Search
Search results
Papa's Cupcakeria HD
Games
App
Bake and decorate delicious cupcakes through all of the fun holidays in Papa's Cupcakeria HD! --...
AikidoGuide
Sports and Education
App
THE AIKIDO GUIDE is a powerful tool that fully utilizes app technology to give a unique learning...
Papa's Pizzeria HD
Games
App
Top, bake, and serve seasonal pizzas in Papa's Pizzeria HD! -- ABOUT THE GAME -- Things get...
Planescape: Torment
Games
1.0
Rate It
App
Reviewers say: "Planescape: Torment is a wonderful game, and its Enhanced Edition is a splendid,...
Charmed & Dangerous
10.0
Rate It
Book
Magic takes many forms. From malignant hexes to love charms gone amok, you’ll find a vast array of...
Urban Fantasy Paranormal MM Romance
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Elvis (2022) in Movies
Jun 28, 2022
Butler Shines
Director Baz Luhrmann is one of those artists that I always keep an eye out for. His artistic vision is unique and while the films he directs don’t always work - MOULIN ROUGE is on of my all-time favorites, AUSTRALIA is a mess and his take on the GREAT GATSBY works…mostly - but the one thing that can be said about him is that his projects are always interesting (especially visually). So when he decided to create a bio-pic of “The King”, Elvis Presley, I was intrigued.
And…the resulting film - appropriately called ELVIS - works very well, but not because of Luhrmann’s Direction/Style but more because of the TERRIFIC performance at the center of this picture - and, no, I’m not talking about Tom Hanks as Col. Parker.
ELVIS follows - with the usual Luhrmann quick/cut, flashy style - the rise, fall, rise and (ultimately) death of Elvis Presley. Starting with his boyhood in Tupelo, Mississippi - where he found his rhythm in the roots of African-American Gospel/Spirituals - to his ascension to superstar, this films tries to tell it all, mostly through the shadowy viewpoint of Elvis’ Manager, Col. Tom Parker (a heavily made-up Tom Hanks).
And that is part of the problem with this film - it tries to tell TOO big a story, so while some items are covered in slow, glowing detail (like Elvis’ discovery of the music that will be his trademark), while other items (his movie career) are glossed over quickly in a montage. This is out of necessity, for this film is already 2 hours and 40 minutes long, but it does make this film feel somewhat disjointed - especially when you add Luhrmann’s trademark disorienting quick/cut, stylistic directing style. At times I just wanted to yell at Lurhman to lock his camera down in one position so my eyes (and brain) can settle down and watch what’s going on.
The other issue is the viewpoint of this film - it isn’t consistent. Is this a movie about Elvis? Is this a movie about a conman manipulating Elvis? It starts out following Col. Parker as he discovers Elvis and manipulates him to be his exclusive act, but then we leave Col. Tom and follow Elvis for long periods of time before being drawn back into Col’s Parker’s web, so there is confusion as to who’s story we are telling. In the end we tell both, and each one suffers a little bit because of this.
HOWEVER - and this is an important point - these issues are pushed to the back as minor flaws as the central performance of Austin Butler (Wil Ohmsford in the terrible adaption of THE SHANNARA CHRONICLES on TV) as Elvis is AMAZING. It is a captivating, multi-layered performance both on-stage and off. He has created a character that you are drawn to watch and the off-stage Elvis sets the stage for the charismatic, on-stage Elvis that we all know. Butler did his own singing/performing in this film and it is much, much more that “just” an Elvis impersonation. He personifies “The King” and Butler’s name better be called at Awards time. It is that good of a performance, one that should catapult this young man to stardom.
Fairing less well is Tom Hanks as Col. Parker. While he is game under all that make-up, the character is just not written with any nuance and comes off as a one-dimensional villain, constantly lurking in the background. This character just wasn’t interesting enough to hold the screen - especially against Butler.
But see this film to rekindle the spirit of Elvis through the interpretation of Butler, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the resulting film - appropriately called ELVIS - works very well, but not because of Luhrmann’s Direction/Style but more because of the TERRIFIC performance at the center of this picture - and, no, I’m not talking about Tom Hanks as Col. Parker.
ELVIS follows - with the usual Luhrmann quick/cut, flashy style - the rise, fall, rise and (ultimately) death of Elvis Presley. Starting with his boyhood in Tupelo, Mississippi - where he found his rhythm in the roots of African-American Gospel/Spirituals - to his ascension to superstar, this films tries to tell it all, mostly through the shadowy viewpoint of Elvis’ Manager, Col. Tom Parker (a heavily made-up Tom Hanks).
And that is part of the problem with this film - it tries to tell TOO big a story, so while some items are covered in slow, glowing detail (like Elvis’ discovery of the music that will be his trademark), while other items (his movie career) are glossed over quickly in a montage. This is out of necessity, for this film is already 2 hours and 40 minutes long, but it does make this film feel somewhat disjointed - especially when you add Luhrmann’s trademark disorienting quick/cut, stylistic directing style. At times I just wanted to yell at Lurhman to lock his camera down in one position so my eyes (and brain) can settle down and watch what’s going on.
The other issue is the viewpoint of this film - it isn’t consistent. Is this a movie about Elvis? Is this a movie about a conman manipulating Elvis? It starts out following Col. Parker as he discovers Elvis and manipulates him to be his exclusive act, but then we leave Col. Tom and follow Elvis for long periods of time before being drawn back into Col’s Parker’s web, so there is confusion as to who’s story we are telling. In the end we tell both, and each one suffers a little bit because of this.
HOWEVER - and this is an important point - these issues are pushed to the back as minor flaws as the central performance of Austin Butler (Wil Ohmsford in the terrible adaption of THE SHANNARA CHRONICLES on TV) as Elvis is AMAZING. It is a captivating, multi-layered performance both on-stage and off. He has created a character that you are drawn to watch and the off-stage Elvis sets the stage for the charismatic, on-stage Elvis that we all know. Butler did his own singing/performing in this film and it is much, much more that “just” an Elvis impersonation. He personifies “The King” and Butler’s name better be called at Awards time. It is that good of a performance, one that should catapult this young man to stardom.
Fairing less well is Tom Hanks as Col. Parker. While he is game under all that make-up, the character is just not written with any nuance and comes off as a one-dimensional villain, constantly lurking in the background. This character just wasn’t interesting enough to hold the screen - especially against Butler.
But see this film to rekindle the spirit of Elvis through the interpretation of Butler, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated God: A Human History in Books
Nov 5, 2017
An Ambiguous History
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, God: A Human History. To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
God: A Human History is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, God: A Human History leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, God: A Human History. To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
God: A Human History is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, God: A Human History leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
Midge (525 KP) rated Death In Provence in Books
Feb 2, 2019
Many twists and turns of the plot (1 more)
Great pacing
A Light And Relaxing Read
DEATH IN PROVENCE is a wonderful, light, and relaxed read with all of the matching vibes you get when on holiday. That’s exactly how I felt - this novel is almost as good being on a long vacation.
It is a refreshing, mystery fiction novel set in wonderfully scenic St Merlot, a sleepy, quiet village that has infrequent visitors at the unfashionable end of the Luberon Valley, France. St Merlot is unspoilt, with dry stone walls and wildflowers.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Penelope Kite. Recently retired and divorced, she is an optimistic, happy, fifty-year-old with plenty of joie-de-vivre. Penelope, or Penny to her friends, has put her unfaithful ex-husband and her ungrateful stepchildren first, for a long time. Since she left her job in forensics at the Home Office in England, she’s been an unpaid babysitter and chauffeur for her grandchildren. Now, she’s going to start living for herself so she buys her dream house, Le Chant d’Eau, or The Song of Water. The stone farmhouse tucked high in the hills is in need of major restoration but is complete with a garden, swimming pool, and sweeping mountain vistas.
But not long after her arrival at Le Chant d’Eau, a corpse is found floating in her swimming pool. The local detective doesn’t seem particularly interested in finding out either the truth or the murderer, but Penny knows a thing or two about murder investigations herself so she starts an investigation of her own.
Enter Clemence Valencourt, the chic but supercilious estate agent, the disdainful chief of police, Inspector Paul Gamelin brought in from the headquarters of the Police Municipale in Cavaillon to investigate. He is 40-ish, has a tanned narrow face, greying hair and a grave demeanour. He also speaks excellent English. The devilishly handsome local mayor is called in to formally identify the corpse. He is the maire de St Merlot, and is gorgeous, with floppy sun-streaked hair, a caramel tan and chiselled cheekbones He also has stunning dark blue eyes...
All this and being tempted by the delightful food and drink delicacies that Provence has to offer. Luckily her kind and high-spirited, old friend, Frankie who is conveniently fluid in French is just a flight away.
One of the highlights of the book is following the many twists and turns of the plot. I liked the fact that Penny is a smart 50-year-old woman who has lots of life experience and is trying to come to terms with ageing and that she is not quite as naive as her new neighbours in St. Merlot seem to believe. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story is captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish.
DEATH IN PROVENCE was an interesting novel particularly for the interplay of the different secondary characters as well as the primary ones - a reticent and monosyllabic neighbour, an eccentric but honourable gardener, a jaunty and smiling electrician, and a close-knit village community, to name but a few. Plenty of ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved Serena Kent’s writing style which I found to be so vivid and very easy to read. The descriptions of the places, people and food were very real and it was easy to imagine that you were actually there. She has reflected the spirit of the French villagers, their individuality brilliantly.
Although I did not figure out who was behind the murders, even though all the clues were there, I had a great time guessing and I loved it! I was very satisfied with the ending. I have been inspired to read more from Serena Kent and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Edelweiss and the publisher for a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
It is a refreshing, mystery fiction novel set in wonderfully scenic St Merlot, a sleepy, quiet village that has infrequent visitors at the unfashionable end of the Luberon Valley, France. St Merlot is unspoilt, with dry stone walls and wildflowers.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Penelope Kite. Recently retired and divorced, she is an optimistic, happy, fifty-year-old with plenty of joie-de-vivre. Penelope, or Penny to her friends, has put her unfaithful ex-husband and her ungrateful stepchildren first, for a long time. Since she left her job in forensics at the Home Office in England, she’s been an unpaid babysitter and chauffeur for her grandchildren. Now, she’s going to start living for herself so she buys her dream house, Le Chant d’Eau, or The Song of Water. The stone farmhouse tucked high in the hills is in need of major restoration but is complete with a garden, swimming pool, and sweeping mountain vistas.
But not long after her arrival at Le Chant d’Eau, a corpse is found floating in her swimming pool. The local detective doesn’t seem particularly interested in finding out either the truth or the murderer, but Penny knows a thing or two about murder investigations herself so she starts an investigation of her own.
Enter Clemence Valencourt, the chic but supercilious estate agent, the disdainful chief of police, Inspector Paul Gamelin brought in from the headquarters of the Police Municipale in Cavaillon to investigate. He is 40-ish, has a tanned narrow face, greying hair and a grave demeanour. He also speaks excellent English. The devilishly handsome local mayor is called in to formally identify the corpse. He is the maire de St Merlot, and is gorgeous, with floppy sun-streaked hair, a caramel tan and chiselled cheekbones He also has stunning dark blue eyes...
All this and being tempted by the delightful food and drink delicacies that Provence has to offer. Luckily her kind and high-spirited, old friend, Frankie who is conveniently fluid in French is just a flight away.
One of the highlights of the book is following the many twists and turns of the plot. I liked the fact that Penny is a smart 50-year-old woman who has lots of life experience and is trying to come to terms with ageing and that she is not quite as naive as her new neighbours in St. Merlot seem to believe. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story is captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish.
DEATH IN PROVENCE was an interesting novel particularly for the interplay of the different secondary characters as well as the primary ones - a reticent and monosyllabic neighbour, an eccentric but honourable gardener, a jaunty and smiling electrician, and a close-knit village community, to name but a few. Plenty of ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved Serena Kent’s writing style which I found to be so vivid and very easy to read. The descriptions of the places, people and food were very real and it was easy to imagine that you were actually there. She has reflected the spirit of the French villagers, their individuality brilliantly.
Although I did not figure out who was behind the murders, even though all the clues were there, I had a great time guessing and I loved it! I was very satisfied with the ending. I have been inspired to read more from Serena Kent and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Edelweiss and the publisher for a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Godzilla (1954) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
The beginning was inspired...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was first introduced to Godzilla in cartoon form in the 1980′s as a child, but it wasn't until 1998, with Roland Emmerich's blockbuster reboot that I had seen the infamous beast on the pearl screen. I had also seem bits and bobs of the many original sequels as a child and they had made absolutely no impact on me what so ever! But I became aware of the significance of this, the original, only recently and it was due to this discovery that I hunted down the best copy available.
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/