Search
Smart Medical Reference - Labs, Drugs and Calcs
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Over 200,000 downloads. Smart Medical Reference is a one-stop reference! Lab Values Reference,...
tapestry100 (306 KP) rated Star Wars: Lords of the Sith in Books
Aug 8, 2017
Contains spoilers, click to show
I've been a huge Star Wars fan since I was a kid (I can remember going to see the very first Star Wars film in the theater), but I have never read one of the novels before. By the time that I realized there were SW novels out there, there were already so many published that I didn't know where to start to get caught up on them, so I just let them slide, and continued on enjoying the movies. With the establishment of the new Lucasfilm official canon, I decided to try giving some of the new books a try, as it seemed much more manageable this way, and Lords of the Sith had recently been released, so it seemed as good a place to start as any.
The planet of Ryloth is integral to the Empire as both a source of slave labor and the substance known as "spice" (this does bug me a little bit - come up with something that a little more original that doesn't sound like you lifted it directly from Dune), but the inhabitants of Ryloth want to be free. The "Free Ryloth" movement is created for that purpose; led by Cham and Isval, the movement has simply been trying to be a thorn in the Empire's side, but when they learn that both the Emperor and Darth Vader are personally coming to the planet, they see an opportunity to assassinate them both and watch the Empire dissolve as a result.
Of course, without even reading the book, you know that the Emperor and Vader are going to survive this story since they appear in Episodes IV-VI, so it's no surprise that they do survive the attack. What makes this book interesting is seeing their relationship and how they deal with being thrust into a situation that neither were anticipating. It's also interesting seeing a book written more from the point of view of the villains that the heroes. Kemp does a great job in fleshing out all of the characters, tho; Cham, Isval, and the other freedom fighters are just as realized as the Emperor and Vader, even tho they are not the main focus of the story. However, it's the relationship between the Emperor and Vader that is the real highlight of the book; seeing their interactions throughout the book and how that relationship is tested, it the real essence of the story, and Kemp does a great job making that relationship feel real.
The only true drawback that I would have to the book is actually getting to the main action of the book. We know that the Emperor and Vader are going to be trying to survive on Ryloth (this isn't spoilers, it's the whole point of the book), but actually getting them to the planet seems to take way too long. Practically half of the book is taken up with explaining aspects of the resistance unit, getting the Emperor and Vader to the planet, and finally the battle that forces them to crash land on the planet. I just kept wanting to jump ahead to when they finally arrive on the planet, as I knew that's when the story would really start moving. Once the action finally got going, however, the book was fantastic. It was interesting to see the Emperor and Vader's relationship in Vader's early days as a Sith.
I know a lot of people are discouraged by the decision to basically do away with the previously established Extended Universe books, but if this is what the future of the Star Wars fictional universe is going to look like, I'm OK with it.
Recommended, especially for Star Wars fans!
The planet of Ryloth is integral to the Empire as both a source of slave labor and the substance known as "spice" (this does bug me a little bit - come up with something that a little more original that doesn't sound like you lifted it directly from Dune), but the inhabitants of Ryloth want to be free. The "Free Ryloth" movement is created for that purpose; led by Cham and Isval, the movement has simply been trying to be a thorn in the Empire's side, but when they learn that both the Emperor and Darth Vader are personally coming to the planet, they see an opportunity to assassinate them both and watch the Empire dissolve as a result.
Of course, without even reading the book, you know that the Emperor and Vader are going to survive this story since they appear in Episodes IV-VI, so it's no surprise that they do survive the attack. What makes this book interesting is seeing their relationship and how they deal with being thrust into a situation that neither were anticipating. It's also interesting seeing a book written more from the point of view of the villains that the heroes. Kemp does a great job in fleshing out all of the characters, tho; Cham, Isval, and the other freedom fighters are just as realized as the Emperor and Vader, even tho they are not the main focus of the story. However, it's the relationship between the Emperor and Vader that is the real highlight of the book; seeing their interactions throughout the book and how that relationship is tested, it the real essence of the story, and Kemp does a great job making that relationship feel real.
The only true drawback that I would have to the book is actually getting to the main action of the book. We know that the Emperor and Vader are going to be trying to survive on Ryloth (this isn't spoilers, it's the whole point of the book), but actually getting them to the planet seems to take way too long. Practically half of the book is taken up with explaining aspects of the resistance unit, getting the Emperor and Vader to the planet, and finally the battle that forces them to crash land on the planet. I just kept wanting to jump ahead to when they finally arrive on the planet, as I knew that's when the story would really start moving. Once the action finally got going, however, the book was fantastic. It was interesting to see the Emperor and Vader's relationship in Vader's early days as a Sith.
I know a lot of people are discouraged by the decision to basically do away with the previously established Extended Universe books, but if this is what the future of the Star Wars fictional universe is going to look like, I'm OK with it.
Recommended, especially for Star Wars fans!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
May 10, 2019
“You said it yourself bitch, we’re the Guardians of the Galaxy”
The Marvel marathon continues. We started with the story of a soldier out of time. Now we move on to the tale of a group of losers having to learn not to kill each other and maybe, just maybe, becoming friends along the way. Guardians of the Galaxy I view as the movie that fully cemented Marvel Studios as the powerhouse we know today. The popularity of Iron Man and Thor spiked after their respective films, but I'm gonna guess if you pulled someone random off the street and asked them who either character was before their movies were released, they could probably at least tell you who they are. Now, not too far separated from the humongous success of The Avengers, here comes Marvel with a film about characters next to no one, not even some avid fans of comics, knew existed. And wouldn't you know, five years after Guardians came out and made Groot a household word, it's still one of their best films Marvel has made.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jurassic World (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Trip down memory lane
Can you believe it’s been 14 years since genetically modified dinosaurs rampaged across our screens in Joe Johnston’s underwhelming Jurassic Park III?
After being stuck in development hell for over a decade, Steven Spielberg handpicked indie director Colin Trevorrow to helm the fourth instalment of the popular adventure franchise, Jurassic World, but can it return the much-loved series to form?
Man of the moment Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy), Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village), Ty Simpkins (Iron Man 3) and Omar Sy (X-Men: Days of Future Past) lead a cast of characters in a visually spectacular film that whilst paying homage to 1993’s Jurassic Park, lacks a little of the original’s soul.
Jurassic World is now a fully functioning theme park taken over from John Hammond’s InGen by Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan in a pleasingly comedic performance). Welcoming over 20,000 visitors a day, the park sees the need to create something bigger, louder and with more teeth to sustain visitor interest – the Indominus Rex.
Naturally, this doesn’t go quite to plan.
The performances from all of the cast are on-point with Bryce Dallas Howard being a particular highlight. There were worries that her ability would match Tea Leoni from Jurassic Park III rather than Laura Dern’s brilliant Ellie Sattler from the original. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
Her story arc is particularly intriguing if predictable with her uptight corporate image being shed throughout the film’s succinct 123 minute running time.
Chris Pratt proves why he is the man every director wants to work with. His less comedic side comes out in Jurassic World and proves that he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Vincent D’Onofrio stars as the obligatory villain but his side story is never really explored – possibly setting up for a sequel should the film perform well at the box office and with it making up 90% of global ticket sales this weekend, things look promising.
Music wise, Jurassic World treads a very careful path. Make no mistake, this is a standalone movie, but the references to the original are there for all to hear. Michael Giacchino, one of the best composers of the moment, takes over from Don Davis of Jurassic Park III and provides the series with its best score since John Williams’ original.
Special effects too are top notch with the park looking stunning and the dinosaurs, on the whole, faring the same way. There are a couple of moments where things start to look a little video game like, but this never takes away from the beauty of this film.
Unfortunately, whilst the last 30 minutes are breath-taking, edge of your seat stuff, it’s difficult to differentiate Jurassic World from the plethora of high budget blockbusters that litter the cinema these days and whilst Trevorrow chooses references to the original carefully, it lacks a little of that film’s soul and ultimately charm.
Overall, Jurassic World is better than the majority of blockbusters that have come and gone from cinemas over the last year and it tops The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III to become a sequel worthy of the original.
Yes it’s not perfect, with the gorgeous finale lacking substance, but after waiting 14 years it comes pretty darn close and will no doubt be, along with Star Wars: Episode VII, one of the most memorable films of the noughties.
Do you remember seeing Jurassic Park for the first time? That’s the question everyone asks, and whilst Jurassic World won’t be making anywhere near the same impact, it’s a film worthy of the brand.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/14/a-trip-down-memory-lane-jurassic-world-review/
After being stuck in development hell for over a decade, Steven Spielberg handpicked indie director Colin Trevorrow to helm the fourth instalment of the popular adventure franchise, Jurassic World, but can it return the much-loved series to form?
Man of the moment Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy), Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village), Ty Simpkins (Iron Man 3) and Omar Sy (X-Men: Days of Future Past) lead a cast of characters in a visually spectacular film that whilst paying homage to 1993’s Jurassic Park, lacks a little of the original’s soul.
Jurassic World is now a fully functioning theme park taken over from John Hammond’s InGen by Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan in a pleasingly comedic performance). Welcoming over 20,000 visitors a day, the park sees the need to create something bigger, louder and with more teeth to sustain visitor interest – the Indominus Rex.
Naturally, this doesn’t go quite to plan.
The performances from all of the cast are on-point with Bryce Dallas Howard being a particular highlight. There were worries that her ability would match Tea Leoni from Jurassic Park III rather than Laura Dern’s brilliant Ellie Sattler from the original. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
Her story arc is particularly intriguing if predictable with her uptight corporate image being shed throughout the film’s succinct 123 minute running time.
Chris Pratt proves why he is the man every director wants to work with. His less comedic side comes out in Jurassic World and proves that he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Vincent D’Onofrio stars as the obligatory villain but his side story is never really explored – possibly setting up for a sequel should the film perform well at the box office and with it making up 90% of global ticket sales this weekend, things look promising.
Music wise, Jurassic World treads a very careful path. Make no mistake, this is a standalone movie, but the references to the original are there for all to hear. Michael Giacchino, one of the best composers of the moment, takes over from Don Davis of Jurassic Park III and provides the series with its best score since John Williams’ original.
Special effects too are top notch with the park looking stunning and the dinosaurs, on the whole, faring the same way. There are a couple of moments where things start to look a little video game like, but this never takes away from the beauty of this film.
Unfortunately, whilst the last 30 minutes are breath-taking, edge of your seat stuff, it’s difficult to differentiate Jurassic World from the plethora of high budget blockbusters that litter the cinema these days and whilst Trevorrow chooses references to the original carefully, it lacks a little of that film’s soul and ultimately charm.
Overall, Jurassic World is better than the majority of blockbusters that have come and gone from cinemas over the last year and it tops The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III to become a sequel worthy of the original.
Yes it’s not perfect, with the gorgeous finale lacking substance, but after waiting 14 years it comes pretty darn close and will no doubt be, along with Star Wars: Episode VII, one of the most memorable films of the noughties.
Do you remember seeing Jurassic Park for the first time? That’s the question everyone asks, and whilst Jurassic World won’t be making anywhere near the same impact, it’s a film worthy of the brand.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/14/a-trip-down-memory-lane-jurassic-world-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Contagion (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Steven Soderbergh has produced some fine films in his time as an established director; Ocean’s Eleven was a sublime mix of dark humour and action, whilst Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen remained decent but not exactly pulse-racing. Here, it seems Soderbergh sticks to what he knows best, how to deliver a brilliantly shot, gripping film. Here we have, Contagion.
An all-star cast with the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Matt Damon and Jude Law is bolstered by excellent cinematography and nail-biting claustrophobia in a film which never forgets its purpose: to shock.
Contagion starts with a cough, a single cough from a single woman, which in turn spreads across the globe, killing over 20 million people in every country on the planet and becoming one of the worst viral epidemics the world has ever seen. The directing style is exquisite and focuses on the days after the first contraction of the deadly virus; close-ups of door knobs and drinking fountains add to the heightened panic and sense of claustrophobia and the continuous references to bird-flu bring it home how frail a race we actually are.
Soderbergh gets stuck into the details of the virus straight away and the pace never lets up, you’ll be gasping for air with the infected as you struggle to keep pace with what’s going on; it’s a relentless film, much like the disease itself. The movie is one of many recent developments that have parallel storylines running throughout; Kate Winslet is a scientist at the centre of disease research, whilst Matt Damon plays a middle aged father protecting his daughter.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays a wife and mother who has been embarking on a dangerous affair whilst away on business and it has to be said, she is excellent in her role, even though it lasts a mere 20 minutes before she pegs it. Her illness is well controlled on screen and you share the pain she is in.
Matt Damon is somehow immune to the virus after losing his wife (Paltrow) and more disturbingly, his son in scenes unbefitting of the films 12A certificate and Kate Winslet looks surprisingly angelic in her body bag… oops, didn’t mean to spoil that for you.
Alas, it’s not all good news as Jude Law pops up now and again as an annoying journalist trying to discover a cure and shame the money grabbing pharmaceutical companies, he plays the character well and you definitely buy into his sense of ‘crazy’ but out of all the stories shuffling for your attention, his is the one you care least about.
Unfortunately, some other small issues hold the film from being a complete success. Parallel storylines are all well and good but there are perhaps too many here. Whilst focusing on Winslet dealing with the fact she has contracted the virus, you forget about how Mr. Damon is coping looking after his potentially not immune daughter and the same can be said for Law’s character too. Which one are we to focus on?
Contagion is artistically, a brilliant film, but it could be said that it’s more style over substance. Yes, the characters have depth, though not as much as we’d like, the story is well written and the shots are beautifully choreographed but that good, solid story is lost about half way through as Soderbergh tries to handle all the different viewpoints. It’s a fantastic film, but not the outright success it could have been. You will however, be reaching for that anti-bacterial hand cleanser a little more often.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/08/review-contagion-2011/
An all-star cast with the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Matt Damon and Jude Law is bolstered by excellent cinematography and nail-biting claustrophobia in a film which never forgets its purpose: to shock.
Contagion starts with a cough, a single cough from a single woman, which in turn spreads across the globe, killing over 20 million people in every country on the planet and becoming one of the worst viral epidemics the world has ever seen. The directing style is exquisite and focuses on the days after the first contraction of the deadly virus; close-ups of door knobs and drinking fountains add to the heightened panic and sense of claustrophobia and the continuous references to bird-flu bring it home how frail a race we actually are.
Soderbergh gets stuck into the details of the virus straight away and the pace never lets up, you’ll be gasping for air with the infected as you struggle to keep pace with what’s going on; it’s a relentless film, much like the disease itself. The movie is one of many recent developments that have parallel storylines running throughout; Kate Winslet is a scientist at the centre of disease research, whilst Matt Damon plays a middle aged father protecting his daughter.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays a wife and mother who has been embarking on a dangerous affair whilst away on business and it has to be said, she is excellent in her role, even though it lasts a mere 20 minutes before she pegs it. Her illness is well controlled on screen and you share the pain she is in.
Matt Damon is somehow immune to the virus after losing his wife (Paltrow) and more disturbingly, his son in scenes unbefitting of the films 12A certificate and Kate Winslet looks surprisingly angelic in her body bag… oops, didn’t mean to spoil that for you.
Alas, it’s not all good news as Jude Law pops up now and again as an annoying journalist trying to discover a cure and shame the money grabbing pharmaceutical companies, he plays the character well and you definitely buy into his sense of ‘crazy’ but out of all the stories shuffling for your attention, his is the one you care least about.
Unfortunately, some other small issues hold the film from being a complete success. Parallel storylines are all well and good but there are perhaps too many here. Whilst focusing on Winslet dealing with the fact she has contracted the virus, you forget about how Mr. Damon is coping looking after his potentially not immune daughter and the same can be said for Law’s character too. Which one are we to focus on?
Contagion is artistically, a brilliant film, but it could be said that it’s more style over substance. Yes, the characters have depth, though not as much as we’d like, the story is well written and the shots are beautifully choreographed but that good, solid story is lost about half way through as Soderbergh tries to handle all the different viewpoints. It’s a fantastic film, but not the outright success it could have been. You will however, be reaching for that anti-bacterial hand cleanser a little more often.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/08/review-contagion-2011/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Annihilation (2018) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018
Just didn't work for me
I like "Intelligent Science Fiction". You know, like Alex Garland's other Directorial effort 2014's EX MACHINA or Jeff Nichols’ involving 2016 film MIDNIGHT SPECIAL. These are the types of films that uses the backdrop of Science Fiction to delve deeper into character, concepts or ideas, leaving time for the audience to take it all in and to really think about what is being shown on the screen and to wrestle with the concepts brought forth. So, I was really excited when I found out the Garland would be helming a film of the first book in Jeff VanderMeer's SOUTHERN REACH trilogy, ANNIHILATION - a trippy sci-fi book series about an alien presence that starts tearing away at the very fabric of human existence. I was convinced that this marriage of source material and filmmaker would create another cinematic gem.
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ross (3284 KP) rated Blood of Assassins in Books
Feb 12, 2018
I can't quite see what the fuss is all about
*** Disclosure: I received an advance copy of this book from NetGalley in return for an honest review ***
I read Blood of Assassins straight on the back of Age of Assassins, which I thought was OK.
Here we are back with Girton Club-Foot and his assassin master 5 years after the conclusion of the first book. Having travelled as mercenaries during this time, Girton has stopped training with the sword and picked up a warhammer instead. The book opens with he and his master seeing off some foreign assassins of their own, his master becoming poisoned in the conflict.
The Tired Lands has deteriorated over this time with Girton's three fellow squires all vying to become king, resulting in a long war that has taken its toll on the land and its people.
Girton becomes tasked with finding the spy within his old friend, Rufra's, camp and soon becomes embroiled in finding a murderer and fending off attacks on the camp and nearby towns.
Girton is one of the most annoying characters I have come across for a while, being incredibly stupid, selfish and childish. He is mooted as an incredible warrior on his return, which I thought of as odd due to nobody seeing his true skills in the first book - he always had to pretend to be mostly useless to hide his assassin and sorcery abilities. Hi is also praised for solving the mystery over the assassin-hiring in the first book, even though he solved that by luck, people just confessing to him or other people working it out instead of him.
Here he again does next to nothing to solve the mystery of the spy and only when he is confronted by them does he work it out.
As in the first book, he again becomes embroiled in identifying a murderer in the camp, which he again does despite his stupidity.
I'm all for an anti-hero but they are supposed to still make you either love them or hate them, I found myself completely indifferent to Girton's plight and just wanted to get through it.
There were more typical fantasy battle scenes in this book, which were well executed, but these were few and far between and came somewhat at odds with the plot. This redeemed the book for me.
However, as with the first book, there were no hints at who the culprit was, too much of it was left to the reveal, meaning the mystery aspect of the book was a little clumsy.
And the dream sequences, which in the first book served to tell the story of Girton's upbringing, here are a complete nonsense and add nothing to the story. Just flowery nonsense.
Barker has a good turn of phrase, but at times I thought it just confusing:
"The impact came from behind, high in the centre of my back, throwing me forward.
An arrow.
I knew the way they killed. Felt its ghost as it ruptured my lungs, split my breastbone and burst from my chest. I hit the floor, dust billowing from the carpet. The weight on my back forced me down into the choking cloud.
Not an arrow."
For me this was style over substance and left me unnecessarily confused as to what was happening.
The first person perspective is also fatally flawed in this setting as we therefore automatically know Girton survives, taking the edge off all the battles he is involved in.
In summary, a little flowery at times and doesn't know whether it wants to be a fantasy book or a thriller and succeeds in neither all that well.
I read Blood of Assassins straight on the back of Age of Assassins, which I thought was OK.
Here we are back with Girton Club-Foot and his assassin master 5 years after the conclusion of the first book. Having travelled as mercenaries during this time, Girton has stopped training with the sword and picked up a warhammer instead. The book opens with he and his master seeing off some foreign assassins of their own, his master becoming poisoned in the conflict.
The Tired Lands has deteriorated over this time with Girton's three fellow squires all vying to become king, resulting in a long war that has taken its toll on the land and its people.
Girton becomes tasked with finding the spy within his old friend, Rufra's, camp and soon becomes embroiled in finding a murderer and fending off attacks on the camp and nearby towns.
Girton is one of the most annoying characters I have come across for a while, being incredibly stupid, selfish and childish. He is mooted as an incredible warrior on his return, which I thought of as odd due to nobody seeing his true skills in the first book - he always had to pretend to be mostly useless to hide his assassin and sorcery abilities. Hi is also praised for solving the mystery over the assassin-hiring in the first book, even though he solved that by luck, people just confessing to him or other people working it out instead of him.
Here he again does next to nothing to solve the mystery of the spy and only when he is confronted by them does he work it out.
As in the first book, he again becomes embroiled in identifying a murderer in the camp, which he again does despite his stupidity.
I'm all for an anti-hero but they are supposed to still make you either love them or hate them, I found myself completely indifferent to Girton's plight and just wanted to get through it.
There were more typical fantasy battle scenes in this book, which were well executed, but these were few and far between and came somewhat at odds with the plot. This redeemed the book for me.
However, as with the first book, there were no hints at who the culprit was, too much of it was left to the reveal, meaning the mystery aspect of the book was a little clumsy.
And the dream sequences, which in the first book served to tell the story of Girton's upbringing, here are a complete nonsense and add nothing to the story. Just flowery nonsense.
Barker has a good turn of phrase, but at times I thought it just confusing:
"The impact came from behind, high in the centre of my back, throwing me forward.
An arrow.
I knew the way they killed. Felt its ghost as it ruptured my lungs, split my breastbone and burst from my chest. I hit the floor, dust billowing from the carpet. The weight on my back forced me down into the choking cloud.
Not an arrow."
For me this was style over substance and left me unnecessarily confused as to what was happening.
The first person perspective is also fatally flawed in this setting as we therefore automatically know Girton survives, taking the edge off all the battles he is involved in.
In summary, a little flowery at times and doesn't know whether it wants to be a fantasy book or a thriller and succeeds in neither all that well.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2019 (Updated Jan 28, 2019)
A Middling Reboot
This is another movie from late 2018 that I am only just getting a chance to see. After my girlfriend and I sat through this one, she turned to me and asked what I thought of it. In response, I just shrugged my shoulders and went, "It was alright." That is genuinely the best way that I can think of to sum up my feeling on this film.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Prom (2020) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
Ruined by James Corden
The Prom is the latest film from Glee creator Ryan Murphy, adapted from the Broadway musical of the same name. It follows Emma (Jo Ellen Pellman) who inadvertently causes her high school prom to be cancelled from wanting to attend with her girlfriend Alyssa (Ariana DeBose), in a school governed by a PTA that is very much against inclusion. Meanwhile on Broadway, four down on their luck actors (Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, James Corden and Andrew Rannells) pick up on Emma’s story and decide to use it as a perfect opportunity to garner some publicity for themselves by showing their support.
The Prom is obviously a personal movie for director Ryan Murphy, after growing up in Indiana himself, but unfortunately he doesn’t quite manage to pull this off. The story has a very important message about inclusion and you can’t deny how powerful this is, but I don’t think it has been very well executed. Yes the entire film looks amazing, the colourful and flashy outfits look wonderful and add some much needed colour when the story moves from Broadway to Indiana. The songs too are good and toe-tappingly catchy, with ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ from Andrew Rannells being a particular standout for me, and I’d be lying if I said the glitz, glam and catchy songs didn’t make me smile. Newcomer Jo Ellen Pellman has a cracking voice and her performance here shows she’s definitely one to watch in future.
However this is where the positives stop. A large number of the songs sound the same and aside from the aforementioned ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ and the finale ‘It’s Time to Dance’, none of them are particularly memorable. The film is full of clichés and stereotypes and awkward dialogue and scenes – the cringeworthy and entirely unbelievable flirtation between Dee Dee (Streep) and Principal Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key) is possibly one of the worst things I’ve had to watch in quite a while. The cast are obviously having a lot of fun with this and it shows in the musical numbers, but some of the characters and performances are entirely unlikeable. I know Dee Dee is meant to be a self obsessed narcissist, and Streep is hamming her up to the max, but she is a horrible character and I couldn’t abide her. Scenes with her that are meant to be comedic to me came across as awful and repulsive. Whilst she does improve over the course of the rather drawn out run time, I’m afraid the damage is done in the first 90 minutes. And I felt very sorry for Nicole Kidman, who aside from a Chicago-esque number, seems to have been entirely sidelined.
But the worst part of The Prom is the decision to cast James Corden as the gay male lead, Barry Glickman. What was Ryan Murphy thinking? I’ve never been a fan of Corden, but surely anyone watching this can see he’s a talk show host, not a Hollywood musical star? Not only is his American accent terrible, his performance is completely unbelievable and overly camp and outdated. How Andrew Rannells could bear to work opposite James Corden in this role when he could’ve shone as Barry I will never know. Had it not been for Corden, I probably would have liked this a lot more.
The Prom is a glitzy mash-up of old school Broadway and cheesy high school musicals, full of colourful catchy tunes, neat choreography and a powerful message, it’s just a shame the characters and some of the casting are lacking in the substance to make this anything better than average.
The Prom is obviously a personal movie for director Ryan Murphy, after growing up in Indiana himself, but unfortunately he doesn’t quite manage to pull this off. The story has a very important message about inclusion and you can’t deny how powerful this is, but I don’t think it has been very well executed. Yes the entire film looks amazing, the colourful and flashy outfits look wonderful and add some much needed colour when the story moves from Broadway to Indiana. The songs too are good and toe-tappingly catchy, with ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ from Andrew Rannells being a particular standout for me, and I’d be lying if I said the glitz, glam and catchy songs didn’t make me smile. Newcomer Jo Ellen Pellman has a cracking voice and her performance here shows she’s definitely one to watch in future.
However this is where the positives stop. A large number of the songs sound the same and aside from the aforementioned ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ and the finale ‘It’s Time to Dance’, none of them are particularly memorable. The film is full of clichés and stereotypes and awkward dialogue and scenes – the cringeworthy and entirely unbelievable flirtation between Dee Dee (Streep) and Principal Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key) is possibly one of the worst things I’ve had to watch in quite a while. The cast are obviously having a lot of fun with this and it shows in the musical numbers, but some of the characters and performances are entirely unlikeable. I know Dee Dee is meant to be a self obsessed narcissist, and Streep is hamming her up to the max, but she is a horrible character and I couldn’t abide her. Scenes with her that are meant to be comedic to me came across as awful and repulsive. Whilst she does improve over the course of the rather drawn out run time, I’m afraid the damage is done in the first 90 minutes. And I felt very sorry for Nicole Kidman, who aside from a Chicago-esque number, seems to have been entirely sidelined.
But the worst part of The Prom is the decision to cast James Corden as the gay male lead, Barry Glickman. What was Ryan Murphy thinking? I’ve never been a fan of Corden, but surely anyone watching this can see he’s a talk show host, not a Hollywood musical star? Not only is his American accent terrible, his performance is completely unbelievable and overly camp and outdated. How Andrew Rannells could bear to work opposite James Corden in this role when he could’ve shone as Barry I will never know. Had it not been for Corden, I probably would have liked this a lot more.
The Prom is a glitzy mash-up of old school Broadway and cheesy high school musicals, full of colourful catchy tunes, neat choreography and a powerful message, it’s just a shame the characters and some of the casting are lacking in the substance to make this anything better than average.