Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pixels (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new Sony film ‘Pixels’, was written by Tim Herlihy, Adam Sandler and Timothy Dowling. It stars Adam Sandler (Sam Brenner), Peter Dinklage (Eddie ‘The Fire Blaster’), Kevin James (President Will Cooper), Jane Krakowski (the First Lady), and Josh Gad (Ludlow Lamonsoff).
The movie opens with scenes straight out of the 1980’s and shows Sam, Eddie, Will and Ludlow all gathering at the arcade video world championships. The championships are being recorded to send in a time capsule to outer space, hoping to find alien life forms. The competition comes down to Sam and Eddie (who has nick named himself ‘The Fire Blaster’) and Eddie defeats Sam. Sam is crushed.
Fast forward about 30 years and Sam is working as an installation technician, and somehow Will has become the POTUS. Ludlow and Eddie are no where to be seen.
An attack occurs, Ludlow mysteriously appears in Sams van, and Ludlow reveals that the attack was perpetrated not only by aliens, but by 80’s style pixelated arcade aliens, who apparently intercepted our space bound time capsule, interpreted it as a declaration of war (????) and sent back pixelated arcade aliens to destroy us (?!?).
The two childhood friends go to the president with the information, who at first, under the pressure of his advisors, brushes them off.
After another attack occurs, President Will over rides his advisers and enlists Sam and Ludlows help, and also reaches out to The Fire Blaster (currently in prison, and demanding a list of concessions in exchange for his help and expertise.)
The movie didn’t have any dragging points for me, and I did laugh out loud at some portions. My son who is nearly 7 REALLY enjoyed it, and if it had had slightly less obvious (and what felt like marginally unnecessary) curse words I would have liked it better for his age range. There were children even younger than my son in the theatre though, and I found myself cringing at some of the language, and noticed my son looking at me to see if I noticed him noticing that there were ‘bad words’. Since it IS rated PG-13, there’s not a whole lot to be said about it, but it could have been just as good a movie, and therefore enjoyable by a bigger age range, without the cursing.
When I asked him later whether he liked the movie he said he ‘liked it a lot, but it had some bad words’.
Pixels was pretty action packed, and although I found it to be an odd premise for a movie, I did enjoy it. I don’t feel that they made as good a use of the 3D format as they could have. The soundtrack was good. I liked the characters, even though i couldn’t quite make the jump as to ‘why or how’ Will became president, and I had the hardest time dealing with Eddies accent. It just ‘felt off’, most likely because I’ve been watching him most recently on Game of Thrones.
I think kids will enjoy it for the action and parents will like it well enough for the nostalgia factor.
Overall I would give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars.
The movie opens with scenes straight out of the 1980’s and shows Sam, Eddie, Will and Ludlow all gathering at the arcade video world championships. The championships are being recorded to send in a time capsule to outer space, hoping to find alien life forms. The competition comes down to Sam and Eddie (who has nick named himself ‘The Fire Blaster’) and Eddie defeats Sam. Sam is crushed.
Fast forward about 30 years and Sam is working as an installation technician, and somehow Will has become the POTUS. Ludlow and Eddie are no where to be seen.
An attack occurs, Ludlow mysteriously appears in Sams van, and Ludlow reveals that the attack was perpetrated not only by aliens, but by 80’s style pixelated arcade aliens, who apparently intercepted our space bound time capsule, interpreted it as a declaration of war (????) and sent back pixelated arcade aliens to destroy us (?!?).
The two childhood friends go to the president with the information, who at first, under the pressure of his advisors, brushes them off.
After another attack occurs, President Will over rides his advisers and enlists Sam and Ludlows help, and also reaches out to The Fire Blaster (currently in prison, and demanding a list of concessions in exchange for his help and expertise.)
The movie didn’t have any dragging points for me, and I did laugh out loud at some portions. My son who is nearly 7 REALLY enjoyed it, and if it had had slightly less obvious (and what felt like marginally unnecessary) curse words I would have liked it better for his age range. There were children even younger than my son in the theatre though, and I found myself cringing at some of the language, and noticed my son looking at me to see if I noticed him noticing that there were ‘bad words’. Since it IS rated PG-13, there’s not a whole lot to be said about it, but it could have been just as good a movie, and therefore enjoyable by a bigger age range, without the cursing.
When I asked him later whether he liked the movie he said he ‘liked it a lot, but it had some bad words’.
Pixels was pretty action packed, and although I found it to be an odd premise for a movie, I did enjoy it. I don’t feel that they made as good a use of the 3D format as they could have. The soundtrack was good. I liked the characters, even though i couldn’t quite make the jump as to ‘why or how’ Will became president, and I had the hardest time dealing with Eddies accent. It just ‘felt off’, most likely because I’ve been watching him most recently on Game of Thrones.
I think kids will enjoy it for the action and parents will like it well enough for the nostalgia factor.
Overall I would give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Watchmen - Season 1 in TV
Dec 26, 2019 (Updated Dec 27, 2019)
Pretty much perfect
Watchmen, in my opinion, is one of the best, if not the best graphic novels ever released. It's neon lit alternate reality setting and it's collection of jaded, flawed, and sometimes toxic characters were a far cry from usual comic book territory.
I was absolutely buzzing when I heard that HBO were going to be airing a series based on the property. A series would have more room to breathe and for exploration than the movie (that I still like, for the record). When it became apparent that it would be set some time after the comic, I was honestly a bit miffed. I was looking forward to seeing Rorschach and Co on the small screen...
But it turns out, I had no reason to be worried. Watchmen is outstanding through and through.
Plot wise, it's set in present day, and maintains the events of the comic in the 1980s. The world we're presented with is a world still feeling the effects from the mass killing via giant squid monster from the comic. A world where the police cover their faces to protect their identities. A world where racism is still rife and peddled by a white supremacist group calling themselves The Seventh Cavalry, a group that happen to wear Rorschach masks.
It's set mainly in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it's distance from the neon New York setting of the comic gives it a more realistic feeling.
Angela Abar, aka Sister Night (Regina King), is heading the investigation into the Cavalry, and when things start to spiral out of control, the FBI send Laurie Blake (Jean Smart) - the retired Silk Spectre - to Tulsa to take over proceedings and figure out what's really happening behind the scenes.
To discuss the plot anymore than this would be spoiling it, but rest assured, after a fairly slow burning start, Watchmen quickly hits an ascending slope of quality that doesn't waver, and when concrete connections to the comic come out to play, the show hits some extremely lofty heights.
The cast are all brilliant. Regina King takes centre stage, and she manages to be badass, relatable, and sympathetic. Her relationship with her husband Cal (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is one of the best character elements throughout.
Characters that could be described more as 'side characters' played by the likes of Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr, James Woke, and Hong Chau (just to name a few), all end up with surprisingly strong development.
As for the characters from the original comic, we have the aforementioned Laurie Blake played by Jean Smart, and Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandius played by Jeremy Irons.
Jeremy Irons is a undoubtable highlight of the whole series. His portrayal of an older Veidt is pretty spot on, and his plot line is equal parts bizarre and humorous.
As seen from the trailers, Dr. Manhattan has a part to play here as well, but again, no spoilers here. Just have a look for yourself. It's great.
As the narrative jumps around and steams ahead, Watchmen still manages to touch on important subjects, such as war, family, and especially that of race and racism. There are some powerful moments littered throughout, and some genuinely emotional scenes that had me tearing up at times.
The direction and dialogue are brilliant, and the use of digital effects are mostly subtle and look great. The whole season is filled to the brim with amazing shots.
The music score is great as well, especially the original stuff, penned by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor's distinctive industrial sound suits the series down to the ground.
I absolutely loved Watchmen from start to finish. It's shows consistent willingness to do something new and it's a hugely ambitious project that's pulled off so damn well. I really hope that a second season comes about, but if it doesn't, then I'm suitably satisfied by what we've already been given. Just fantastic.
I was absolutely buzzing when I heard that HBO were going to be airing a series based on the property. A series would have more room to breathe and for exploration than the movie (that I still like, for the record). When it became apparent that it would be set some time after the comic, I was honestly a bit miffed. I was looking forward to seeing Rorschach and Co on the small screen...
But it turns out, I had no reason to be worried. Watchmen is outstanding through and through.
Plot wise, it's set in present day, and maintains the events of the comic in the 1980s. The world we're presented with is a world still feeling the effects from the mass killing via giant squid monster from the comic. A world where the police cover their faces to protect their identities. A world where racism is still rife and peddled by a white supremacist group calling themselves The Seventh Cavalry, a group that happen to wear Rorschach masks.
It's set mainly in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it's distance from the neon New York setting of the comic gives it a more realistic feeling.
Angela Abar, aka Sister Night (Regina King), is heading the investigation into the Cavalry, and when things start to spiral out of control, the FBI send Laurie Blake (Jean Smart) - the retired Silk Spectre - to Tulsa to take over proceedings and figure out what's really happening behind the scenes.
To discuss the plot anymore than this would be spoiling it, but rest assured, after a fairly slow burning start, Watchmen quickly hits an ascending slope of quality that doesn't waver, and when concrete connections to the comic come out to play, the show hits some extremely lofty heights.
The cast are all brilliant. Regina King takes centre stage, and she manages to be badass, relatable, and sympathetic. Her relationship with her husband Cal (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is one of the best character elements throughout.
Characters that could be described more as 'side characters' played by the likes of Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr, James Woke, and Hong Chau (just to name a few), all end up with surprisingly strong development.
As for the characters from the original comic, we have the aforementioned Laurie Blake played by Jean Smart, and Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandius played by Jeremy Irons.
Jeremy Irons is a undoubtable highlight of the whole series. His portrayal of an older Veidt is pretty spot on, and his plot line is equal parts bizarre and humorous.
As seen from the trailers, Dr. Manhattan has a part to play here as well, but again, no spoilers here. Just have a look for yourself. It's great.
As the narrative jumps around and steams ahead, Watchmen still manages to touch on important subjects, such as war, family, and especially that of race and racism. There are some powerful moments littered throughout, and some genuinely emotional scenes that had me tearing up at times.
The direction and dialogue are brilliant, and the use of digital effects are mostly subtle and look great. The whole season is filled to the brim with amazing shots.
The music score is great as well, especially the original stuff, penned by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor's distinctive industrial sound suits the series down to the ground.
I absolutely loved Watchmen from start to finish. It's shows consistent willingness to do something new and it's a hugely ambitious project that's pulled off so damn well. I really hope that a second season comes about, but if it doesn't, then I'm suitably satisfied by what we've already been given. Just fantastic.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
I’ve always been a fan of Stephen King movies, even some of those that were not particularly good or well received. For someone who is a fan you think that would inspire me to pick up at least one of his books to get a feel for what the author truly intended over the stripped down,
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019 (Updated Oct 27, 2019)
A worthy successor to Judgement Day
Terminator: Dark Fate is the sixth movie in a franchise which has now been around for 35 years. The first sequel, Judgement Day back in 1991, is widely regarded by many as one of the greatest movie sequels of all time and for me it still holds up as an incredible piece of movie entertainment to this day. Since then, the following sequels have all failed to live up to that high standard in my opinion and, despite some interesting ideas and execution, have been largely forgettable. For one thing, I don’t even remember if I’ve actually seen 2015 movie Genisys or not! Now though, with James Cameron back onboard with writing/producing duties and directed by Deadpool director Tim Miller, Dark Fate has been pitched as the natural successor to Judgement Day that we never got. The trailer certainly gave off that impression and, for the first time in years, I was actually excited about seeing a Terminator movie again.
Dark Fate gets its shock twist out of the way right off the bat, before launching into approximately 20 minutes of non-stop, heart pounding action as we are introduced to both the new Terminator and the protector sent from the future to try and prevent him. Straight away, Dark Fate certainly feels like the kind of Terminator movie we love, playing more like an homage at times in a similar way to how Star Wars: The Force Awakens felt like A New Hope. Wow, it's a promising start!
Our protector this time round is Grace (Mackenzie Davis), a human soldier who has received some cybernetic enhancements to her body. She has been sent back from an alternate future to the one portrayed in Judgement Day - that future is now dead, thanks to the efforts of Sarah and John Connor in that movie, along with Arnold Schwarzenegger's T-800. However, humans clearly can't stop meddling with AI technology and the result, some 40 years from now, is the birth of 'Legion'. Our world has subsequently been destroyed, humans are being hunted and killed, but the remaining survivors are fighting back hard.
Those survivors have sent Grace back to protect a young, unsuspecting Mexican woman named Dani (Natalia Reyes), a factory worker whose job is becoming redundant thanks to the introduction of robot automation(!). Her importance to the future of humanity isn't immediately made clear, but the fact that war is currently raging around her while she is both hunted and protected, is good enough reason for now. The Terminator hunter Dani is being chased by is a Rev 9 (played by Gabriel Luna), similar to the T1000 of Judgement Day in that it has a liquid skin, able to replicate any human it comes into contact with or transform its body into various sharp weapons. But also, with the added bonus of being able to separate that liquid skin from its metal endoskeleton, doubling down on the threat level and providing two very different Terminators to fight off at the same time.
But when all seems lost, a guardian angel in the form of Sarah Connors arrives on the scene, packing guns, rocket launchers and grenades and generally being a real badass. Turns out Sarah has spent the last twenty years or so hunting down any cyborgs that decide to venture into our time from the future and she joins forces with Grace in order to protect Dani at all costs. It's great to have Linda Hamilton back as Sarah Connor, and she is once again a strong and effective presence in the movie. Grace and Dani prove to be just as tough as Sarah though, both mentally and physically, but it's Mackenzie Davis that stands out for me as being particularly impressive. All 3 of them form a pretty formidable, badass trio as they go on the run to get as far away from the Terminator as possible.
It's no secret if you've seen the trailers that Arnie is back, and his arrival later in the movie introduces yet more nostalgia and a good injection of humour. His presence and purpose is explained well, feeling believable, not like a cheap cash-in, and it's great to have Arnie and Linda Hamilton back together as a team, even if it feel like a handing over of the baton to a new bunch of heroes.
The action builds to an impressive finale, continuing the homage to the original movies, but still managing to feel fresh and original, and for me Dark Fate definitely feels a worthy successor to Judgement Day. There's certainly a possibility of further sequels following this and while I had an absolute blast with this movie, part of me hopes that they'll leave well alone now and just end the series on a real high.
Dark Fate gets its shock twist out of the way right off the bat, before launching into approximately 20 minutes of non-stop, heart pounding action as we are introduced to both the new Terminator and the protector sent from the future to try and prevent him. Straight away, Dark Fate certainly feels like the kind of Terminator movie we love, playing more like an homage at times in a similar way to how Star Wars: The Force Awakens felt like A New Hope. Wow, it's a promising start!
Our protector this time round is Grace (Mackenzie Davis), a human soldier who has received some cybernetic enhancements to her body. She has been sent back from an alternate future to the one portrayed in Judgement Day - that future is now dead, thanks to the efforts of Sarah and John Connor in that movie, along with Arnold Schwarzenegger's T-800. However, humans clearly can't stop meddling with AI technology and the result, some 40 years from now, is the birth of 'Legion'. Our world has subsequently been destroyed, humans are being hunted and killed, but the remaining survivors are fighting back hard.
Those survivors have sent Grace back to protect a young, unsuspecting Mexican woman named Dani (Natalia Reyes), a factory worker whose job is becoming redundant thanks to the introduction of robot automation(!). Her importance to the future of humanity isn't immediately made clear, but the fact that war is currently raging around her while she is both hunted and protected, is good enough reason for now. The Terminator hunter Dani is being chased by is a Rev 9 (played by Gabriel Luna), similar to the T1000 of Judgement Day in that it has a liquid skin, able to replicate any human it comes into contact with or transform its body into various sharp weapons. But also, with the added bonus of being able to separate that liquid skin from its metal endoskeleton, doubling down on the threat level and providing two very different Terminators to fight off at the same time.
But when all seems lost, a guardian angel in the form of Sarah Connors arrives on the scene, packing guns, rocket launchers and grenades and generally being a real badass. Turns out Sarah has spent the last twenty years or so hunting down any cyborgs that decide to venture into our time from the future and she joins forces with Grace in order to protect Dani at all costs. It's great to have Linda Hamilton back as Sarah Connor, and she is once again a strong and effective presence in the movie. Grace and Dani prove to be just as tough as Sarah though, both mentally and physically, but it's Mackenzie Davis that stands out for me as being particularly impressive. All 3 of them form a pretty formidable, badass trio as they go on the run to get as far away from the Terminator as possible.
It's no secret if you've seen the trailers that Arnie is back, and his arrival later in the movie introduces yet more nostalgia and a good injection of humour. His presence and purpose is explained well, feeling believable, not like a cheap cash-in, and it's great to have Arnie and Linda Hamilton back together as a team, even if it feel like a handing over of the baton to a new bunch of heroes.
The action builds to an impressive finale, continuing the homage to the original movies, but still managing to feel fresh and original, and for me Dark Fate definitely feels a worthy successor to Judgement Day. There's certainly a possibility of further sequels following this and while I had an absolute blast with this movie, part of me hopes that they'll leave well alone now and just end the series on a real high.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Natalie Reyes - a kick-ass non-white female hero (1 more)
Arnie's drapes
Linda Hamilton - acting didn't work for me (1 more)
Confusing storyline (as a continuation of T2)
Enjoyable Hokum
Natalia Reyes plays young Mexican Dani Ramos. Out of the blue she faces danger and tragedy when a ‘Rev 9’ Terminator (Gabriel Luna) zaps itself back in time to Mexico City to dispose of her. But, as in “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”, a protector is on hand. This time it’s in the ripped form of ‘enhanced’ human Grace (Mackenzie Davis). She’s there to protect Dani and maintain whatever key to the future that she holds.
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
