Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020 (Updated Feb 16, 2020)
Frenetic action in murky water - baffling (2 more)
Scientific inconsistencies
Waterlogged Alien wannabe
Soggy and forgettable
I had a sinking feeling (excuse the pun) about this movie from the word go. It's a lazy approach to 'mansplain' the whole set up for the movie through digital news posts during the main titles. It feels more patronising to the audience than having main titles and then a 'Star Wars-style' synopsis.
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Scary Dolls Prank: Paranormal Camera Ghost Photo
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
5.0
Rate It
App
You want to pull scary pranks with your friends, but cannot find a true creepy app? Search no more,...
Ferrite Recording Studio
Music
App Watch
Ferrite combines the ease-of-use of a “voice memo” audio recorder, with a versatile multi-track...
music
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Watch out pixar
Dreamworks’ How to Train Your Dragon was an example of setting your expectations low and coming out pleasantly surprised. The first film proved that the studio could create animated masterpieces and it left audiences across the globe hooked.
However, expectation has never been higher for its sequel, How to Train Your Dragon 2, but does it soar to the dizzying heights of its predecessor?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. From beautiful animated dragons to breathtaking aerial-bound sequences, this sequel just about surpasses the original in every way.
Following on five years after events in the first film, Dragon 2 follows a 20-year-old Hiccup, voiced wonderfully by Jay Baruchel, and his sidekick Toothless in their home town of Berk as the residents come to terms with living peacefully alongside dragons.
Being Hiccup, he is naturally curious to learn about a legendary ‘dragon master’ who can enslave the beasts to form an army and sets out to persuade him to care for the animals like the villagers. This plot point is sidetracked from the outset however as we are introduced to Valka – Hiccup’s long lost mother, voiced by a rather miscast Cate Blanchett.
The bond between Hiccup and Toothless has grown massively in the five year break between films and this makes them even more enjoyable to watch. Yes, each of the villagers has their own dragon to look after, but it is the relationship between the two primary characters which we really care about the most.
Feline similarities in Toothless will not go unnoticed, his cat-like qualities give him an air of cuteness that you wouldn’t expect to come from such a menacing and ultimately deadly creature, and it is testament to Dreamworks that they have managed to craft such a personality for a character that never speaks.
The animation is also absolutely stunning, from the crystal waters of the sea around Berk to the people and dragons themselves, everything has been given an upgrade after the first film’s success and the battle scenes are beautiful in their simplicity – there’s no worrying about losing track of characters here.
However, it’s not all smoke and mirrors, the story has real meaning. Family values are explored, the way to treat animals is also looked at brieflyrs_634x1024-140205120546-634.cate-blanchett-bp.cm.2514 and ultimately, this is about one young man’s journey to maturity.
Unfortunately, the vocal performance of Cate Blanchett detracts somewhat from the overall magic. Her peculiar Scottish accent, which travels all over Europe by the time the end credits roll, is of particular annoyance and it’s a better film when she is not playing a central part. This is a shame as the realisation that Hiccup’s mother isn’t dead should be one of great consequence, but Blanchett’s strange acting hampers the scenes.
How to Train Your Dragon is to Dreamworks what WALL-E is to Pixar, each film is one of, if not the best animated feature from either studio and Dragon 2 follows that trend. It is the rare sequel that is superior to the first film – a la Spider-Man 2.
It’s an emotional rollercoaster too, and in some places very dark, possibly too much for children, but for teenagers and adults alike, there is something to enjoy here. From the engaging plot to the mesmerising soundtrack.
Overall, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a fine film, helped along the way by some incredible animation, amazingly deep characters and a meaningful story. Only a poor showing by Cate Blanchett stops it achieving perfection.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/16/watch-out-pixar-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-review/
However, expectation has never been higher for its sequel, How to Train Your Dragon 2, but does it soar to the dizzying heights of its predecessor?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. From beautiful animated dragons to breathtaking aerial-bound sequences, this sequel just about surpasses the original in every way.
Following on five years after events in the first film, Dragon 2 follows a 20-year-old Hiccup, voiced wonderfully by Jay Baruchel, and his sidekick Toothless in their home town of Berk as the residents come to terms with living peacefully alongside dragons.
Being Hiccup, he is naturally curious to learn about a legendary ‘dragon master’ who can enslave the beasts to form an army and sets out to persuade him to care for the animals like the villagers. This plot point is sidetracked from the outset however as we are introduced to Valka – Hiccup’s long lost mother, voiced by a rather miscast Cate Blanchett.
The bond between Hiccup and Toothless has grown massively in the five year break between films and this makes them even more enjoyable to watch. Yes, each of the villagers has their own dragon to look after, but it is the relationship between the two primary characters which we really care about the most.
Feline similarities in Toothless will not go unnoticed, his cat-like qualities give him an air of cuteness that you wouldn’t expect to come from such a menacing and ultimately deadly creature, and it is testament to Dreamworks that they have managed to craft such a personality for a character that never speaks.
The animation is also absolutely stunning, from the crystal waters of the sea around Berk to the people and dragons themselves, everything has been given an upgrade after the first film’s success and the battle scenes are beautiful in their simplicity – there’s no worrying about losing track of characters here.
However, it’s not all smoke and mirrors, the story has real meaning. Family values are explored, the way to treat animals is also looked at brieflyrs_634x1024-140205120546-634.cate-blanchett-bp.cm.2514 and ultimately, this is about one young man’s journey to maturity.
Unfortunately, the vocal performance of Cate Blanchett detracts somewhat from the overall magic. Her peculiar Scottish accent, which travels all over Europe by the time the end credits roll, is of particular annoyance and it’s a better film when she is not playing a central part. This is a shame as the realisation that Hiccup’s mother isn’t dead should be one of great consequence, but Blanchett’s strange acting hampers the scenes.
How to Train Your Dragon is to Dreamworks what WALL-E is to Pixar, each film is one of, if not the best animated feature from either studio and Dragon 2 follows that trend. It is the rare sequel that is superior to the first film – a la Spider-Man 2.
It’s an emotional rollercoaster too, and in some places very dark, possibly too much for children, but for teenagers and adults alike, there is something to enjoy here. From the engaging plot to the mesmerising soundtrack.
Overall, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a fine film, helped along the way by some incredible animation, amazingly deep characters and a meaningful story. Only a poor showing by Cate Blanchett stops it achieving perfection.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/16/watch-out-pixar-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Finding Dory (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Is it a return to form for Pixar/
For years, Pixar was an unstoppable force. The studio combined stunning animation with thought-provoking stories that adults and children could enjoy. From Toy Story to Wall.E, everyone, at some point will have watched a Pixar film.
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The pop culture phenomenon that is Twilight is wrapping up as the film adaptation of the final book in the series, Twilight: Breaking Dawn, has arrived in theaters. With the previous three films doing brisk business at the box office, it came as no surprise when it was announced that the final book in the series was being split into two films so that the studio could maximize the box office of the series.
The film opens with awkward, melancholy teen Bella (Kristen Stewart), preparing for her wedding to Edward (Robert Pattinson), as their human and vampire friends assemble for the ceremony. Of course Edward’s rival Jacob (Tayler Lautner), is highly against the union as he still carries a flame for Bella. Nonetheless, the ceremony goes off as planned and Edward whisks Bella away to a remote Brazilian island to consummate their union, which apparently is a tricky endeavor, being that she is still a mortal and he is a century old vampire.
What at first is an ideal honeymoon is soon complicated when Bella and Edward discover an unexpected challenge that threatens Bella’s well-being and poses a threat to the pact between the vampires and werewolves. I will not spoil the film, even though fans of the series and books will not be any strangers to the drama and politics of the situation, but suffice it to say there is a lot on the line for all of the characters involved.
The film was rife with issues, the main one being the atrocious acting. One would think that after three previous films with the same cast, these actors would have developed some timing and chemistry with one another, especially Stewart and Pattinson who are a couple offscreen. Nothing could be further from the truth as they stiffly deliver their lines with pained and remote expressions. I am honestly at a loss as to why Bella is so captivating to both Edward and Jacob
as she is basically a dour girl who looks incredibly uncomfortable in her own skin, and yet the two are utterly captivated by her. I found the supporting cast far more interesting than the heroine and her besotted heroes. Another issue I had was that Pattinson, who got to show his acting ability in “Water for Elephants” is given little to do aside from staring at Bella and doing profile shots.
The first half of the film is basically an MTV-style wedding and honeymoon music video but the second half of the film did manage to grab and hold my attention with the ongoing plot points. It is obvious that the story is being stretched to cover two films as there are numerous unnecessary scenes such as people walking up stairs, throwing things in a garbage can, looking in mirrors, which serve little purpose other than increasing the run time of the film. Of course all of this matters little to fans of the series. The studio knows who the core audience is and the movie panders to them every chance they can, as proven by Lautner doffing his shirt not 60 seconds into the film to the squeals of delight from the teens, tweens and grown women in the audience.
Still, because it pits the Cullens against the werewolves who were their allies in the previous film, Breaking Dawn is better than the previous films. While it raises the angst and tension, it does not provide much growth for the actors as they dutifully go through the motions as best they can with the material. While it attempts to be a darker and more mature film, it still comes across as eye candy and fantasy for young women when the story and cast deserved so
much more. That being said, the film stays true to it’s core audience and gives them exactly what they have come to expect and does not stray from what has been a successful formula.
The film opens with awkward, melancholy teen Bella (Kristen Stewart), preparing for her wedding to Edward (Robert Pattinson), as their human and vampire friends assemble for the ceremony. Of course Edward’s rival Jacob (Tayler Lautner), is highly against the union as he still carries a flame for Bella. Nonetheless, the ceremony goes off as planned and Edward whisks Bella away to a remote Brazilian island to consummate their union, which apparently is a tricky endeavor, being that she is still a mortal and he is a century old vampire.
What at first is an ideal honeymoon is soon complicated when Bella and Edward discover an unexpected challenge that threatens Bella’s well-being and poses a threat to the pact between the vampires and werewolves. I will not spoil the film, even though fans of the series and books will not be any strangers to the drama and politics of the situation, but suffice it to say there is a lot on the line for all of the characters involved.
The film was rife with issues, the main one being the atrocious acting. One would think that after three previous films with the same cast, these actors would have developed some timing and chemistry with one another, especially Stewart and Pattinson who are a couple offscreen. Nothing could be further from the truth as they stiffly deliver their lines with pained and remote expressions. I am honestly at a loss as to why Bella is so captivating to both Edward and Jacob
as she is basically a dour girl who looks incredibly uncomfortable in her own skin, and yet the two are utterly captivated by her. I found the supporting cast far more interesting than the heroine and her besotted heroes. Another issue I had was that Pattinson, who got to show his acting ability in “Water for Elephants” is given little to do aside from staring at Bella and doing profile shots.
The first half of the film is basically an MTV-style wedding and honeymoon music video but the second half of the film did manage to grab and hold my attention with the ongoing plot points. It is obvious that the story is being stretched to cover two films as there are numerous unnecessary scenes such as people walking up stairs, throwing things in a garbage can, looking in mirrors, which serve little purpose other than increasing the run time of the film. Of course all of this matters little to fans of the series. The studio knows who the core audience is and the movie panders to them every chance they can, as proven by Lautner doffing his shirt not 60 seconds into the film to the squeals of delight from the teens, tweens and grown women in the audience.
Still, because it pits the Cullens against the werewolves who were their allies in the previous film, Breaking Dawn is better than the previous films. While it raises the angst and tension, it does not provide much growth for the actors as they dutifully go through the motions as best they can with the material. While it attempts to be a darker and more mature film, it still comes across as eye candy and fantasy for young women when the story and cast deserved so
much more. That being said, the film stays true to it’s core audience and gives them exactly what they have come to expect and does not stray from what has been a successful formula.
Photo Grid Pro Collage Maker & Selfie Editor: Art of Photography Studio
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
App
Enter the most beautiful photo editing studio! Photo Grid Pro Collage Maker is your new picture...
Fred (860 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Apr 2, 2019
Like two peas in a pod-duh
I'm a super-fan of The Boys. In fact, they're one of my favorite things in life. I've watched their films & shorts dozens of times, hundreds of times for some & I laugh just as hard now, as the first time I saw them. Let me say that Reilly & Coogan are unbelievable as Stan & Ollie. Every mannerism, their speech, their singing voices, everything, perfect! The movie begins in their Hal Roach days, while they are filming their classic "Way Out West". This is the end of the duo's time together at the studio. It then moves ahead 16 years, where their movies are done & they're on tour in Europe doing some shows. So, we get a look at some stuff we may not have known & what went on.
The movie features many of their recreations of their skits & songs from their films, as they are acted out in their shows. There were many times I laughed out loud. But, the movie has drama as well & I found myself getting worried for them, even though I knew what happened. Unlike most other bio-films like Bohemian Rhapsody or The Dirt, this film seems to be true to the real story. Since I'm such a fan, I may be biased towards liking the film. As for people who aren't fans, which would probably mean they've never seen a L&H film, I think they should watch it anyway. I'm sure you'll like it too.
The movie features many of their recreations of their skits & songs from their films, as they are acted out in their shows. There were many times I laughed out loud. But, the movie has drama as well & I found myself getting worried for them, even though I knew what happened. Unlike most other bio-films like Bohemian Rhapsody or The Dirt, this film seems to be true to the real story. Since I'm such a fan, I may be biased towards liking the film. As for people who aren't fans, which would probably mean they've never seen a L&H film, I think they should watch it anyway. I'm sure you'll like it too.
Hayley Neale (6 KP) rated All We Know Of Heaven, All We Need Of Hell by PVRIS in Music
Jan 25, 2018 (Updated Jan 25, 2018)
Crazily catchy tracks (2 more)
Dark and mysterious vibe
Lyrics that inspire the inner songwriter in you
An Electropop-punk masterpiece
This album is beautifully dark. The intensity of each track pulls you deeper and deeper into the disturbed, yet intriguing world that Pvris have created in their second studio album. Every track is unique in its own way, whilst still maintaining that twisted vibe that secures this album in being my go to pick whenever I'm in the mood to release some bottled-up anger. I can stomp my feet to 'Mercy' or get hypnotised by the simple yet ingenious 'Separate'.
Every song is catchy as hell and I always find myself letting go, feeling the music and falling in love all over again with every listen. The female lead vocalist, Lynn Gunn has an extremely powerful voice that has a deliciously attractive raspiness to it. Her voice gives me chills, especially when she belts it out in 'Same Soul' so perfectly and her mellifluous high notes that are present in almost every song. The only issue is she mumbles a lot of her lyrics so best to look up the lyrics as you listen, makes the songs a lot more incredible when you know what she is singing:')
Overall this is one of the best electropop-punk albums I have ever listened to. With its eccentric lyrics, mind-blowing vocals and headbanging worthy beats, I'll never go a long distance journey without it in my music library again.
Every song is catchy as hell and I always find myself letting go, feeling the music and falling in love all over again with every listen. The female lead vocalist, Lynn Gunn has an extremely powerful voice that has a deliciously attractive raspiness to it. Her voice gives me chills, especially when she belts it out in 'Same Soul' so perfectly and her mellifluous high notes that are present in almost every song. The only issue is she mumbles a lot of her lyrics so best to look up the lyrics as you listen, makes the songs a lot more incredible when you know what she is singing:')
Overall this is one of the best electropop-punk albums I have ever listened to. With its eccentric lyrics, mind-blowing vocals and headbanging worthy beats, I'll never go a long distance journey without it in my music library again.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Jun 8, 2018
A Bad Reboot Production
Relaunch of the Trek movie franchise ties itself up horrendous knots trying to be all things to all Trekkies: they want to give a free hand to their shiny new creative team, so they don't want to be beholden to the original continuity - on the other hand, they don't want to upset the fans, so they feel obliged to kind-of keep the continuity anyway. In the end they decide to respect and honour the original universe by apparently obliterating it, which is a curious approach to take (this is how time travel always worked in Trek, as anyone familiar enough with the series to be scripting a movie based on it should have known).
The film is so busy being wholly-faithful-yet-provocatively-new that there isn't a great deal of space for plot, beyond the original characters getting back together again for the first time. The recasting is reasonably effective, but as most of them are playing somewhat different versions of the characters it's hard to be completely sure. Production values are good, but it's a $150 million movie from a major studio, so this is hardly a surprise. I did quite enjoy this movie the first time I saw it, but that was in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, dubbed into Russian. Once someone had explained the plot to me I felt somewhat differently about it - this is one of those rare films I dislike more each time I see it. Ultimately a pointless and quite patronising movie.
The film is so busy being wholly-faithful-yet-provocatively-new that there isn't a great deal of space for plot, beyond the original characters getting back together again for the first time. The recasting is reasonably effective, but as most of them are playing somewhat different versions of the characters it's hard to be completely sure. Production values are good, but it's a $150 million movie from a major studio, so this is hardly a surprise. I did quite enjoy this movie the first time I saw it, but that was in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, dubbed into Russian. Once someone had explained the plot to me I felt somewhat differently about it - this is one of those rare films I dislike more each time I see it. Ultimately a pointless and quite patronising movie.