Search
Search results
Connor Jessup recommended Good Morning (1959) in Movies (curated)
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated My Bloody Valentine 3-D (2009) in Movies
Jan 13, 2021
One of the avalanche of classic horror remakes to surface during the 00s, My Bloody Valentine (in "spectacular" 3D of course) isn't the worst of them by a long shot, but it still suffers from the soul-less-ness that the majority of them seem all to keen to pack in.
Its certainly more action packed and gory than it's 80s older sibling. The violence on display packs a punch for sure, some of it looks great, some of its looks terrible. The Harry Warden killer, much like the Michaels and Jasons of this remake era, is more of a machine than before. Relentless, brutal, faster, and pretty intimidating as far as these things go. It also packs in a fair amount of character development, which is a nice touch that gives the whole narrative some much needed gravitas, and the cast all do a good job with the by-the-numbers slasher-remake screenplay, with highlights being Jaime King and the ever reliable Tom Atkins.
You know how these things go though, and the simple fact is that this do over isn't as good as the original. It lacks the realness and charm (there's that word again) that the original had. There's a twist near the end that is designed to pull the rug out from under fans of the original, and it's actually a pretty interesting one, albeit executed poorly, and requires the viewer to really suspend disbelief in order to glaze over some gaping plot holes.
All in all, it's gory and fun enough to easily pass a couple of hours, and manages to feel like a homage to the original, rather than a straight up copy, and that I can respect, but ultimately, it's not a strong argument for the case of remakes.
Its certainly more action packed and gory than it's 80s older sibling. The violence on display packs a punch for sure, some of it looks great, some of its looks terrible. The Harry Warden killer, much like the Michaels and Jasons of this remake era, is more of a machine than before. Relentless, brutal, faster, and pretty intimidating as far as these things go. It also packs in a fair amount of character development, which is a nice touch that gives the whole narrative some much needed gravitas, and the cast all do a good job with the by-the-numbers slasher-remake screenplay, with highlights being Jaime King and the ever reliable Tom Atkins.
You know how these things go though, and the simple fact is that this do over isn't as good as the original. It lacks the realness and charm (there's that word again) that the original had. There's a twist near the end that is designed to pull the rug out from under fans of the original, and it's actually a pretty interesting one, albeit executed poorly, and requires the viewer to really suspend disbelief in order to glaze over some gaping plot holes.
All in all, it's gory and fun enough to easily pass a couple of hours, and manages to feel like a homage to the original, rather than a straight up copy, and that I can respect, but ultimately, it's not a strong argument for the case of remakes.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Return of The King
The Lion King is a 2019 computer-animated musical movie directed and produced by Jon Favreau. It was written by Jeff Nathanson, and produced by Fairview Entertainment and Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Beyonce and James Earl Jones.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Twenty-six years ago, “Fright Night” premiered in theaters and went on to become a fondly remembered title amongst horror fans. The movie cleverly combined horror and humor to create a fresh take on the vampire and teen horror genres which had started to grow stale. While the movie spawned a largely forgettable direct to video sequel, the original film has remained popular over the years. So, when I first heard that they were planning on remaking the film I was skeptical as I felt it would be very difficult to match the original film.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Blithe Spirit (2020) in Movies
Mar 31, 2021 (Updated Mar 31, 2021)
The women act like shrews. (6 more)
Cheap jokes.
Lack of class and style.
Poor character development.
No depth to the characters at all.
Unsophisticated.
Would have been funnier without the sex jokes.
No! No! No! This is not the way Noel Coward is meant to be seen. Avoid this!
Contains spoilers, click to show
I am a HUGE fan of Noel Coward and absolutely adore the original Blithe Spirit. I had high hopes for this version as I like all of the actors involved in the movie. Unfortunately, it was a complete disappointment. Judi Dench's Madame Arcati paled in the memory of Margaret Rutherford, though much of the dialogue and actions during the seance scene were the same. She tried her best but the script just wasn't any good. I did appreciate the backstory of her losing her husband in the Boer War and that being the reason she was interested in the occult. The significance of the song Always was not mentioned, though it was very important to the plot in the original and made the movie relatable. Gone was the ethereal, sweet, mischievous little minx Elvira, played by Kay Hammond in the original. Enter the selfish, unlovable shrew of a first wife, played by the usually lovable Leslie Mann in the remake. The relationship between Charles and Elvira does not make any sense to the viewer and there was no point for them to have been together or for her to have thought of her and to bring her forth in the present. This is a missed plot point. In the original, it is actually the maid who was thinking of Elvira, not Charles, but the maid is merely a go-between for props in this movie and has no reason for being there, nor the chef. The relationship between Ruth and Charles is also not a good one and they have no reason to be together in this remake, though in the original, they at least have a few things in common. They seem to have nothing but derision toward each other. Again, I don't see the point of them being together. All of them are miserable together. Even when Elvira and Charles are intimate, it is not for romance and love but for mere hatred, jealousy, and spite. There is even a cheap crotch shot joke that I was appalled to see in this work. And the ending of the movie makes little sense. It's hardly the charming farce Noel Coward intended. Oh, the horrors. Skip this version. Watch the original. Trust me on this. This movie is not the way Noel Coward is meant to be seen.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Don't let us down Guy Ritchie
Along with Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King, Aladdin is one of Disney’s most-loved animated films. With Disney’s penchant for remaking their classic cartoons over the last few years, it was always going to be the case that Aladdin was going to be on the cards.
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Point Break (1991) in Movies
Jan 17, 2018
Not Bad
My buddy who recommended Point Break asked for my thoughts almost immediately after I watched it. In a word: Fun. No, it's not going to blow your mind or give you chills, but it's a great film to watch if you're just trying to have a good time. It's like Fast and the Furious before Fast and the Furious became Fast and the Furious. Oh yeah, and with surfer dudes.
Point Break can be a bit over the top at times. One scene in particular involving a chase scene where someone literally threw a dog at Keanu Reeves left me scratching my head and chuckling, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be laughing at that point. The plot holes threw me off just as much. Spoiler Alert In the Form of a Question: After Johnny Utah's cover is blown, why the hell is he still hanging out with the bankrobbers?
After a slow start, I managed to find myself engaged in what was unfolding. Keanu Reeves got off to a slow start as well in his role as Johnny Utah, but found his way midway through. It was almost like this was the film where he learned how to act, but director Kathryn Bigelow didn't notice until they were well past the point of reshoots. It doesn't kill the movie, not by a longshot, especially considering its setting.
The ending was extremely ambiguous and, ten years ago, probably would have ruined the entire film for me. Now, it left me asking myself, "What does this mean exactly?" My answer in a sec...
For those of you like me that are new to the film, Point Break is the story of a detective trying to take down a gang of surfers that have become notorious on the bank-robbing circuit as the Ex-Presidents. The film has some fun action sequences, including a house raid midway through that I really enjoyed. I also thought Bigelow captured some powerful shots when it came to expressing the love and power of the ocean. I would love to see this film shot in IMAX today. And I said this film, not the god-awful remake. My favorite shot takes place at a gas station. Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) is burning a car (destroying evidence) to the ground using a gas pump and a lighter. For some reason, it reminded me of the one scene I enjoyed in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice where the courtroom explodes and just Superman is left among the flames. Scenes like this, no matter how good or bad a film is, stay etched in your memory for a long time.
So what were my thoughts on the ending? I feel like the waves got the better of Utah and he succumbed to their call. He got a taste of a life that was more easygoing and peaceful. Less rules and restrictions. Ultimately, it was enough for him to throw everything else (badge included) away. And yes, I think he does end up staying with Tyler (Lori Petty).
Glad I saw this film. I give it a 77.
Point Break can be a bit over the top at times. One scene in particular involving a chase scene where someone literally threw a dog at Keanu Reeves left me scratching my head and chuckling, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be laughing at that point. The plot holes threw me off just as much. Spoiler Alert In the Form of a Question: After Johnny Utah's cover is blown, why the hell is he still hanging out with the bankrobbers?
After a slow start, I managed to find myself engaged in what was unfolding. Keanu Reeves got off to a slow start as well in his role as Johnny Utah, but found his way midway through. It was almost like this was the film where he learned how to act, but director Kathryn Bigelow didn't notice until they were well past the point of reshoots. It doesn't kill the movie, not by a longshot, especially considering its setting.
The ending was extremely ambiguous and, ten years ago, probably would have ruined the entire film for me. Now, it left me asking myself, "What does this mean exactly?" My answer in a sec...
For those of you like me that are new to the film, Point Break is the story of a detective trying to take down a gang of surfers that have become notorious on the bank-robbing circuit as the Ex-Presidents. The film has some fun action sequences, including a house raid midway through that I really enjoyed. I also thought Bigelow captured some powerful shots when it came to expressing the love and power of the ocean. I would love to see this film shot in IMAX today. And I said this film, not the god-awful remake. My favorite shot takes place at a gas station. Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) is burning a car (destroying evidence) to the ground using a gas pump and a lighter. For some reason, it reminded me of the one scene I enjoyed in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice where the courtroom explodes and just Superman is left among the flames. Scenes like this, no matter how good or bad a film is, stay etched in your memory for a long time.
So what were my thoughts on the ending? I feel like the waves got the better of Utah and he succumbed to their call. He got a taste of a life that was more easygoing and peaceful. Less rules and restrictions. Ultimately, it was enough for him to throw everything else (badge included) away. And yes, I think he does end up staying with Tyler (Lori Petty).
Glad I saw this film. I give it a 77.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Miss Bala (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Gloria (Gina Rodriguez), a makeup artist in Los Angeles, heads to Tijuana for a fun weekend with her best friend, Suzu (Cristina Rodlo). Gloria is going to help Suzu prepare for the Miss Baja California beauty pageant. They decide to head to a club to rub elbows with one of the more important judges, Chief Saucedo (Damian Alcazar). That is when a fun trip turns into a nightmare, several members of a local cartel, Estrella (Spanish for star), break in and start shooting up the club. The leader of Estrella, Leno (Ismael Cruz Cordova), believes that Chief Saucedo is trying to cut into his business and is there to assassinate him. Gloria escapes but gets separated from Suzu. She searches all night and calls the hospitals but can’t find her friend. She finds a police officer to have him help search and tells him he saw the attackers. Instead of taking her to the police station he delivers her to Estrella and Leno. He agrees to help her find her friend but there is a price. Now Gloria will have go to great lengths to find her friend and survive a deadly battle between a cartel and the police from right in the middle of the chaos.
Gina Rodriguez is really good in this film. I thought her performance was definitely the best part of this film. Otherwise the performances were a mix bag of good and bad. Cruz Cordova in particular failed to really come across as a scary, but sensitive, cartel leader. The cameo by Anthony Mackie was a surprise. The story is really interesting and there were times that were suspenseful. The action was decent with some good scenes. The issue was there were also some campy performances and scene set ups that felt rushed. The film was shot decently and the music fit well. The end, which I would not dare spoil, really fell short of all of the buildup.
Before looking for a trailer for this movie I did not know that this was a remake of a 2012 film of the same name. I would be interested to see this film to compare the two because I enjoyed the story. This film missed on some points but really did entertain me for the hour and forty-four minutes. I would say that you could save this for streaming or rental. I don’t think that it would be a movie I would watch again in the theater.
Gina Rodriguez is really good in this film. I thought her performance was definitely the best part of this film. Otherwise the performances were a mix bag of good and bad. Cruz Cordova in particular failed to really come across as a scary, but sensitive, cartel leader. The cameo by Anthony Mackie was a surprise. The story is really interesting and there were times that were suspenseful. The action was decent with some good scenes. The issue was there were also some campy performances and scene set ups that felt rushed. The film was shot decently and the music fit well. The end, which I would not dare spoil, really fell short of all of the buildup.
Before looking for a trailer for this movie I did not know that this was a remake of a 2012 film of the same name. I would be interested to see this film to compare the two because I enjoyed the story. This film missed on some points but really did entertain me for the hour and forty-four minutes. I would say that you could save this for streaming or rental. I don’t think that it would be a movie I would watch again in the theater.