker and stunning special effects make this film as revolutionary as Avatar was in 2009. It is not only the best film of 2012; it is one of the best films ever made. Please, I urge all of you who read this, go see it, and witness history in the making.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/22/life-of-pi-review-2012/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Was it worth the wait?
It’s been fourteen years since Pixar introduced the likes of Violet, Dash, Robert and Helen Parr onto unsuspecting audiences across the globe. The quartet of superheroes swiftly became one of the studio’s best and most profitable films, with a loyal legion of fans begging for a sequel soon after.
Nevertheless, Pixar went on to create some of the greatest animated films of all time. Then the slump came. After Cars and its dreadful sequel came and went and The Good Dinosaur reminded us that not even Pixar was immune from the movie critic curse, they swiftly regrouped and brought us the thrilling Coco and new classic, Inside Out. Now, 14 years later, Mr Incredible and the team are back. But are we looking at a classic Pixar, or a sequel that is too little too late?
Everyone’s favourite family of superheroes is back, but this time Helen (Holly Hunter) is in the spotlight, leaving Bob (Craig T. Nelson) at home with Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) to navigate the day-to-day heroics of normal life. It’s a tough transition for everyone, made tougher by the fact that the family is unaware of Jack-Jack’s superpowers. When a new villain hatches a dangerous plot, the family and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) must find a way to work together again.
Picking up immediately after the events of its predecessor, Incredibles 2 is a thrilling and entertaining sequel that reeks of quality. Everything from the voice acting to the animation is leaps and bounds ahead of the first film and this is testament to the incredible technological gains Pixar has made over the last decade.
Brad Bird is once again in the director’s chair and that familiarity lends it the same heart and emotional engagement of its predecessor. We, as the audience, feel truly invested in the characters again, as we did all that time ago. This time however, the action is dialled up to 11 with some truly exceptional set-pieces.
Thankfully, this is not at the cost of what made The Incredibles such a hit, family drama. The central family unit remains as prevalent as it did before, but this time we have Jack-Jack’s powers thrown into the mix with Elastigirl taking centre stage over Mr. Incredible. This new dynamic is a welcome change from the very male-centric blockbusters we’ve had over the last few years; Wonder Woman being the obvious exception.
The animation is, well incredible. While the quirky character designs never let you forget you’re watching an animated feature, the over-the-top set design means it sits perfectly together. Where The Good Dinosaur went wrong was in its presentation of photo-realistic visuals paired with cartoon-like characters; it simply didn’t work.
Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait
We also have a very interesting villain to contend with. The Screenslaver is pure popcorn wickedness at its very best. It’s amazing that The Incredibles series has scored 2/2 when it comes to their antagonists, yet Marvel still manages to struggle with its bad guys. The Screenslaver may not quite match up the brilliance of Syndrome from its predecessor, but it comes pretty close.
There’s also the welcome return of Edna Mode (voiced by director Brad Bird). Her part is perhaps a little too short, but maintaining her cameo status means she doesn’t feel as overcooked as the minions did after their first solo outing. In the end, we want more Edna, rather than having too much and this is a good thing.
Plot wise, it’s fantastic. With a central storyline about a changing family dynamic, it’s sure to resonate with both children and adults. There are plot twists that wouldn’t look out of place in a live-action feature and some great voice acting by all of the cast.
Negatives? Well it’s hard to think of any whatsoever. This is a much more engaging film than its predecessor but at 118 minutes, it’s long by animation standards. The pacing is a little off just before the finale kicks off, but this is my main and only complaint.
Overall, Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait. It’s filled with sparkling dialogue and great voice acting as well as superb animation and a thrilling plot that all combines to make it one of the year’s best films.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/15/incredibles-2-review-was-it-worth-the-wait/
Nevertheless, Pixar went on to create some of the greatest animated films of all time. Then the slump came. After Cars and its dreadful sequel came and went and The Good Dinosaur reminded us that not even Pixar was immune from the movie critic curse, they swiftly regrouped and brought us the thrilling Coco and new classic, Inside Out. Now, 14 years later, Mr Incredible and the team are back. But are we looking at a classic Pixar, or a sequel that is too little too late?
Everyone’s favourite family of superheroes is back, but this time Helen (Holly Hunter) is in the spotlight, leaving Bob (Craig T. Nelson) at home with Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) to navigate the day-to-day heroics of normal life. It’s a tough transition for everyone, made tougher by the fact that the family is unaware of Jack-Jack’s superpowers. When a new villain hatches a dangerous plot, the family and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) must find a way to work together again.
Picking up immediately after the events of its predecessor, Incredibles 2 is a thrilling and entertaining sequel that reeks of quality. Everything from the voice acting to the animation is leaps and bounds ahead of the first film and this is testament to the incredible technological gains Pixar has made over the last decade.
Brad Bird is once again in the director’s chair and that familiarity lends it the same heart and emotional engagement of its predecessor. We, as the audience, feel truly invested in the characters again, as we did all that time ago. This time however, the action is dialled up to 11 with some truly exceptional set-pieces.
Thankfully, this is not at the cost of what made The Incredibles such a hit, family drama. The central family unit remains as prevalent as it did before, but this time we have Jack-Jack’s powers thrown into the mix with Elastigirl taking centre stage over Mr. Incredible. This new dynamic is a welcome change from the very male-centric blockbusters we’ve had over the last few years; Wonder Woman being the obvious exception.
The animation is, well incredible. While the quirky character designs never let you forget you’re watching an animated feature, the over-the-top set design means it sits perfectly together. Where The Good Dinosaur went wrong was in its presentation of photo-realistic visuals paired with cartoon-like characters; it simply didn’t work.
Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait
We also have a very interesting villain to contend with. The Screenslaver is pure popcorn wickedness at its very best. It’s amazing that The Incredibles series has scored 2/2 when it comes to their antagonists, yet Marvel still manages to struggle with its bad guys. The Screenslaver may not quite match up the brilliance of Syndrome from its predecessor, but it comes pretty close.
There’s also the welcome return of Edna Mode (voiced by director Brad Bird). Her part is perhaps a little too short, but maintaining her cameo status means she doesn’t feel as overcooked as the minions did after their first solo outing. In the end, we want more Edna, rather than having too much and this is a good thing.
Plot wise, it’s fantastic. With a central storyline about a changing family dynamic, it’s sure to resonate with both children and adults. There are plot twists that wouldn’t look out of place in a live-action feature and some great voice acting by all of the cast.
Negatives? Well it’s hard to think of any whatsoever. This is a much more engaging film than its predecessor but at 118 minutes, it’s long by animation standards. The pacing is a little off just before the finale kicks off, but this is my main and only complaint.
Overall, Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait. It’s filled with sparkling dialogue and great voice acting as well as superb animation and a thrilling plot that all combines to make it one of the year’s best films.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/15/incredibles-2-review-was-it-worth-the-wait/
Darren (1599 KP) rated All Hallows' Eve (2013) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Sarah is our babysitter that is watching these horror shorts, she is trying to be responsible to the children she is babysitting for, the other characters we meet are from the shorts which are horror made and our typical heroines that don’t stand much of a chance against their enemies. The clowns are a big part of the film too appearing in certain parts right along the way and soon are just as involved in the horror.
Performances – This is a low budget movie and most of the shorts that were used, were done with actors that were just getting started, you can see the talent there without them being truly standout. Katie Maguire does the most work and is good for her part in the film.
Story – When it comes to anthology films we always need variety in the horrors we are watching, we get that which is good, the style of the shorts feels like 80s too, so we get to play with the trademarks of the horror for that era. The story outside that connections the stories works well too because it brings the unexplained to the mix to why the video was given to a child. We clearly have stronger stories which i feel was the third one and as always the middle ones are often the weakest.
Horror – When it comes to horror we get to see different styles of horror with an 80s theme throughout, each one gets to play on what we have come to know about where things will go, but with the low budget effects we know just what we have gotten ourselves into.
Settings – The film takes us to different locations which makes each story feel unique to what we are experiencing.
Special Effects – The effects are low budget which can make things look cheap, though they are used to make them have a grindhouse feeling which was nice to see.
Scene of the Movie – Most of the third tape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I felt the first story is too short and I wanted to see more.
Final Thoughts – This is a nice solid horror anthology which goes mostly for gore over suspense, it works and I can see the horror fans enjoying this one.
Overall: Nice low budget horror anthology.
Performances – This is a low budget movie and most of the shorts that were used, were done with actors that were just getting started, you can see the talent there without them being truly standout. Katie Maguire does the most work and is good for her part in the film.
Story – When it comes to anthology films we always need variety in the horrors we are watching, we get that which is good, the style of the shorts feels like 80s too, so we get to play with the trademarks of the horror for that era. The story outside that connections the stories works well too because it brings the unexplained to the mix to why the video was given to a child. We clearly have stronger stories which i feel was the third one and as always the middle ones are often the weakest.
Horror – When it comes to horror we get to see different styles of horror with an 80s theme throughout, each one gets to play on what we have come to know about where things will go, but with the low budget effects we know just what we have gotten ourselves into.
Settings – The film takes us to different locations which makes each story feel unique to what we are experiencing.
Special Effects – The effects are low budget which can make things look cheap, though they are used to make them have a grindhouse feeling which was nice to see.
Scene of the Movie – Most of the third tape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I felt the first story is too short and I wanted to see more.
Final Thoughts – This is a nice solid horror anthology which goes mostly for gore over suspense, it works and I can see the horror fans enjoying this one.
Overall: Nice low budget horror anthology.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020 (Updated Jan 6, 2020)
F*ck Off Hittler!
Jo Jo Rabbit while by no means a bad movie its just one that I think would of worked better as a short instead. Think Son Of Rambow meets Wes Anderson and Jo Jo sits somewhere in between, its not bad but its also not greatness either. Containing way more serious drama and a much darker tone than the trailer has you believe what I found most interesting of all were the bleakest parts of the story which hit home way more than the comedy side. I just felt the humour took away from the films more serious messages of manipulation and the mind poluting of the naive. A good job is done of showing how fragile, young and inocent minds are easily lead astray/influenced by propaganda, stories, lies, the spread of hatred and how the excitement of holding a weapon, fighting in a war or wearing a uniform almost takes away from the overall bigger picture for them as children. Most of these kids see probably grew up without a dad as a role model so seeing hittler praised by all, hearing cool fables about him and seeing him on tv/posters to them at that age is almost like how kids are today with superheros, then to think thats actually what probably happened sends chills up your spine in horror. Sadly these scenes are always dampened with comedy killing the impact of them for me and while I do get what type of film its going for I think id rather of just seen a movie on the darker stuff. Acting is great especially by the boy playing Jo Jo however accents do slip constantly all round again breaking the illusion. Couple this with a middle act that I really struggled with losing intrest frequently and looking at my watch. While it does have the heart and certainly the depth in places I cant help but feel really let down by this movie and sadly I left wanting more. Far too serious for teens and not serious enough for adults Jo Jo Rabbit is an alright watch with definitely a few good messages at its muddled heart 'love will always defeat hate' and 'even if you are ugly on skin you still can be lovely from within' so I guess its not all bad.