Search
The Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes
10.0
Rate It
Book
The Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle are the complete adventures of the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Father (2020) in Movies
Jun 12, 2021
Dementia twists the strands of Anthony’s personal multiverse
Anthony (Anthony Hopkins) is elderly and living in his flat. His daughter Anne (Olivia Colman) keeps dropping by to check he is OK. But is this right? Strange things keep happening to him, from losing his watch to having strange people turn up at the flat. For Anthony is battling against dementia, and reality and fantasy are not quite as distinct as they once were.
Positives:
- I was one of those disappointed that Chadwick Boseman didn’t posthumously win the Best Actor Oscar for “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”. But, boy oh boy, after seeing this I am fully supportive of the Academy’s position. Anthony Hopkins has delivered some astonishingly powerful performances during his career – from the tortured ventriloquist in “Magic”, to Hannibal Lector to the elderly pope in “The Two Popes”. But he really excels himself here, tapping both your emotions and your sympathies as the confused and terrified old man.
- The Oscar- and BAFTA-winning screenplay by Florian Zeller, based on his stage play, is devastating, subtly twisting the knife. It will be particularly telling/upsetting for those who are getting on in years and/or have/had elderly parents affected by dementia. I would personally not have included (being deliberately vague) the “Williams entry” scene in the trailer, since it is a jolt of a twist in the film. But there are so many other clever devices in the screenplay that you don’t see coming. The ending in particular is brutal on the emotions.
- The production design (an Oscar nomination for Peter Francis and Cathy Featherstone) is ingenious, as the set subtly and progressively transforms. Almost a ‘spot the difference’ in movie form.
- The score by Ludovico Einaudi uses atonal strings to great effect, as Anthony’s reality keeps shifting from under him.
Negatives:
- I’ve nothing here, hence my 10-bomb rating. I’ve seen some reviews that have thought that the movie was too “stagey” (which is a criticism I have levelled before at a bunch of “stage to screen” adaptations such as “Fences” and – more recently – “One Night in Miami” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom“). But I really didn’t feel that way about “The Father”. The claustrophobic nature of the plot was well served I thought by the (largely) single set location.
Summary Thoughts on “The Father”: Dementia is a cruel and heartless disease that robs any affected elderly person of their memories, logic and – ultimately – their dignity. I thought the movie was extremely clever in reflecting this decline, anchored by the astonishing career-best performance from Sir Anthony Hopkins. But this in turns makes this a very hard watch indeed!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies post here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/12/the-father-dementia-twists-the-strands-of-anthonys-personal-multiverse/ . Thanks.
Positives:
- I was one of those disappointed that Chadwick Boseman didn’t posthumously win the Best Actor Oscar for “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”. But, boy oh boy, after seeing this I am fully supportive of the Academy’s position. Anthony Hopkins has delivered some astonishingly powerful performances during his career – from the tortured ventriloquist in “Magic”, to Hannibal Lector to the elderly pope in “The Two Popes”. But he really excels himself here, tapping both your emotions and your sympathies as the confused and terrified old man.
- The Oscar- and BAFTA-winning screenplay by Florian Zeller, based on his stage play, is devastating, subtly twisting the knife. It will be particularly telling/upsetting for those who are getting on in years and/or have/had elderly parents affected by dementia. I would personally not have included (being deliberately vague) the “Williams entry” scene in the trailer, since it is a jolt of a twist in the film. But there are so many other clever devices in the screenplay that you don’t see coming. The ending in particular is brutal on the emotions.
- The production design (an Oscar nomination for Peter Francis and Cathy Featherstone) is ingenious, as the set subtly and progressively transforms. Almost a ‘spot the difference’ in movie form.
- The score by Ludovico Einaudi uses atonal strings to great effect, as Anthony’s reality keeps shifting from under him.
Negatives:
- I’ve nothing here, hence my 10-bomb rating. I’ve seen some reviews that have thought that the movie was too “stagey” (which is a criticism I have levelled before at a bunch of “stage to screen” adaptations such as “Fences” and – more recently – “One Night in Miami” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom“). But I really didn’t feel that way about “The Father”. The claustrophobic nature of the plot was well served I thought by the (largely) single set location.
Summary Thoughts on “The Father”: Dementia is a cruel and heartless disease that robs any affected elderly person of their memories, logic and – ultimately – their dignity. I thought the movie was extremely clever in reflecting this decline, anchored by the astonishing career-best performance from Sir Anthony Hopkins. But this in turns makes this a very hard watch indeed!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies post here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/12/the-father-dementia-twists-the-strands-of-anthonys-personal-multiverse/ . Thanks.
Church Organ
Music and Entertainment
1.0
Rate It
App
rDid you even dreamed to carry a big Church Organ in your pocket, to play while travelling or...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Yet another missfire
It’s hard to remember such a lacklustre summer blockbuster season. From unnecessary sequels to underwhelming novel adaptations, it’s been one disappointment after another.
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Giver (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Striking visual translation
Over the last decade, cinema-going audiences have had the treat of numerous adaptations of popular young adult novels. Some of them have been particularly great – the Harry Potter series the highlight – whilst others have been less than stellar – Twilight, I’m looking at you.
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
PAHO/WHO Cardiovascular Risk Calculator
Medical and Utilities
App
Pan American Health Organization commissioned GEDIC and Pixeloide Studios for the development of...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Spielberg, where are you?
Roald Dahl’s inspiring novels have had a chequered history when it comes to turning them into films. Danny DeVito’s Matilda is widely regarded as one of the best adaptations, with Tim Burton’s Charlie & the Chocolate Factory rendered a monstrosity by fans of the author and movie critics alike.
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Make sure you take a pillow
Horror buffs and Stephen King fans everywhere have been waiting for this moment since 2009. It is of course, a modern adaptation of the author’s novel, IT.
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/