Search
Sewing World - The Worlds Best Sewing Magazine
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Sewing World has a good mix of sewing projects, techniques, know-how and how-tos for all sewing...
NBK Mobile Banking
Finance
App
NBK’s mobile banking application allows you to manage your account through your device. The...
Karaoke - Sing with MyKara
Music and Entertainment
7.0
Rate It
App
THE BEST KARAOKE APPLICATION FOR IPHONE/IPOD Have you ever dreamed about a karaoke machine in your...
Mighty Battles
Games
App
Who's the Mightiest? Shoot, Deploy and Destroy in the Real-time 1v1 Battles! YOUR MISSION As...
Root For The Villian: Rap, Bull$hit ad a Celebration of Failure
Book
Yawn. Another book from another musician. Let's guess: He rose from the depths of hell with his...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Do you like time travel
“It feels like a movie born from a different era.” That is the thought that immediately flooded my brain upon leaving the cinema after watching Venom. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing of course. Hundreds of amazing films have been born well before superhero films became the successful genre they are today.
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Soma in Video Games
Jul 13, 2018
Interesting concept and story (3 more)
Good length
Creepy atmosphere
Amazing world
Bad AI (2 more)
Awkward acting and diologue
Slow parts
Great game, a few flaws
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a great game, I loved it but there were a few flaws that knocked the rating down sadly.
First off the concept, story and world were by far the best parts of the game. It lasted me around 10 hours and I wanted to keep coming back to it.
The idea to transfer consciousness to robot has fascinated me for a long time. It's not new, it's been talked about for a long time and this game shows it in a very interesting way.
Basically you have a brain scan. Your creating a digital copy of yourself and that is being transferred into the robot. So it doesn't matter if it's 1 year or 100 years later you will have the brain scan and then wake up in a robot because this version of you is from that moment the brain scan took place (stay with me haha) which means the original "you" could have gone on to live 50 more years for all we know.
It's intriguing but also a scary thought because it does beg the question, is this version actually you? It's a copy so surely it's not you conscious?
So obviously we meet our protagonist, Simon who is suffering a brain injury and goes for a brain scan. He doesnt know what the brain scan is intended for so he is immediately woken up in the far future and feeling very confused and this could have been a very interesting story about him descending into madness and insanity as he begins to realise what he has now become. However this falls flat and when he does find out the truth he is quickly accepting and calm about it all. It wasn't very believable and could have done so much more with it.
There is a 2nd character you meet, Catherine who turns out to be a machine who then gets transfer into your omnitool so you assume will be a constant companion and will talk to you constantly as you walk about. However this is not the case as she only talks when plugged into a console which was too few for my liking. Her acting and diologue also felt too emotionless and wooden which could have been intentional and gradually made her out to be obsessive and manipulative and this would have further showed that if they had her talking as you walked about. But again this was not the case, the game is predictable which was disappointing. The ending was predictable despite a few twists but I still liked it.
The AI was very confusing. I didn't understand what the rules were. Was it attracted to light, movement or sound? It was very unpredictable but thankfully the developer updated the game to add a safe mode which keeps everything the same, and still keeps the creepiness but removes the ability for enemies to harm you which did make the game more enjoyable. Plus trophies still unlock on that mode for those completionests.
Overall game was too good to not play thanks to story and the concept behind it. I loved learning about the world through recordings and terminal. I'd love to learn more in a sequel or prequel but with different characters and location. The atmosphere felt creepy and clostophobic at times. But gameplay was generic. Walk to here, open this door, use this terminal.
I do recommend anyone playing it but the lack of collectibles and multiple endings doesn't give good replayability.
First off the concept, story and world were by far the best parts of the game. It lasted me around 10 hours and I wanted to keep coming back to it.
The idea to transfer consciousness to robot has fascinated me for a long time. It's not new, it's been talked about for a long time and this game shows it in a very interesting way.
Basically you have a brain scan. Your creating a digital copy of yourself and that is being transferred into the robot. So it doesn't matter if it's 1 year or 100 years later you will have the brain scan and then wake up in a robot because this version of you is from that moment the brain scan took place (stay with me haha) which means the original "you" could have gone on to live 50 more years for all we know.
It's intriguing but also a scary thought because it does beg the question, is this version actually you? It's a copy so surely it's not you conscious?
So obviously we meet our protagonist, Simon who is suffering a brain injury and goes for a brain scan. He doesnt know what the brain scan is intended for so he is immediately woken up in the far future and feeling very confused and this could have been a very interesting story about him descending into madness and insanity as he begins to realise what he has now become. However this falls flat and when he does find out the truth he is quickly accepting and calm about it all. It wasn't very believable and could have done so much more with it.
There is a 2nd character you meet, Catherine who turns out to be a machine who then gets transfer into your omnitool so you assume will be a constant companion and will talk to you constantly as you walk about. However this is not the case as she only talks when plugged into a console which was too few for my liking. Her acting and diologue also felt too emotionless and wooden which could have been intentional and gradually made her out to be obsessive and manipulative and this would have further showed that if they had her talking as you walked about. But again this was not the case, the game is predictable which was disappointing. The ending was predictable despite a few twists but I still liked it.
The AI was very confusing. I didn't understand what the rules were. Was it attracted to light, movement or sound? It was very unpredictable but thankfully the developer updated the game to add a safe mode which keeps everything the same, and still keeps the creepiness but removes the ability for enemies to harm you which did make the game more enjoyable. Plus trophies still unlock on that mode for those completionests.
Overall game was too good to not play thanks to story and the concept behind it. I loved learning about the world through recordings and terminal. I'd love to learn more in a sequel or prequel but with different characters and location. The atmosphere felt creepy and clostophobic at times. But gameplay was generic. Walk to here, open this door, use this terminal.
I do recommend anyone playing it but the lack of collectibles and multiple endings doesn't give good replayability.
Forecast Bar
Weather and Utilities
App
*** Featured by Apple, Lifehacker, Macworld and Cult of Mac! *** Forecast Bar offers hyper accurate,...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Ridiculous storyline (1 more)
Improbable action
Magnetic bulls**t that will no doubt attract Fast-fans
Positives:
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
