Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Awesome
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Missing Link (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
This really isn't a bad little film, it has its fun and implausible action, and you come away with a message of friendship for everyone to ponder on. It's obviously great Easter holiday fodder and it won't bore the parents, which is always half the battle with kids films.
Susan is the last of his kind and desperately wants to find the fabled yeti who he believes to be his distant cousins. He enlists Sir Lionel Frost to help him on his quest after reading about his escapades in finding long lost creatures.
It's a pretty star-studded cast with Zach Galifianakis and Hugh Jackman leading it up. There will be a lot of other voices you recognise, but for the most part they stay in the background.
Both of our leading men are really well cast and give their characters a much needed boost. They get some humour in various places, but I didn't feel like the script was fantastic overall.
Where Lionel and Susan were well cast, Adeline Fortnight really missed the spot for me. From the design of the character to that accent, whose origin was kind of non-descript, I couldn't help wondering why the role went to Zoe Saldana and not Salma Hayek.
Stephen Fry makes a wonderful bad guy. I've always loved his voicework this thankfully did not break that trend and he added some oomph to the proceedings.
The last cast member I want to mention is Emma Thompson as The Elder. I think she suffered the most with the script, "The people we don't want here are leaving! Force them to stay!" I'm sure that line was meant to be amusing, and it definitely could have been, but the way it wasn't backed up with anything to come across that way. She was woefully underused and her scenes were wholly inadequate for such a great talent.
I had to stop and weep for humanity a little, there are some comments on the internet where it appears that people don't get that this is stop-motion animation, with a few saying it all looked too simple. I cannot fault the work that was put into this, it's wonderfully done, even if I'm not a fan of the strangely pointed features. There's a brief glimpse in the trailer of a barroom brawl, look out for the whole scene in the film because it is probably the most impressive piece of work.
Despite my quibbles, this is genuinely a pleasant film to watch and I don't think many people will get to the end and grumble that they've wasted their time. I just worry that it's not quite good enough to be well remembered, it's in danger of being one of those films that makes me go "oh yeah, I remember that one, it's really good."
What you should do
If you're in need of an Easter activity then it's worth the trip to the cinema, and it's certainly worth catching when it's released for home viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's nothing in the film I'd particularly like to take home, but I wouldn't mind some of the patience and dedication that those animators must have to produce such wonderfully smooth motion.
Susan is the last of his kind and desperately wants to find the fabled yeti who he believes to be his distant cousins. He enlists Sir Lionel Frost to help him on his quest after reading about his escapades in finding long lost creatures.
It's a pretty star-studded cast with Zach Galifianakis and Hugh Jackman leading it up. There will be a lot of other voices you recognise, but for the most part they stay in the background.
Both of our leading men are really well cast and give their characters a much needed boost. They get some humour in various places, but I didn't feel like the script was fantastic overall.
Where Lionel and Susan were well cast, Adeline Fortnight really missed the spot for me. From the design of the character to that accent, whose origin was kind of non-descript, I couldn't help wondering why the role went to Zoe Saldana and not Salma Hayek.
Stephen Fry makes a wonderful bad guy. I've always loved his voicework this thankfully did not break that trend and he added some oomph to the proceedings.
The last cast member I want to mention is Emma Thompson as The Elder. I think she suffered the most with the script, "The people we don't want here are leaving! Force them to stay!" I'm sure that line was meant to be amusing, and it definitely could have been, but the way it wasn't backed up with anything to come across that way. She was woefully underused and her scenes were wholly inadequate for such a great talent.
I had to stop and weep for humanity a little, there are some comments on the internet where it appears that people don't get that this is stop-motion animation, with a few saying it all looked too simple. I cannot fault the work that was put into this, it's wonderfully done, even if I'm not a fan of the strangely pointed features. There's a brief glimpse in the trailer of a barroom brawl, look out for the whole scene in the film because it is probably the most impressive piece of work.
Despite my quibbles, this is genuinely a pleasant film to watch and I don't think many people will get to the end and grumble that they've wasted their time. I just worry that it's not quite good enough to be well remembered, it's in danger of being one of those films that makes me go "oh yeah, I remember that one, it's really good."
What you should do
If you're in need of an Easter activity then it's worth the trip to the cinema, and it's certainly worth catching when it's released for home viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's nothing in the film I'd particularly like to take home, but I wouldn't mind some of the patience and dedication that those animators must have to produce such wonderfully smooth motion.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
Spill yer beans
The Lighthouse is cinematic perfection that will leave anyone that lets it engulf thier mind and senses broken, disturbed, traumatised and violated. An experience like no other I can not stress enough that everyone must whitness this utter masterpiece. Primarily a character study about two lighthouse keepers descent into madness however the way the film depicts this reaches far deeper than I ever even imagined it would. (Possible spoilers ahead) Theres an unquestionable comparison to Greek mythology here and as the film plays out Willem Dafoe character draws several comparisons to King Trident, Zeus and Minos but ultimatly ends up becoming one of his own 'God of the lighthouse' keeping his prized possession locked away at the top of his tower. Robert Pattison also compares to the Titan Prometheus trying to steel this possesion/fire from this so called god. He can also be compared to Icarus trapped in a tower by a mean man with no means of escape and Odysseus constantly distracted/infatuated with the Sirens surrounding the lighthouse. I found these comparisions integrated into the story beautifully and theres constant fable/mythological imagry to reinforce these comparisons too which is hauntingly striking and terrifyingly prominent. Atmosphere is pin sharp here and as these two men begin to break you feel everything that starts to grate on them bombarding your senses as a viewr too. Everything is communicated flawlessly to really draw the viewer in as if we too are stuck with these to men feeling evrything build up, irritate, torment and add to the degradation of the mind until it hits its breaking point. Floors creaking & bowing, metal bending and screeching, wind howling, waves crashing, rain beating down, shutters rattling and birds squawking its intense and realistic sound design thats for sure. Mix this with a constant sence of dread from the narrow corridors, looming shadows, low lighting, claustrophobic living quaters, fog, harsh weather, mud, anoying seagulls, restricted views, countless foul smells, hard back breaking work, sexual frustrations, loneliness and alcohol its enough to make anyone go insane and as the film plays out cabin fever really intensifies (especially for us with the film being shot in black and white and with a smaller aspect ratio). This is some of the best acting ive seen for sure both Dafoe and Pattison portray these characters so well that you would be convinced you were watching historic archive footage of two people cooped up. Both are devious liars, have vicious tempers and nasty streaks as well as mysterious pasts and both are also constantly in a fight for dominance of the lighthouse and the secrets it holds. In this day and age The lighthouse is such a true gem to behold and is so unique and engrossing you would swear it transported you back in time while watching it. I also did not expect this film to take the turn it does half way through either almost becoming a distressing horror movie and as intense as a tesuo film and as my friend and me left the screening we found ourselves deeply disturbed/traumatised with our hearts pounding from what we had just been exposed to. Disgustingly intense, depressingly dripping in sadness, brutaly violent and deeply unsettling the lighthouse is one hell of a movie and may just be one of the best movies I have ever seen, it really is without a doubt a cinema experience I will certainly never forget. Comparable to the witch, the turin horse and apocalypse now the lighthouse deserves all the praise its been getting and more. Stunning.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Foxcatcher (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
‘Foxcatcher’ stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell, Sienna Miller, and Vanessa Redgrave with an appearance by Anthony Michael Hall and tells an account of Olympic Gold Medal Wrestling Champions, brothers Mark and Dave Schultz and their dealings with their millionaire coach, paranoid-schizophrenic John du Pont who eventually murdered Dave Schultz in 1996.
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Hulk Continues to Smash...and I'm Here For All of it
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Cryptofauna in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-57.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Cryptofauna by Patrick Canning is definitely a read that will certainly stay in your memory, for how unique and random it is.
<b><i>Synopsis</i></b>
Jim is a janitor at an insane asylum and one day, he decides to commit a suicide at his workplace. But before he can do the deed, a mysterious resident at work equips him with a dog and a bag of ash, and throws him into a secret game known as Cryptofauna.
Cryptofauna is played by Operators, people with special abilities, who battle one another to influence important events around the world. To become an Operator, Jim must successfully pass a couple of exams, including surviving the Pacific Ocean, surviving some weird monks, and ultimately, passing the exam that proves his mind and soul are ready as well.
On top of this, there is his enemy as well, another Operator, who is forever his rival until the game ends.
This is how Cryptofauna works, in case you are curious. The image was sent to me by the author:
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/How-To-Play.jpg?resize=768%2C994&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
From the synopsis, I expected this book to be unique. However, I never expected to enter such a creative and random world. The events are all so random, the characters too. It is all very random and chaotic in a very interesting way. I am still struggling to decide whether I love this chaos or not.
This book is amazing in terms of creativity and world building.
The author is quite good at creating something new in a place where everything already exists. Patrick Canning managed to create a whole new reality within our real world. A place where Cryptofauna exists as a game and a way of life, and I was glad I entered that world.
There were times I felt very confused on what is happening. I had to re-read chapters and scenes, which resulted in average reading experience. I liked Jim as a character, and I loved how he slowly develops throughout the book and finds his true purpose in his life. As a person that was about to commit suicide, I felt he learned a valuable lesson to not give up. However I felt that the other characters had more liveliness in them (no pun intended, given the fact he wanted to kill himself). I actually loved the evil guy more. He had a recklessness about him that I found intriguing.
Overall, I did enjoy the creativity and the idea of the game itself. However, I felt very lost and confused at certain times, which made my experience less enjoyable. I still recommend it to you, if the synopsis intrigues you and you enjoy stories about good battling evil.
Thank you to the author, Patrick Canning, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-57.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Cryptofauna by Patrick Canning is definitely a read that will certainly stay in your memory, for how unique and random it is.
<b><i>Synopsis</i></b>
Jim is a janitor at an insane asylum and one day, he decides to commit a suicide at his workplace. But before he can do the deed, a mysterious resident at work equips him with a dog and a bag of ash, and throws him into a secret game known as Cryptofauna.
Cryptofauna is played by Operators, people with special abilities, who battle one another to influence important events around the world. To become an Operator, Jim must successfully pass a couple of exams, including surviving the Pacific Ocean, surviving some weird monks, and ultimately, passing the exam that proves his mind and soul are ready as well.
On top of this, there is his enemy as well, another Operator, who is forever his rival until the game ends.
This is how Cryptofauna works, in case you are curious. The image was sent to me by the author:
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/How-To-Play.jpg?resize=768%2C994&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
From the synopsis, I expected this book to be unique. However, I never expected to enter such a creative and random world. The events are all so random, the characters too. It is all very random and chaotic in a very interesting way. I am still struggling to decide whether I love this chaos or not.
This book is amazing in terms of creativity and world building.
The author is quite good at creating something new in a place where everything already exists. Patrick Canning managed to create a whole new reality within our real world. A place where Cryptofauna exists as a game and a way of life, and I was glad I entered that world.
There were times I felt very confused on what is happening. I had to re-read chapters and scenes, which resulted in average reading experience. I liked Jim as a character, and I loved how he slowly develops throughout the book and finds his true purpose in his life. As a person that was about to commit suicide, I felt he learned a valuable lesson to not give up. However I felt that the other characters had more liveliness in them (no pun intended, given the fact he wanted to kill himself). I actually loved the evil guy more. He had a recklessness about him that I found intriguing.
Overall, I did enjoy the creativity and the idea of the game itself. However, I felt very lost and confused at certain times, which made my experience less enjoyable. I still recommend it to you, if the synopsis intrigues you and you enjoy stories about good battling evil.
Thank you to the author, Patrick Canning, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated To Kill a Mockingbird in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Well, February is definitely the month for discovering classics I’ve missed! For some reason, I’d always classed To Kill a Mockingbird in amongst the Agatha Christie genre of murder mysteries – not that I’ve read those either – and didn’t know enough about it for it to have piqued my interest. Now I’ve read it though, I can see what all the fuss is about, and it’s not surprising that, despite being published in 1960, it was still the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare">65th best-selling book of all time</a> in 2012. Beware of spoilers!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Paul Blart: Mall Cop (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Paul Blart (Kevin James) is a man with a dream. Paul dreams of being an officer with the New Jersey police, but thanks to his hypoglycemia, and weight, he has had a difficult time passing his requirements.
After his latest failure which concluded with him passing out inches from an obstacle course finish line, Paul has hit rock bottom. His daughter and mother encourage him to get on with his life, and look for a woman who will make him happy, (It is learned that his ex-wife only wanted him in her life so she could gain citizenship), and that new opportunities will arise.
The fact that the holidays are coming up is of little consolation, as Paul focuses on his career as a security guard at a local mall where he has worked from the past ten years, With the Black Friday shopping day upcoming, Paul attempts to get closer to the lovely Amy (Jayma Mays), who works at one of the mall’s boutiques.
The fact that Paul is shy and awkward does not help his cause, but in time, he is able to form a friendship with Amy that survives some real obstacles such as a very out of character wild night out which ends in disaster for Paul as his intolerance of alcohol leads to some truly outrageous behavior which embarrasses Amy.
As Paul attempts to recover from his fiasco at the workplace party, he returns to patrol at the mall astride his ever present Segway while a group of thieves secretly plot to take over the mall and rob the various stores.
When the bad guys make their move, Paul is indisposed and is easily overlooked, which in turn keeps him in the dark about what is really happening. When Paul eventually learns what is going on and that Amy is amongst the hostages, he must muster up the courage and abilities he never knew he had in order to save the day and rescue Amy.
What follows is a madcap though slight romp which while not big on over the top laughs has more than enough smiles to keep you amused along the way.
Kevin James is entertaining as the hapless Blart, but he is not given much to work with in his first starring role as the story is very formulaic and restrained which does not allow him to fully display his comedic skills as he did in The King of Queens.
The film was produced by Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison company and was co written by James and Nick Bakay. While it is not a bad film, I had hoped for more as the premise is rife with possibilities and the film comes across as playing it safe rather than taking chances. There is very little offensive in the film so it is appropriate for most families, which despite the flaws, makes the film a pleasant if not memorable diversion.
After his latest failure which concluded with him passing out inches from an obstacle course finish line, Paul has hit rock bottom. His daughter and mother encourage him to get on with his life, and look for a woman who will make him happy, (It is learned that his ex-wife only wanted him in her life so she could gain citizenship), and that new opportunities will arise.
The fact that the holidays are coming up is of little consolation, as Paul focuses on his career as a security guard at a local mall where he has worked from the past ten years, With the Black Friday shopping day upcoming, Paul attempts to get closer to the lovely Amy (Jayma Mays), who works at one of the mall’s boutiques.
The fact that Paul is shy and awkward does not help his cause, but in time, he is able to form a friendship with Amy that survives some real obstacles such as a very out of character wild night out which ends in disaster for Paul as his intolerance of alcohol leads to some truly outrageous behavior which embarrasses Amy.
As Paul attempts to recover from his fiasco at the workplace party, he returns to patrol at the mall astride his ever present Segway while a group of thieves secretly plot to take over the mall and rob the various stores.
When the bad guys make their move, Paul is indisposed and is easily overlooked, which in turn keeps him in the dark about what is really happening. When Paul eventually learns what is going on and that Amy is amongst the hostages, he must muster up the courage and abilities he never knew he had in order to save the day and rescue Amy.
What follows is a madcap though slight romp which while not big on over the top laughs has more than enough smiles to keep you amused along the way.
Kevin James is entertaining as the hapless Blart, but he is not given much to work with in his first starring role as the story is very formulaic and restrained which does not allow him to fully display his comedic skills as he did in The King of Queens.
The film was produced by Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison company and was co written by James and Nick Bakay. While it is not a bad film, I had hoped for more as the premise is rife with possibilities and the film comes across as playing it safe rather than taking chances. There is very little offensive in the film so it is appropriate for most families, which despite the flaws, makes the film a pleasant if not memorable diversion.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has pixar got it's mojo back?
Pixar has been on something of a downward trend of late, and that’s something I never thought I’d say. As much as it hurts, films like Cars 3, Finding Dory and The Good Dinosaur just don’t cut the mustard when compared to some of the studio’s greats.
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/