Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Shaun Quarterman (24 KP) rated The Transformers - The Movie (1986) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Robots in disguise
Contains spoilers, click to show
TRANSFORMERS THE MOVIE
This movie is what I like to call a cult classic the first big screen appearance of the Autobots and Decepticons, its appeared after the first two seasons and it shook everything up Transformers as we knew it was over. It starts with a massacre on an Autobot shuttle and many characters died at the hands of Decepticon leader Megatron it shocked me when I first saw this because we had seen two seasons and it was all a bit tame. But the worst was yet to come so let me explain the whole idea of killing off these characters was to make way for future characters and new toy lines we had grown up and loved Ironhide ,and Ratchet, Prowl it definitely threw me the brutality of it shot point blank in the back of the head.
The war continues on Earth and we meet the future of the franchise Ultra Magnus and Hotrod as well as others all made to look futuristic their vehicle modes were Cybertronian which was new and I loved the more space age look about it we meet Daniel Witwicky the son of Spike but there is no sign of sparkplug or an explanation of his whereabouts Carly is Daniels mother. Now comes the part that shocked the world the death of Optimus Prime now let me explain in all versions of Transformers Optimus Prime always dies and the devastating planet Unicron always appears its Transformers lore but this movie defined it I wanted Optimus to destroy Unicron but it wasn’t to be.
Megatron also makes his last appearance with several other Decepticons which evened out the earlier Autobot deaths except they didn’t die they were reanimated by Unicron a new leader was born Galvatron and Cyclonus and Scourge and his dreaded Sweeps then came the death of Starscream it showed the brutality of the new leader, in the first two seasons Starscream would try to overthrow Megatron but he would always get away with it. Galvatron showed no mercy and blasted him straight away.
We are introduced to several new races of Transformers Junkions, Sharkticons and Quintessons all of which have would future appearances in season three and four, we see the friendship blossom between the young Autobot Hotrod and the old warrior Kup and the Dinobots get there action in as well I have always been a big fan of the Dinobots and they save the day again,
The most brilliant thing I had ever seen at the time was the transformation of Unicron a planet to robot I loved the sheer size of it and this final battle brought forth a new leader of the Autobots Rodimus Prime and a new era in Transformers entertainment despite the violence and death it did all make sense plus there are some cameo voices as well Galvatron was voiced by Doctor Spock himself Leonard Nimoy and rodimus prime voiced by Judd Nelson and Unicron was Voiced by orson Wells war of the worlds.
So I must admit this film is a guilty pleasure of mine and I highly recommend it I would advise to watch seasons one and two first just so you can feel how much the movie changed the franchise and the deaths of the characters actually mean more to you so give it a try and see what you think and there is a massive spoiler alert at the end of the movie which is narrated and got the public excited about the next season so enjoy it savour it and soak up this cult classic
This movie is what I like to call a cult classic the first big screen appearance of the Autobots and Decepticons, its appeared after the first two seasons and it shook everything up Transformers as we knew it was over. It starts with a massacre on an Autobot shuttle and many characters died at the hands of Decepticon leader Megatron it shocked me when I first saw this because we had seen two seasons and it was all a bit tame. But the worst was yet to come so let me explain the whole idea of killing off these characters was to make way for future characters and new toy lines we had grown up and loved Ironhide ,and Ratchet, Prowl it definitely threw me the brutality of it shot point blank in the back of the head.
The war continues on Earth and we meet the future of the franchise Ultra Magnus and Hotrod as well as others all made to look futuristic their vehicle modes were Cybertronian which was new and I loved the more space age look about it we meet Daniel Witwicky the son of Spike but there is no sign of sparkplug or an explanation of his whereabouts Carly is Daniels mother. Now comes the part that shocked the world the death of Optimus Prime now let me explain in all versions of Transformers Optimus Prime always dies and the devastating planet Unicron always appears its Transformers lore but this movie defined it I wanted Optimus to destroy Unicron but it wasn’t to be.
Megatron also makes his last appearance with several other Decepticons which evened out the earlier Autobot deaths except they didn’t die they were reanimated by Unicron a new leader was born Galvatron and Cyclonus and Scourge and his dreaded Sweeps then came the death of Starscream it showed the brutality of the new leader, in the first two seasons Starscream would try to overthrow Megatron but he would always get away with it. Galvatron showed no mercy and blasted him straight away.
We are introduced to several new races of Transformers Junkions, Sharkticons and Quintessons all of which have would future appearances in season three and four, we see the friendship blossom between the young Autobot Hotrod and the old warrior Kup and the Dinobots get there action in as well I have always been a big fan of the Dinobots and they save the day again,
The most brilliant thing I had ever seen at the time was the transformation of Unicron a planet to robot I loved the sheer size of it and this final battle brought forth a new leader of the Autobots Rodimus Prime and a new era in Transformers entertainment despite the violence and death it did all make sense plus there are some cameo voices as well Galvatron was voiced by Doctor Spock himself Leonard Nimoy and rodimus prime voiced by Judd Nelson and Unicron was Voiced by orson Wells war of the worlds.
So I must admit this film is a guilty pleasure of mine and I highly recommend it I would advise to watch seasons one and two first just so you can feel how much the movie changed the franchise and the deaths of the characters actually mean more to you so give it a try and see what you think and there is a massive spoiler alert at the end of the movie which is narrated and got the public excited about the next season so enjoy it savour it and soak up this cult classic
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Take a moment and imagine a world where most of humanity has been wiped off the map and those that remain are forced to survive on the remaining resources of a civilization that has been torn apart. In this new existence, leftover technology is coveted like diamonds and massive predator cities prey on weaker smaller cities to steal whatever meager resources they still possess. This is the world of Mortal Engines, the latest Peter Jackson blockbuster based on the young adult novel of the same name by Philip Reeves.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Women: Be the Best Version of Yourselves!
So, after much brouhaha and trolling – probably mostly from woman-hating teenage nerds who can’t get laid – Brie Larson‘s hyper-hero barrels onto our cinema screens.
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Do you like time travel
“It feels like a movie born from a different era.” That is the thought that immediately flooded my brain upon leaving the cinema after watching Venom. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing of course. Hundreds of amazing films have been born well before superhero films became the successful genre they are today.
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Hopefully this truly is Last Blood.
In Sylvester Stallone's fifth and (hopefully) final outing as one-man army John Rambo, we find the eponymous hero enjoying the quiet life on the Texas ranch he returned to at the end of "Rambo (2008)".
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated Beast: The Beginning (Hate Story, #1) in Books
Oct 6, 2017
I loved Beast: The Beginning (Hate Story, #1). From the minute I started reading This I was lost in another world, one of blood, hate and organised crime.
Where being bad was good and innocence is soon corrupted and lost forever.
So beast is about Frankie Notte and Anteros Drago a boss in the Pavoni family.
Frankie trades herself for her Papas life accompanying the beast to a fate unknown.
The Beast himself has every intention of selling Frankie to the Institute to be sold to the highest bidder.
But sometimes the best-laid plans can go awry, as is what happens here, leaving the beast with a slave that he's not quite sure what to do with.
Now, this was described as a dark read, and there is plenty of evidence of that darkness scattered throughout Beast, but behind closed doors, the Beast becomes increasingly fascinated with his new toy and there is at times a surprising gentleness to some of his interactions with Frankie.
He continues to try and keep up a front in front of his wolves as they start to lose confidence in their leader, questioning his actions towards an inconsequential Slave.
There is also a lot of secrets and intrigue running beneath the surface and rumours running amok concerning the Pavoni Princess, even Beast himself starts to listen and doubt what is real.
So dissecting our two main honchos here.
Anteros Drago/ Beast first, he's Ruthless, cruel, seemingly without mercy, he wants to break Frankie reducing her to nothing, he even initially tells her she is nothing.
His Black-heart is dark to the core, he lives for the job having spent years planning, with his wolves there rise to the top of the family from mere foot soldiers.
He appears to have no weaknesses. that is until Frankie slowly starts to thaw his ice-cold heart, not that you would major notice this as he's still a complete bastard to Frankie subjecting her to awful situations to teach her her place and generally playing mind games, belittling her at every turn while fighting his growing affections and deceiving himself regarding his feelings towards her.
Now Frankie herself, she is multi-faceted in regards to what she portrays outwardly.
Shes, not a worldly girl having been ill much of her teenage years, but From day one despite her apprehension, Frankie refuses to back down, sometimes even stupidly goading Beast, She grows so much in character throughout this story, seeming to get stronger with each new trial experienced, she also tries daily to fight her strange attraction towards the Beast that she swears she hates.
When we get the final satisfying reveal, setting us up for book two all players have been moved around into their new places almost like a chess match.
Or maybe even a new blood war.
You can see straight off that the next instalment is going to be very different in regards to changing tides.
So Really well done to the author I can't wait to get stuck into Beauty: The End (Hate Story, #2).
This may have been my first Mary Catherine Gebhard book, but definitely won't be my last.
It's been quite a while since I indulged myself in a good Dark romance and though this was not as dark as some I have read I found this a great addition to its genre.
So Give this a go if you like a good anti-hero romance, happy reading.
Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Where being bad was good and innocence is soon corrupted and lost forever.
So beast is about Frankie Notte and Anteros Drago a boss in the Pavoni family.
Frankie trades herself for her Papas life accompanying the beast to a fate unknown.
The Beast himself has every intention of selling Frankie to the Institute to be sold to the highest bidder.
But sometimes the best-laid plans can go awry, as is what happens here, leaving the beast with a slave that he's not quite sure what to do with.
Now, this was described as a dark read, and there is plenty of evidence of that darkness scattered throughout Beast, but behind closed doors, the Beast becomes increasingly fascinated with his new toy and there is at times a surprising gentleness to some of his interactions with Frankie.
He continues to try and keep up a front in front of his wolves as they start to lose confidence in their leader, questioning his actions towards an inconsequential Slave.
There is also a lot of secrets and intrigue running beneath the surface and rumours running amok concerning the Pavoni Princess, even Beast himself starts to listen and doubt what is real.
So dissecting our two main honchos here.
Anteros Drago/ Beast first, he's Ruthless, cruel, seemingly without mercy, he wants to break Frankie reducing her to nothing, he even initially tells her she is nothing.
His Black-heart is dark to the core, he lives for the job having spent years planning, with his wolves there rise to the top of the family from mere foot soldiers.
He appears to have no weaknesses. that is until Frankie slowly starts to thaw his ice-cold heart, not that you would major notice this as he's still a complete bastard to Frankie subjecting her to awful situations to teach her her place and generally playing mind games, belittling her at every turn while fighting his growing affections and deceiving himself regarding his feelings towards her.
Now Frankie herself, she is multi-faceted in regards to what she portrays outwardly.
Shes, not a worldly girl having been ill much of her teenage years, but From day one despite her apprehension, Frankie refuses to back down, sometimes even stupidly goading Beast, She grows so much in character throughout this story, seeming to get stronger with each new trial experienced, she also tries daily to fight her strange attraction towards the Beast that she swears she hates.
When we get the final satisfying reveal, setting us up for book two all players have been moved around into their new places almost like a chess match.
Or maybe even a new blood war.
You can see straight off that the next instalment is going to be very different in regards to changing tides.
So Really well done to the author I can't wait to get stuck into Beauty: The End (Hate Story, #2).
This may have been my first Mary Catherine Gebhard book, but definitely won't be my last.
It's been quite a while since I indulged myself in a good Dark romance and though this was not as dark as some I have read I found this a great addition to its genre.
So Give this a go if you like a good anti-hero romance, happy reading.
Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Picasso: The Colouring Book in Books
Jul 15, 2017
Educational and Fun
For a full review, including visual examples, please follow this link: https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/20...
...
Pablo Picasso: To Colour In was published in April 2016 with the intention of using the popular fad to educate readers/colouring book enthusiasts about the techniques and secrets of the great master. Each work included in the book has a brief paragraph explaining what it is (in case you cannot tell) and a few details about Picasso’s intentions or the events happening in his life at the time.
...
Naturally, it would be impossible to produce a book of all Picasso’s recorded works, but the editors of this particular colouring book have carefully selected examples that span the majority of his life, thus encompassing the different styles he experimented with.
The author of the text – presumably Frédérique Cassegrain, who also wrote the biography and information for each included artwork – gives helpful advice about how to colour in the outlined versions of Picasso’s paintings. The paper is thick enough to be suitable for paints, particular Gouache, which is water soluble and easily blended. Alternatively, coloured pencils may be used, preferably of artistic quality, which may be more suitable for those less confident in art and design. Another option, although not mentioned by the author, are felt-tip pens. Usually, these should be avoided due to ink bleeding through the page, however, the paper is single sided, so there is no chance of damaging the following colouring page in the book.
Purchasing Pablo Picasso: To Colour In and completing the book, provides not only hours of fun and relaxation, but an opportunity to discover and understand the artist. Unlike at a gallery where the brain may switch off, being able to go away and return to the book gives us time to absorb the information and concentrate more clearly on the details of each painting.
Opposite each colouring page is a copy of the original in full colour, meaning that, if one desired, one could replicate Picasso’s work as closely as possible. By doing, rather than just looking, we begin to understand the colour choices, piece together the geometric shapes to form an image and begin to understand the thought processes of the artist.
Interestingly, there are two paintings that stand out amongst all the others. These were produced during and after the First World War, a time when Picasso returned to a more classical style of artwork. These are The Pipes of Pan (1923) and The Bathers (1918). Both show a completely different side to Picasso and would not immediately be recognised as his own work. Despite not being entirely life-like, there are no elements of Cubism or Surrealism and the colour palette is altogether natural. Picasso has focused on shading and tone to create a realistic appearance, a contrast to the flattened portraits he is known for.
...
Pablo Picasso: To Colour In will appeal to artists, art historians and other creatives with its contrast of light relief and in-depth knowledge. The book is available online at retailers such as Amazon and The Book Depository from approximately £6. If Picasso is not your thing, there are other artists available in the series of colouring books, including Klimt, Hokusai (Japanese Art), Monet, Van Gogh, Caillebotte and Manet (Impressionists), and Paul Klee. Whatever your preference, prepare to learn whilst you are relaxing and having fun.
...
Pablo Picasso: To Colour In was published in April 2016 with the intention of using the popular fad to educate readers/colouring book enthusiasts about the techniques and secrets of the great master. Each work included in the book has a brief paragraph explaining what it is (in case you cannot tell) and a few details about Picasso’s intentions or the events happening in his life at the time.
...
Naturally, it would be impossible to produce a book of all Picasso’s recorded works, but the editors of this particular colouring book have carefully selected examples that span the majority of his life, thus encompassing the different styles he experimented with.
The author of the text – presumably Frédérique Cassegrain, who also wrote the biography and information for each included artwork – gives helpful advice about how to colour in the outlined versions of Picasso’s paintings. The paper is thick enough to be suitable for paints, particular Gouache, which is water soluble and easily blended. Alternatively, coloured pencils may be used, preferably of artistic quality, which may be more suitable for those less confident in art and design. Another option, although not mentioned by the author, are felt-tip pens. Usually, these should be avoided due to ink bleeding through the page, however, the paper is single sided, so there is no chance of damaging the following colouring page in the book.
Purchasing Pablo Picasso: To Colour In and completing the book, provides not only hours of fun and relaxation, but an opportunity to discover and understand the artist. Unlike at a gallery where the brain may switch off, being able to go away and return to the book gives us time to absorb the information and concentrate more clearly on the details of each painting.
Opposite each colouring page is a copy of the original in full colour, meaning that, if one desired, one could replicate Picasso’s work as closely as possible. By doing, rather than just looking, we begin to understand the colour choices, piece together the geometric shapes to form an image and begin to understand the thought processes of the artist.
Interestingly, there are two paintings that stand out amongst all the others. These were produced during and after the First World War, a time when Picasso returned to a more classical style of artwork. These are The Pipes of Pan (1923) and The Bathers (1918). Both show a completely different side to Picasso and would not immediately be recognised as his own work. Despite not being entirely life-like, there are no elements of Cubism or Surrealism and the colour palette is altogether natural. Picasso has focused on shading and tone to create a realistic appearance, a contrast to the flattened portraits he is known for.
...
Pablo Picasso: To Colour In will appeal to artists, art historians and other creatives with its contrast of light relief and in-depth knowledge. The book is available online at retailers such as Amazon and The Book Depository from approximately £6. If Picasso is not your thing, there are other artists available in the series of colouring books, including Klimt, Hokusai (Japanese Art), Monet, Van Gogh, Caillebotte and Manet (Impressionists), and Paul Klee. Whatever your preference, prepare to learn whilst you are relaxing and having fun.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/