Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Red Rising in Books
May 30, 2017
Mildly boring
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Red Rising by debut author Pierce Brown is a very difficult book to review. It is clear that Brown is an excellent writer with amazing ideas, but at the same time it does not feel possible to rate the book any higher that two or three stars. This first book of three is somewhat alike The Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins and has some very exciting themes. However at other times it provoked a range of emotions from disgust to almost verging on boredom.
Set thousands of years in the future, the world has become colour coded. Gold are the elite, the ruling colour, and at the bottom of the pile are the Reds. Darrow is a Red and lives below the surface of the planet Mars in the mines with the responsibility of helping to make the planet’s surface habitable for humans in the future. He soon discovers that the ruling societies have been lying to him all his life, and to the many generations before him. But there is an uprising brewing and Darrow has been chosen to play a vital role in it, even though that means pretending to be the enemy.
Although it was difficult to get into the novel it appeared to be clear what the plot would be about. Wrong! Once Darrow has been trained to behave like a Gold the storyline changes completely. It is almost as though it is a different book altogether. Red Rising suddenly becomes Hunger Games-esque and the situations with the Reds, while being referred to once or twice, was all but forgotten. Presumably those original themes will continue within the final books of the trilogy.
Living under the surface of Mars with no sunlight speeds up the aging process of the inhabitants. People in the thirties are considered old; therefore even though Darrow is a teenager in Earth years, he is portrayed as a man – an image that is difficult to shake off throughout the entire book. Once Darrow is living with the Golds and, supposedly, resembling his true age, it is still easy to forget that he is young. This may change the way the reader pictures the scenes compared with how the author intended them to be imagined. The characters are still only children but may be mistaken for adults due Darrow’s opening scenes.
It cannot be denied that Brown is a very knowledgeable writer. As well as writing in an exceptionally well-structured way, he incorporates a vast amount of high culture into his story. A lot of the novel is influenced by Greek and Roman mythology and he also quotes famous philosophers such as Cicero and Plato. So despite its science fiction genre it also has a slight educational nature.
Something interesting about Red Rising was the character development of Darrow. At the beginning he was rather naïve, believing everything he was told, following orders etc. But soon he becomes more confident, clever, Gold-like. However he then becomes like a wild beast, killing to survive, to win. Thankfully his cleverness takes control and he realises that he needs to become a leader and not a tyrant. Towards the end he even becomes messiah-like. As Darrow progresses through these changes he becomes a more likable character.
I am not sure whether I want to read the next installment of Red Rising. For the beginning storyline to continue and become the main focus, the book would need to be completely different. This could be a good thing because, as mentioned, there were times when it was a little boring, however there’s the risk that it will not feel like a follow on from the first book. I do not want to put anyone off from reading it, but I will honestly say that it was not really what I was expecting.
Red Rising by debut author Pierce Brown is a very difficult book to review. It is clear that Brown is an excellent writer with amazing ideas, but at the same time it does not feel possible to rate the book any higher that two or three stars. This first book of three is somewhat alike The Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins and has some very exciting themes. However at other times it provoked a range of emotions from disgust to almost verging on boredom.
Set thousands of years in the future, the world has become colour coded. Gold are the elite, the ruling colour, and at the bottom of the pile are the Reds. Darrow is a Red and lives below the surface of the planet Mars in the mines with the responsibility of helping to make the planet’s surface habitable for humans in the future. He soon discovers that the ruling societies have been lying to him all his life, and to the many generations before him. But there is an uprising brewing and Darrow has been chosen to play a vital role in it, even though that means pretending to be the enemy.
Although it was difficult to get into the novel it appeared to be clear what the plot would be about. Wrong! Once Darrow has been trained to behave like a Gold the storyline changes completely. It is almost as though it is a different book altogether. Red Rising suddenly becomes Hunger Games-esque and the situations with the Reds, while being referred to once or twice, was all but forgotten. Presumably those original themes will continue within the final books of the trilogy.
Living under the surface of Mars with no sunlight speeds up the aging process of the inhabitants. People in the thirties are considered old; therefore even though Darrow is a teenager in Earth years, he is portrayed as a man – an image that is difficult to shake off throughout the entire book. Once Darrow is living with the Golds and, supposedly, resembling his true age, it is still easy to forget that he is young. This may change the way the reader pictures the scenes compared with how the author intended them to be imagined. The characters are still only children but may be mistaken for adults due Darrow’s opening scenes.
It cannot be denied that Brown is a very knowledgeable writer. As well as writing in an exceptionally well-structured way, he incorporates a vast amount of high culture into his story. A lot of the novel is influenced by Greek and Roman mythology and he also quotes famous philosophers such as Cicero and Plato. So despite its science fiction genre it also has a slight educational nature.
Something interesting about Red Rising was the character development of Darrow. At the beginning he was rather naïve, believing everything he was told, following orders etc. But soon he becomes more confident, clever, Gold-like. However he then becomes like a wild beast, killing to survive, to win. Thankfully his cleverness takes control and he realises that he needs to become a leader and not a tyrant. Towards the end he even becomes messiah-like. As Darrow progresses through these changes he becomes a more likable character.
I am not sure whether I want to read the next installment of Red Rising. For the beginning storyline to continue and become the main focus, the book would need to be completely different. This could be a good thing because, as mentioned, there were times when it was a little boring, however there’s the risk that it will not feel like a follow on from the first book. I do not want to put anyone off from reading it, but I will honestly say that it was not really what I was expecting.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
This is not the first Star Wars spin-off, but it is joining a legacy of sub par entries to the franchise, certainly as where the big screen has been concerned, with two Ewoks movies and The Clone Wars TV pilot come movie to contend with. But Rogue One is first to take on the mantle of a blockbuster and attempt to compete with the very best of the Saga, if not join them.
In many ways, Rogue One is the prequel that we have been waiting for, taking place directly before the original movie, A New Hope, Gareth Edwards of Monsters (2010) and Godzilla fame, has managed to create a fan boy's dream following the events which are mentioned in the opening crawl for that classic movie, the theft of the Death Star plans which would ultimately lead to Luke Skywalker's "shot in a million" to destroy the moon sized planet killer.
But here, the task was to both take Star Wars in new new direction as well as to flesh out the story of the Star Wars saga itself. They manage to pull this off with the only real complaint being the pacing which is sporadic at best. With a combination of contrived plotting and uneven pacing, the starker, war movie which this is, can feel at times, like a check list of everything that fans have wanted to see on the big screen since 1983 and as such, runs the risk of being a vacuous, through-away movie, the "greatest hits" as it were.
But I feel that it skirts this issue and manages to stay on the side of narrative integrity, just about. We finally see Darth Vader, post Episode III for the first time in a life action film since 2005, something which the prequels failed to deliver and whilst at first it seemed to be a crowd pleasing cameo, by the finale, it paid off perfectly, as did the resurrection of the late Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin, with the aid of ground breaking, if not morally questionable CGI effects. This was also used to bring us a cameo from Princess Laia (1977) to great effect.
Also, integrating stock footage of the original Red and Gold Squadron pilots from Star Wars (1977) and the demise of the original Red 5, who's place Luke Skywalker would assume, were all nice touches.
In the end, at best Rogue One serves to turn the original Star Wars movie into and two part epic, with this movie seamlessly leading into the opening of Star Wars but how does it hold up in its own right?
Well, it is entertaining, well acted, if not let down by Gareth Edwards' slightly uneven direction, but how the notorious re-shoots, which have clearly left several key shots form the trailers on the cutting room floor and possibly changes the finale significantly, effected this is as yet unknown, and Michael Giacchino's slightly over the top bombastic score, Rogue One will certainly be an entertaining and action packed entry into the Star Wars universe.
But the true success of this film lies with its expansion of the Saga as a whole, bridging the less popular prequels with the original trilogy for the first time on the big screen, taking on finally, what J.J. Abrams' The Force Awakens (2015) deliberately chose not too. Hopefully Episode VIII (2017) follow in the same vein, finally repairing some of the issues which Lucas' much derided prequels, which at their heart, may have had much more to offer than Lucas' poor direction let us see the first time around.
In many ways, Rogue One is the prequel that we have been waiting for, taking place directly before the original movie, A New Hope, Gareth Edwards of Monsters (2010) and Godzilla fame, has managed to create a fan boy's dream following the events which are mentioned in the opening crawl for that classic movie, the theft of the Death Star plans which would ultimately lead to Luke Skywalker's "shot in a million" to destroy the moon sized planet killer.
But here, the task was to both take Star Wars in new new direction as well as to flesh out the story of the Star Wars saga itself. They manage to pull this off with the only real complaint being the pacing which is sporadic at best. With a combination of contrived plotting and uneven pacing, the starker, war movie which this is, can feel at times, like a check list of everything that fans have wanted to see on the big screen since 1983 and as such, runs the risk of being a vacuous, through-away movie, the "greatest hits" as it were.
But I feel that it skirts this issue and manages to stay on the side of narrative integrity, just about. We finally see Darth Vader, post Episode III for the first time in a life action film since 2005, something which the prequels failed to deliver and whilst at first it seemed to be a crowd pleasing cameo, by the finale, it paid off perfectly, as did the resurrection of the late Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin, with the aid of ground breaking, if not morally questionable CGI effects. This was also used to bring us a cameo from Princess Laia (1977) to great effect.
Also, integrating stock footage of the original Red and Gold Squadron pilots from Star Wars (1977) and the demise of the original Red 5, who's place Luke Skywalker would assume, were all nice touches.
In the end, at best Rogue One serves to turn the original Star Wars movie into and two part epic, with this movie seamlessly leading into the opening of Star Wars but how does it hold up in its own right?
Well, it is entertaining, well acted, if not let down by Gareth Edwards' slightly uneven direction, but how the notorious re-shoots, which have clearly left several key shots form the trailers on the cutting room floor and possibly changes the finale significantly, effected this is as yet unknown, and Michael Giacchino's slightly over the top bombastic score, Rogue One will certainly be an entertaining and action packed entry into the Star Wars universe.
But the true success of this film lies with its expansion of the Saga as a whole, bridging the less popular prequels with the original trilogy for the first time on the big screen, taking on finally, what J.J. Abrams' The Force Awakens (2015) deliberately chose not too. Hopefully Episode VIII (2017) follow in the same vein, finally repairing some of the issues which Lucas' much derided prequels, which at their heart, may have had much more to offer than Lucas' poor direction let us see the first time around.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
May 10, 2019
"He may have been your father boy but he wasn't your daddy"
The follow-up chapter to Guardians of the Galaxy and fifteenth instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is bigger in both scale & scope and continues the journey of this oddball gang of extra-terrestrial misfits while also bringing more figures from their past into the spotlight and although its vibrant use of colour palette & another tightly curated soundtrack are notable highlights, the film as a whole lacks the freshness of the original.
The story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 finds Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket & Baby Groot embracing their new roles of the Guardians as they are hired by a galactic race to save a valuable item from an inter-dimensional beast, a mission they successfully accomplish, but when Rocket steals some of the very items they just fought to protect, they're attacked by a fleet of drones and crash-land on a planet where they meet a mysterious figure who may have answers to Quill's true origin.
Written & directed by James Gunn, the film opens with a flashback but it is the main title sequence where it gets into the groove and wholeheartedly evokes the pleasant delights of the original. And while there are more flashes of it down the line, Gunn's writing & direction falls short of achieving the same feat twice, for not all attempts at humour hit the right spot this time and one can easily tell that the director is trying a tad too hard to match the consistent vibe & free-flowing wit of its predecessor.
The set pieces are more extravagant than last time and they are beautifully designed & gorgeously rendered on the screen. Cinematography makes vivid use of all existing colours and the resulting frames flourish with radiant hues from start to finish. Pacing isn't a big issue but Editing does lack the smoothness of its predecessor. Every moment in the movie relies heavily on visual effects and the VFX team leaves no stone unturned to make sure there is nothing to complain about, whether it's the celestial bodies or CGI characters or any set piece.
Coming to the performances, Guardians of the Galaxies Vol. 2 features Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker & Karen Gillan in their reprising roles while new additions include Kurt Russell & Pom Klementieff. But of all the big names, it's Rooker who impresses the most and his character of Yondu easily stands out as a show-stealer. One of the best things about the first film was its eclectic soundtrack and this sequel delivers in that field yet again with another awesome mix that seamlessly blends into the narrative.
On an overall scale, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 may not be a better film than its predecessor but it is still a worthy sequel that offers its own set of thrills & amusement, and happens to be just as much fun & entertaining an experience, if not more. It certainly earns its spot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its colourful images, dazzling visuals & first-rate soundtrack, in addition to its witty plot, idiosyncratic characters & wonderful performances, puts it right up there with Marvel Studios' better sequels. Enjoyable, entertaining & a whole lot of fun, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is definitely a solid summer blockbuster extravaganza.
The story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 finds Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket & Baby Groot embracing their new roles of the Guardians as they are hired by a galactic race to save a valuable item from an inter-dimensional beast, a mission they successfully accomplish, but when Rocket steals some of the very items they just fought to protect, they're attacked by a fleet of drones and crash-land on a planet where they meet a mysterious figure who may have answers to Quill's true origin.
Written & directed by James Gunn, the film opens with a flashback but it is the main title sequence where it gets into the groove and wholeheartedly evokes the pleasant delights of the original. And while there are more flashes of it down the line, Gunn's writing & direction falls short of achieving the same feat twice, for not all attempts at humour hit the right spot this time and one can easily tell that the director is trying a tad too hard to match the consistent vibe & free-flowing wit of its predecessor.
The set pieces are more extravagant than last time and they are beautifully designed & gorgeously rendered on the screen. Cinematography makes vivid use of all existing colours and the resulting frames flourish with radiant hues from start to finish. Pacing isn't a big issue but Editing does lack the smoothness of its predecessor. Every moment in the movie relies heavily on visual effects and the VFX team leaves no stone unturned to make sure there is nothing to complain about, whether it's the celestial bodies or CGI characters or any set piece.
Coming to the performances, Guardians of the Galaxies Vol. 2 features Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker & Karen Gillan in their reprising roles while new additions include Kurt Russell & Pom Klementieff. But of all the big names, it's Rooker who impresses the most and his character of Yondu easily stands out as a show-stealer. One of the best things about the first film was its eclectic soundtrack and this sequel delivers in that field yet again with another awesome mix that seamlessly blends into the narrative.
On an overall scale, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 may not be a better film than its predecessor but it is still a worthy sequel that offers its own set of thrills & amusement, and happens to be just as much fun & entertaining an experience, if not more. It certainly earns its spot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its colourful images, dazzling visuals & first-rate soundtrack, in addition to its witty plot, idiosyncratic characters & wonderful performances, puts it right up there with Marvel Studios' better sequels. Enjoyable, entertaining & a whole lot of fun, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is definitely a solid summer blockbuster extravaganza.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Bigger isn't always better
Ridley Scott’s Alien prequel Prometheus wasn’t as warmly received as the veteran director had hoped for upon its release in 2012. In pitching the film for the coveted 12A market, Scott lost the majority of what made his 1979 masterpiece, rated 18, such an epic adventure.
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
Dana (24 KP) rated Shatter Me in Books
Mar 23, 2018
This is my second time reading this book. I have been wanting to do a re-read of this series for a long while, so when I got the audiobooks, I started reading almost immediately. There will most definitely be spoilers for this book and the rest of the series in this review, so if you have not read (or listened to) it, stop reading this review now and come back after. I promise, it is worth it!!
This book is so much more heartbreaking than I originally remembered. Seeing the depths of Juliette's pain whenever she is about to break apart is just so beautifully written. It makes the character sympathetic, but also gives her a hidden amount of strength that she doesn't even see in herself. Being able to look for beauty in the world is something not all people can do, especially people who have been left and hurt so much in their lives as Juliette has been.
Since Juliette has lived only through stories, that is how she knows how to describe the world. It's all so romantic and new to her in every action and experience. I love seeing how she creates relationships and her desperation to find connections. After being alone for so long (long before her stay in the asylum) she latches onto any kind of love she can get.
It is definitely interesting to see the relationships in their baby forms, especially since I know how the series sends. Knowing this, it's really cool to look at the little hints to the characters' true personalities. Hints at Adam's overbearing entitlement he feels over Juliette, Juliette's hidden strength (as I said before), Kenji's awesomeness (just because I freaking love him).
There are also hints about the white bird with the golden crown that are hidden throughout the series and is not what one would think it would be.
I love seeing Warner in these early parts of the story because he is such an arrogant ass. He hasn't shown anyone his humanity, so there is no way for any of the characters (especially Juliette) to know who and what he really is. Ugh. Why couldn't he be the cool version of his self throughout? Oh and when Warner finds out he can touch Juliette, holy hell! When I first read that, my heart was skyrocketing! I was so scared for her and Adam, but also for Warner because what did that mean for him? When he first touches her, he is writhing on the floor, in a moment of pure terror and pain because he cannot have the one thing he wants more than everything. While that's a very entitled thing to think, to want to have another person, it must have been a terrifying moment for the both of them. By the way, I am in no way condoning his actions throughout the series. He did horrible things that cannot be forgiven so easily, but I do find him a fascinating character.
Kenji is still my favorite side character and will always be. He is an idiotic, crass, sarcastic ass hat, but I wouldn't have him any other way.
I love the writing style in this book. I love how it is written like it is Juliette's journal she keeps throughout this book. I am remembering why I loved this series so much when I first read it.
It did move a bit too quickly for me toward the end, but I understand the necessity to do it that way. Because in war, it is fast paced and difficult to drink in the descriptions of the world around you. It's hard to focus on a singular thing, which is how the last section of this book was written. It is just freaking brilliant.
This book is so much more heartbreaking than I originally remembered. Seeing the depths of Juliette's pain whenever she is about to break apart is just so beautifully written. It makes the character sympathetic, but also gives her a hidden amount of strength that she doesn't even see in herself. Being able to look for beauty in the world is something not all people can do, especially people who have been left and hurt so much in their lives as Juliette has been.
Since Juliette has lived only through stories, that is how she knows how to describe the world. It's all so romantic and new to her in every action and experience. I love seeing how she creates relationships and her desperation to find connections. After being alone for so long (long before her stay in the asylum) she latches onto any kind of love she can get.
It is definitely interesting to see the relationships in their baby forms, especially since I know how the series sends. Knowing this, it's really cool to look at the little hints to the characters' true personalities. Hints at Adam's overbearing entitlement he feels over Juliette, Juliette's hidden strength (as I said before), Kenji's awesomeness (just because I freaking love him).
There are also hints about the white bird with the golden crown that are hidden throughout the series and is not what one would think it would be.
I love seeing Warner in these early parts of the story because he is such an arrogant ass. He hasn't shown anyone his humanity, so there is no way for any of the characters (especially Juliette) to know who and what he really is. Ugh. Why couldn't he be the cool version of his self throughout? Oh and when Warner finds out he can touch Juliette, holy hell! When I first read that, my heart was skyrocketing! I was so scared for her and Adam, but also for Warner because what did that mean for him? When he first touches her, he is writhing on the floor, in a moment of pure terror and pain because he cannot have the one thing he wants more than everything. While that's a very entitled thing to think, to want to have another person, it must have been a terrifying moment for the both of them. By the way, I am in no way condoning his actions throughout the series. He did horrible things that cannot be forgiven so easily, but I do find him a fascinating character.
Kenji is still my favorite side character and will always be. He is an idiotic, crass, sarcastic ass hat, but I wouldn't have him any other way.
I love the writing style in this book. I love how it is written like it is Juliette's journal she keeps throughout this book. I am remembering why I loved this series so much when I first read it.
It did move a bit too quickly for me toward the end, but I understand the necessity to do it that way. Because in war, it is fast paced and difficult to drink in the descriptions of the world around you. It's hard to focus on a singular thing, which is how the last section of this book was written. It is just freaking brilliant.
Larry Eisner (2082 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
Vikander. She is excellent and plays this two-dimensional character far beyond the script. (3 more)
The supernatural elements
Did I mention Vikander’s superb performance?
Damn, Vikander was spectacular!
The script (3 more)
The tropes
The characters’ lack of dimension
Low hope for a sequel
It’s action. It’s rife with plot holes. It’s got an AMAZING lead.
Note: I was given a copy by SmashBomb to review.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Alice (12 KP) rated The Temptation of Dragons (Penny White #1) in Books
Jul 3, 2018
<i>Many thanks to the author Chrys Cymri for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review</i>
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1Js">here</a href>
I was kindly offered this book by the author in exchange for an honest review and my initial impressions were "yeah this sounds like my kinda thing. Here there be dragons" ya know? Only to get more fully immersed in the book and find that I was a touch disappointed.
<i>The Temptation of Dragons</i> follows Reverend Penny White as she becomes the Vicar General of an alternate world called Lloegyr - please note that there is a heavy Welsh influence in this book coupled with an enormous religious influence - where dragons, unicorns, gryphons and more reside and coexist in relative peace.
The book starts with Penny White coming home slightly intoxicated and thinking she's going mad when she comes across a dying dragon. In true priestly form Penny gets out of her car and performs the last rites of absolution to what turns out to be a real dragon!
From that moment on Penny's life changes in so many ways - dragons exist, unicorns are real, snail sharks get drunk and gryphons are eating her garden birds. Penny is soon tasked to become the Vicar General to the citizens of Lloegyr and that includes all manner of supernatural beasties. Though expected as the main character is a priest, I didn't expect there to be such a heavy religious influence all throughout with literal verses from the Bible quoted on a regular.
Please understand that this is <b>not</b> anything against the book or against the writer and is merely my thoughts on what I considered an overly religious-toned story set in the wrong time period and the wrong world. I honestly found that the hardest part of reading this book but there were parts that I enjoyed for example: Penny White has what amounts to an obsession with sci-fi/fantasy and occult TV and movies, a lot of which were quite obscure for me (not really a TV and movie person *gasp*) I didn't get several of the references - particularly the Doctor Who ones.
Out of all of the characters my favourite had to be Moriarty - shortened to Morey for some reason - a 47-year-old gryphon with no filter. My favourite quote was from Penny about Morey:
<blockquote>"You've sent me a blue tit murdering creationist with sarcasm management issues."
"Correction. Today he's killing a starling."</blockquote>
The sarcasm and humour was rife throughout this book which was brilliant and gave it a nice light undertone to the ultimate seriousness of the book as a whole.
There was one character I didn't like and that was her brother James- I'm not 100% sure why but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. He's a free loading, insensitive toss pot and possibly a pod person.
However, despite my dislike of the heavy religious overtone and of James, I really, really liked <i>how</i> Chrys wrote the dragons and unicorns and all the other supernatural creatures and they had enough of a description without giving away too much important information; but also, on the flip side, there were away lot of unanswered questions such as how <i>exactly</i> does a unicorn use a telephone?
In all, it was a well written book with an interesting concept and some good characters and prose, dialogue was perfectly modern for Penny and a touch Olde World for a lot of the Lloegyr residents.
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1Js">here</a href>
I was kindly offered this book by the author in exchange for an honest review and my initial impressions were "yeah this sounds like my kinda thing. Here there be dragons" ya know? Only to get more fully immersed in the book and find that I was a touch disappointed.
<i>The Temptation of Dragons</i> follows Reverend Penny White as she becomes the Vicar General of an alternate world called Lloegyr - please note that there is a heavy Welsh influence in this book coupled with an enormous religious influence - where dragons, unicorns, gryphons and more reside and coexist in relative peace.
The book starts with Penny White coming home slightly intoxicated and thinking she's going mad when she comes across a dying dragon. In true priestly form Penny gets out of her car and performs the last rites of absolution to what turns out to be a real dragon!
From that moment on Penny's life changes in so many ways - dragons exist, unicorns are real, snail sharks get drunk and gryphons are eating her garden birds. Penny is soon tasked to become the Vicar General to the citizens of Lloegyr and that includes all manner of supernatural beasties. Though expected as the main character is a priest, I didn't expect there to be such a heavy religious influence all throughout with literal verses from the Bible quoted on a regular.
Please understand that this is <b>not</b> anything against the book or against the writer and is merely my thoughts on what I considered an overly religious-toned story set in the wrong time period and the wrong world. I honestly found that the hardest part of reading this book but there were parts that I enjoyed for example: Penny White has what amounts to an obsession with sci-fi/fantasy and occult TV and movies, a lot of which were quite obscure for me (not really a TV and movie person *gasp*) I didn't get several of the references - particularly the Doctor Who ones.
Out of all of the characters my favourite had to be Moriarty - shortened to Morey for some reason - a 47-year-old gryphon with no filter. My favourite quote was from Penny about Morey:
<blockquote>"You've sent me a blue tit murdering creationist with sarcasm management issues."
"Correction. Today he's killing a starling."</blockquote>
The sarcasm and humour was rife throughout this book which was brilliant and gave it a nice light undertone to the ultimate seriousness of the book as a whole.
There was one character I didn't like and that was her brother James- I'm not 100% sure why but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. He's a free loading, insensitive toss pot and possibly a pod person.
However, despite my dislike of the heavy religious overtone and of James, I really, really liked <i>how</i> Chrys wrote the dragons and unicorns and all the other supernatural creatures and they had enough of a description without giving away too much important information; but also, on the flip side, there were away lot of unanswered questions such as how <i>exactly</i> does a unicorn use a telephone?
In all, it was a well written book with an interesting concept and some good characters and prose, dialogue was perfectly modern for Penny and a touch Olde World for a lot of the Lloegyr residents.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated An Anonymous Girl in Books
Aug 20, 2018
The story line has been done, but this makes it feel original (3 more)
The characters are very fleshed out
The authors have done their research about therapists
The world building is fantastic
Intriguing Plot
I had read The Wife Between Us by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen and loved it. When I heard that the same authors were releasing another book, I became giddy and knew I had to read it. Luckily, An Anonymous Girl was a good read.
The pacing for An Anonymous Girl started off very fast which is what I like. I read a quarter of the book right before bed, and I only stopped because I had to go to sleep. I would have read more had I not been so tired. However, once I found out what the motive was behind Dr. Shield's study, the pacing slowed down, and I found myself not being drawn to the book as much although it still held my attention.
I started off enjoying the plot very much. I loved reading about Jess' participation in this strange study. However, like I felt about the pacing, once I learned the true motive behind the study, the plot wasn't as interesting. I don't want to elaborate on the plot because I don't want to give the motive behind the study away in my review. I will say the plot for An Anonymous Girl was well executed. It is an idea that's been written about so many times, but the way Hedricks and Pekkanen wrote about it was very original. There is one plot twists involving the study, but I felt like their aren't any more major plot twists. I kept waiting for more to happen, but they never came. I was left a little confused about the ending. I'm not sure if it was meant to be a plot twist or not.
The world building was written so amazingly! Everything about An Anonymous Girl felt real. It was obvious that the authors had done their research when it came to therapy and how a therapist would act. I felt as if I were watching everything unfold right in front of me. I was constantly worried for Jess, and I wanted to be her friend and help her with what she was going through.
I felt like the characters were very well written. I felt they were fleshed out enough to be enjoyable. It was hard to not like Jess and want to help her. She was an amazing character. Dr. Shields was also well written. As I've stated about the plot, it is obvious that Hendricks and Pekkanen had done their research on how a therapist might act by analyzing situations. I thoroughly enjoyed the character of Dr. Shields. I thought Thomas was well written. I kept wondering what Thomas' motives were, and I was constantly left guessing if he was bad or good. Luckily the ending of the book makes it clear.
Trigger warnings include possible suicide/murder, alcohol (the characters drink wine throughout the book), prescription drugs (Vicodin is mentioned), one count of sexual abuse, swearing, cheating, blackmail, and manipulation.
All in all, An Anonymous Girl is a good read. The plot takes an idea that's been done numerous times and changes it so it feels different. The characters are fleshed out, and the world building is amazing. I would definitely recommend An Anonymous Girl by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 16 and above.
(I received an ecopy of An Anonymous Girl by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen through Netgalley in exchange for an unbiased review. All opinions are my own).
The pacing for An Anonymous Girl started off very fast which is what I like. I read a quarter of the book right before bed, and I only stopped because I had to go to sleep. I would have read more had I not been so tired. However, once I found out what the motive was behind Dr. Shield's study, the pacing slowed down, and I found myself not being drawn to the book as much although it still held my attention.
I started off enjoying the plot very much. I loved reading about Jess' participation in this strange study. However, like I felt about the pacing, once I learned the true motive behind the study, the plot wasn't as interesting. I don't want to elaborate on the plot because I don't want to give the motive behind the study away in my review. I will say the plot for An Anonymous Girl was well executed. It is an idea that's been written about so many times, but the way Hedricks and Pekkanen wrote about it was very original. There is one plot twists involving the study, but I felt like their aren't any more major plot twists. I kept waiting for more to happen, but they never came. I was left a little confused about the ending. I'm not sure if it was meant to be a plot twist or not.
The world building was written so amazingly! Everything about An Anonymous Girl felt real. It was obvious that the authors had done their research when it came to therapy and how a therapist would act. I felt as if I were watching everything unfold right in front of me. I was constantly worried for Jess, and I wanted to be her friend and help her with what she was going through.
I felt like the characters were very well written. I felt they were fleshed out enough to be enjoyable. It was hard to not like Jess and want to help her. She was an amazing character. Dr. Shields was also well written. As I've stated about the plot, it is obvious that Hendricks and Pekkanen had done their research on how a therapist might act by analyzing situations. I thoroughly enjoyed the character of Dr. Shields. I thought Thomas was well written. I kept wondering what Thomas' motives were, and I was constantly left guessing if he was bad or good. Luckily the ending of the book makes it clear.
Trigger warnings include possible suicide/murder, alcohol (the characters drink wine throughout the book), prescription drugs (Vicodin is mentioned), one count of sexual abuse, swearing, cheating, blackmail, and manipulation.
All in all, An Anonymous Girl is a good read. The plot takes an idea that's been done numerous times and changes it so it feels different. The characters are fleshed out, and the world building is amazing. I would definitely recommend An Anonymous Girl by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 16 and above.
(I received an ecopy of An Anonymous Girl by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen through Netgalley in exchange for an unbiased review. All opinions are my own).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
Hardy, Williams elevate mediocre material
I had lowered my expectations when entering the new Sony film VENOM for I had heard that this non-MCU Marvel film wasn't really a Marvel - or a Spiderman - film, even though it features one of the more famous characters from the Spiderman Universe, which is, of course, a Marvel property.
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)