Search
Seconds - Interval Timer
Health & Fitness and Utilities
App
LOOK NO FURTHER, you have just found the most advanced interval training timer on the App Store....
Seconds Pro Interval Timer
Health & Fitness and Utilities
App
LOOK NO FURTHER, you have just found the most advanced interval timer on the App Store. Seconds has...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 15, 2020
A lot of squawking birds
Although not saying much, Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn was one of the best thing in the lacklustre D.C. outing “Suicide Squad” of 2016. Now, she returns in her own vehicle. Jared Leto’s Joker is a thing of the past (clearly he wasn’t keen on dredging up the past for even a cameo in this one).
Harley had spent years building up a catalog of enemies in Gotham, with no-one daring to lift a finger for fear of “the big J’s” retribution. With that now a thing of the past, the streets are no longer safe for Harley. Whereas most characters have a reason to want to kill Harley, mid-level gangster Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) has a list as long as his arm (a blurred list that will probably make freeze-framing of the blu-ray entertaining!). Roman, who has a penchant for having his right-hand man Victor (Chris Messina) de-glove his victim’s faces, has his heart set on obtaining a missing diamond that (McGuffin-alert) is engraved with account details to $billions.
Through a convoluted and messy plot, Harley meets various ‘birds of prey’ who are either friend or foe: notably young pickpocket Cassandra (Ella Jay Basco); cop Renée Montoya (Rosie Perez); the “Crossbow Killer” (Mary Elizabeth Winstead); and the “Black Canary” (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), who you don’t want to let near your best glasses.
As you might expect from your knowledge of Harley Quinn’s character, the movie is bat-shit crazy, with periodic breaking of the 4th wall; much acrobatic kick-boxing; and some random dream sequences….. Robbie as Marilyn is particularly entertaining, although at times (the ‘egg sandwich’ sequence in particular) the gurning made me muse to myself about just what a good film “I, Tonya” was.
It all comes across as something of a “Deadpool” sequel. Actually, I’d more describe it as “Deadpool-lite” since it’s not powered here by the charisma of Ryan Reynolds. However, I did find myself quite enjoying the first reel of the movie.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
It all just becomes incredibly tiresome. Although Margot Robbie is very good in the role, Harley’s incessant squawking just gets annoying.
Also in this battle of men vs women, the women always win and are (mostly) completely unscathed. In one particular scene there are 5 or 6 burly men taking on Harley: clearly she whips their sorry asses in improbable fashion. What? Only one at a time guys?
If you were confused by the timeline of “Little Women“, this will blow your mind! It makes Greta Gerwig‘s masterpiece look as linear as “News at Ten”! It’s really difficult to follow at times as the timeline flashes forwards and backwards and sideways at random!
Also confusing (for me anyway… did I have a nap?) was the finale. There’s something to do with a ring which made NO SENSE to me at all? Am I alone in that?
Ewan MacGregor has fun with his role as the gay (I assume?) gangster, but it all turns cartoonish at times. But perhaps, that’s the point? However while the violence in “Deadpool” was cartoonishly funny (as in Tom and Jerry) the violence here is decidedly of the vicious and unpleasant variety, with a vindictive edge. It makes you not particularly like any of the movie’s characters.
The movie is written by Christina Hodson, who is slated to write too more upcoming superhero films: “The Flash” and “Batgirl”. The director is Chinese director Cathy Yan in only her second directorial feature.
Summary: It’s loud and brash and at 109 minutes it overstays its welcome by about 20 minutes. Less would have been more. It’s somewhat better than “Suicide Squad” (which I unfathomably seem to have given 2.5 stars to), but it’s still a movie that I will struggle to remember in a month’s time.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-birds-of-prey-and-the-fantabulous-emancipation-of-one-harley-quinn-2020/
Harley had spent years building up a catalog of enemies in Gotham, with no-one daring to lift a finger for fear of “the big J’s” retribution. With that now a thing of the past, the streets are no longer safe for Harley. Whereas most characters have a reason to want to kill Harley, mid-level gangster Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) has a list as long as his arm (a blurred list that will probably make freeze-framing of the blu-ray entertaining!). Roman, who has a penchant for having his right-hand man Victor (Chris Messina) de-glove his victim’s faces, has his heart set on obtaining a missing diamond that (McGuffin-alert) is engraved with account details to $billions.
Through a convoluted and messy plot, Harley meets various ‘birds of prey’ who are either friend or foe: notably young pickpocket Cassandra (Ella Jay Basco); cop Renée Montoya (Rosie Perez); the “Crossbow Killer” (Mary Elizabeth Winstead); and the “Black Canary” (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), who you don’t want to let near your best glasses.
As you might expect from your knowledge of Harley Quinn’s character, the movie is bat-shit crazy, with periodic breaking of the 4th wall; much acrobatic kick-boxing; and some random dream sequences….. Robbie as Marilyn is particularly entertaining, although at times (the ‘egg sandwich’ sequence in particular) the gurning made me muse to myself about just what a good film “I, Tonya” was.
It all comes across as something of a “Deadpool” sequel. Actually, I’d more describe it as “Deadpool-lite” since it’s not powered here by the charisma of Ryan Reynolds. However, I did find myself quite enjoying the first reel of the movie.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
It all just becomes incredibly tiresome. Although Margot Robbie is very good in the role, Harley’s incessant squawking just gets annoying.
Also in this battle of men vs women, the women always win and are (mostly) completely unscathed. In one particular scene there are 5 or 6 burly men taking on Harley: clearly she whips their sorry asses in improbable fashion. What? Only one at a time guys?
If you were confused by the timeline of “Little Women“, this will blow your mind! It makes Greta Gerwig‘s masterpiece look as linear as “News at Ten”! It’s really difficult to follow at times as the timeline flashes forwards and backwards and sideways at random!
Also confusing (for me anyway… did I have a nap?) was the finale. There’s something to do with a ring which made NO SENSE to me at all? Am I alone in that?
Ewan MacGregor has fun with his role as the gay (I assume?) gangster, but it all turns cartoonish at times. But perhaps, that’s the point? However while the violence in “Deadpool” was cartoonishly funny (as in Tom and Jerry) the violence here is decidedly of the vicious and unpleasant variety, with a vindictive edge. It makes you not particularly like any of the movie’s characters.
The movie is written by Christina Hodson, who is slated to write too more upcoming superhero films: “The Flash” and “Batgirl”. The director is Chinese director Cathy Yan in only her second directorial feature.
Summary: It’s loud and brash and at 109 minutes it overstays its welcome by about 20 minutes. Less would have been more. It’s somewhat better than “Suicide Squad” (which I unfathomably seem to have given 2.5 stars to), but it’s still a movie that I will struggle to remember in a month’s time.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-birds-of-prey-and-the-fantabulous-emancipation-of-one-harley-quinn-2020/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated That Night in Books
Apr 8, 2019
I cannot recommend this book enough, for teens and adults alike
It's been a year since the shooting in their town changed everything, and Jessica Nolan and Lucas Rossi are each trying to manage in their own way. Jess is trying to care for her severely depressed mom, who can barely get out of bed. That means helping pay the bills, cook the meals, and generally take care of everything. She misses her best friend desperately, but Marissa is across the country at a school for those suffering post traumatic stress. Meanwhile, Lucas is coping by taking up boxing. It helps relieve some of his stress and anxiety--and get him away from the watchful eye of his newly overprotective mom. When Jess and Lucas meet at their after-school job, they realize they have one big thing in common: their shared tragedy. It's not exactly something they want to share. But slowly the two become friends. Can they help each other move forward from some of the horrors they've been through?
Oh this book. This beautiful, sad, lovely book. It's such an immersive, amazing read. Giles gives such a great voice to her characters; even though the book has a sad topic at its core, it's also hopeful and touching, and you want to keep reading it. You know how some books seem to go out of their way to have unlikeable characters and you have to like the book in spite of them? This book is the opposite. I dare you to not fall in love with Jess and Lucas. And, oh my goodness, my heart just went out to these kids. Poor Jess. She has so much to deal with it, and so does Lucas, too. The guilt these kids feel at being alive--Giles does such an amazing job at portraying their feelings and emotions. They come across so realistically and starkly. It also portrays mental illness very well: real, without embarrassment and shame; I was impressed and heartened. What a great thing for teens to read.
I really enjoyed the fact that this novel featured a sweet romance, but not a typical one. Jess and Lucas clearly like each other, but don't immediately "meet cute" or fall for each other the second they meet. You can see they need each other, but it takes them time to get there, which I appreciated. Their relationship is really well-done, and it was lovely to read about.
As you've probably read, Giles made the deliberate decision not to write about the actual shooting in the book--it's just the background event that has shaped so much of our characters' lives. We don't even hear about who the shooter was. I really like this decision, because we get to see the horror that a mass shooting can leave behind, without going into the sensational details. Instead we see, close-up, the humanity behind it--the real people affected and how much their lives have changed. There are sad moments mixed in with sweet and funny in such a beautiful way. It's incredibly well-written and I thought it was a very smart way to frame a shooting: it's almost more profound this way, honestly.
The depth of emotion in this book--the sadness, the unhappiness--and even sometimes the hope--is staggering. Honestly, this book left me in tears, and I don't cry easily when I read. As I said, I fell in love with Jess and Lucas. They were real people to me, and it takes an excellent writer to bring your characters to such detailed life as Giles did in this novel. I waited to read this book--after absolutely loving Giles' novel NOW IS EVERYTHING (which also made me cry!)--until my library got in my copy, which I had them order. I'm proud to say my lovely library system now has three copies of this book now, but I'll also be purchasing my own copy, because it's that good.
Overall, I cannot recommend this book enough, for teens and adults alike. This novel made me cry, and it made me laugh. I loved its characters and their supporting cast. It offers such a powerful way to look at the aftermath of a mass shooting. It's profound and poignant, and the way it conveys the terror, sadness, and hope of its characters cannot be praised enough. 4.5+ stars.
(Also, this book is full of Young Frankenstein references, as if I could not love Giles or her characters more.)
Oh this book. This beautiful, sad, lovely book. It's such an immersive, amazing read. Giles gives such a great voice to her characters; even though the book has a sad topic at its core, it's also hopeful and touching, and you want to keep reading it. You know how some books seem to go out of their way to have unlikeable characters and you have to like the book in spite of them? This book is the opposite. I dare you to not fall in love with Jess and Lucas. And, oh my goodness, my heart just went out to these kids. Poor Jess. She has so much to deal with it, and so does Lucas, too. The guilt these kids feel at being alive--Giles does such an amazing job at portraying their feelings and emotions. They come across so realistically and starkly. It also portrays mental illness very well: real, without embarrassment and shame; I was impressed and heartened. What a great thing for teens to read.
I really enjoyed the fact that this novel featured a sweet romance, but not a typical one. Jess and Lucas clearly like each other, but don't immediately "meet cute" or fall for each other the second they meet. You can see they need each other, but it takes them time to get there, which I appreciated. Their relationship is really well-done, and it was lovely to read about.
As you've probably read, Giles made the deliberate decision not to write about the actual shooting in the book--it's just the background event that has shaped so much of our characters' lives. We don't even hear about who the shooter was. I really like this decision, because we get to see the horror that a mass shooting can leave behind, without going into the sensational details. Instead we see, close-up, the humanity behind it--the real people affected and how much their lives have changed. There are sad moments mixed in with sweet and funny in such a beautiful way. It's incredibly well-written and I thought it was a very smart way to frame a shooting: it's almost more profound this way, honestly.
The depth of emotion in this book--the sadness, the unhappiness--and even sometimes the hope--is staggering. Honestly, this book left me in tears, and I don't cry easily when I read. As I said, I fell in love with Jess and Lucas. They were real people to me, and it takes an excellent writer to bring your characters to such detailed life as Giles did in this novel. I waited to read this book--after absolutely loving Giles' novel NOW IS EVERYTHING (which also made me cry!)--until my library got in my copy, which I had them order. I'm proud to say my lovely library system now has three copies of this book now, but I'll also be purchasing my own copy, because it's that good.
Overall, I cannot recommend this book enough, for teens and adults alike. This novel made me cry, and it made me laugh. I loved its characters and their supporting cast. It offers such a powerful way to look at the aftermath of a mass shooting. It's profound and poignant, and the way it conveys the terror, sadness, and hope of its characters cannot be praised enough. 4.5+ stars.
(Also, this book is full of Young Frankenstein references, as if I could not love Giles or her characters more.)
Monacello: The Little Monk: Book 1
Geraldine McCaughrean and Jana Diemberger
Book
A haunting legend from the Undercity of Naples "Goblin" "Gremlin!" "Demon!" Strange little creature....