Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Slightly Disappointed
So, here we are. At last. After a couple of great movies, a really poor third movie and a disastrous reboot/sequel, it was beginning to look as though one of our all time favourite superheroes was never going to get another movie to do him justice. And then, in what was already a hero packed, action roller-coaster of a movie, Spider-Man finally returned home to Marvel in spectacular fashion during Captain America: Civil War. A fantastic portrayal of Peter Parker and an even better Spider-Man, it was enough to leave us wanting more and enough to get us pretty excited when standalone movie Homecoming was announced soon after.
Ok, so I’ve been trying to think about how I feel after watching it, and it’s a tough one. This is a Spider-Man movie by Marvel that feels closer to how a Spider-Man movie should be than any of the previous movies before it. And Tom Holland is just a perfect Peter Parker. But, I kind of felt disappointed by it. It didn’t thrill me as much as other Marvel movies, and certainly not as much as Civil War did. When Spider-Man shows up in Civil War, he’s an enthusiastic teen with a lot to learn, but he still manages to pull off some pretty jaw dropping action. In Homecoming it just feels like the momentum has been lost – too much awkward teen, not enough action hero. The awe and thrill of swooping through the New York skyline that we got in the first Spider-Man movie, there’s nothing like that here. I wonder if, for me anyway, it’s some kind of superhero fatigue. But then I didn’t feel that way about Wonder Woman recently, so I’m just not sure. I just can’t quite put my finger on it. I feel ashamed of myself for not liking it as much as I was expecting!
Most of the big action pieces, such as the Staten Island ferry scene, have already been shown pretty much on their entirety during the trailer. And the climax, involving Spidey and Vulture on a plane, is fairly difficult to follow, as it’s set in the dark with the plane veering out of control. Probably the most impressive sequence is on the Washington monument, a traditional lift-about-to-fall scenario. Spidey is struggling to get used to his upgraded suit, he’s nervous about being so high up (and so are we, this scene is very well done) and he’s unsure of what to do best to save the day. It’s a tense scene, perfectly handled and we really feel for Peter Parker.
There’s plenty of humour and heart throughout and a good supporting cast. Michael Keaton is impressive and suitably menacing as The Vulture and Robert Downey Jr is… well, his usual self. I just hope that as part of the next Avengers movie and beyond, I feel a bit more impressed next time than I did after this.
Ok, so I’ve been trying to think about how I feel after watching it, and it’s a tough one. This is a Spider-Man movie by Marvel that feels closer to how a Spider-Man movie should be than any of the previous movies before it. And Tom Holland is just a perfect Peter Parker. But, I kind of felt disappointed by it. It didn’t thrill me as much as other Marvel movies, and certainly not as much as Civil War did. When Spider-Man shows up in Civil War, he’s an enthusiastic teen with a lot to learn, but he still manages to pull off some pretty jaw dropping action. In Homecoming it just feels like the momentum has been lost – too much awkward teen, not enough action hero. The awe and thrill of swooping through the New York skyline that we got in the first Spider-Man movie, there’s nothing like that here. I wonder if, for me anyway, it’s some kind of superhero fatigue. But then I didn’t feel that way about Wonder Woman recently, so I’m just not sure. I just can’t quite put my finger on it. I feel ashamed of myself for not liking it as much as I was expecting!
Most of the big action pieces, such as the Staten Island ferry scene, have already been shown pretty much on their entirety during the trailer. And the climax, involving Spidey and Vulture on a plane, is fairly difficult to follow, as it’s set in the dark with the plane veering out of control. Probably the most impressive sequence is on the Washington monument, a traditional lift-about-to-fall scenario. Spidey is struggling to get used to his upgraded suit, he’s nervous about being so high up (and so are we, this scene is very well done) and he’s unsure of what to do best to save the day. It’s a tense scene, perfectly handled and we really feel for Peter Parker.
There’s plenty of humour and heart throughout and a good supporting cast. Michael Keaton is impressive and suitably menacing as The Vulture and Robert Downey Jr is… well, his usual self. I just hope that as part of the next Avengers movie and beyond, I feel a bit more impressed next time than I did after this.
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 Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
More of the same
After the phenomenal success of Captain America: Civil War, the multiplexes have calmed down a little; that is until the release of X-Men: Apocalypse next week.
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dad's Army (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Full of wasted British talent
I may be fairly young in years, but I grew up around comedies like Only Fools & Horses, One Foot in the Grave and of course Dad’s Army. I remember many evenings sitting at home with my dad as he cried with laughter at all three, though it was the latter’s influence that stuck with me the most.
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Silence for the Dead in Books
Mar 29, 2018
Good ghost story, slow dragged out ending
Anything to do with a horror ghost theme and an asylum has to be good right? Well, yes and no. The book was somewhat enjoyable to read but it had its’ moments.
The plot itself was good. It had the elements of a good gothic theme - not scary enough to make people read it in daytime (seriously?) but it had some good decent creep factor in it. It’s enough to set the mood and theme of the book but nothing to make the skin crawl. The element of mystery was also there and the ghost story aspect was good - nothing to blind side you - except perhaps for a little twist in the end (with where the ghost was and who was it manipulating etc etc). It’s pretty much a stable plot with all the main points closed (or is it? *queue creepy organ music*) so I’d have to say the gothic ghost story was what was in it for me.
Character wise. Kitty is likable. She’s resourceful, and a survivor from horrible abuse. Big applause for her for being strong and able to stand up and survive through various ordeals. Captain Mabry stood out for me because I enjoyed reading about his character. He seemed to be the strong stable silent type in the asylum where you have various patients with various issues (most were casualties of World War One) and there was a certain calmness about him that made him likable.
It’s pretty much obvious Kitty and Jack were to be together. The romance aspect in the book was all right. Necessary? I’m not sure perhaps. It’s not really for me. When their romance was more cemented was where the book was starting to take a slight turn downhill.
So near the ending when everything was revealed, all plot holes start to close. Sometimes, depending on the writing, you can stretch it out and make it interesting. Or you can make it drag. This one, unfortunately drags. We’re done with the ghosts, everything was answered, and the last 30 pages or so I just wanted the book to end. The romance of Kitty and Jack intensify and this is where intense eye rolling is also induced. Dear Lord, am I reading this just to see if there’s a scary twist at the end? Or am I wasting my time? Well sadly, I wasted my time. It was good to see what happened to characters like Mabry, and even Matron, but it just dragged way too much. Yeah okay we get it Kitty and Jack forever. Why do we need so many pages of this, am I suddenly reading a romance now?
Other than the ghost story in this book, the romance nearly killed it for me and a dragged out ending. Perhaps a nice twist in the ending would be nice. Or maybe skim the 30 pages and be done. I would say take it or leave it with this book. It was moderately enjoyable for me.
The plot itself was good. It had the elements of a good gothic theme - not scary enough to make people read it in daytime (seriously?) but it had some good decent creep factor in it. It’s enough to set the mood and theme of the book but nothing to make the skin crawl. The element of mystery was also there and the ghost story aspect was good - nothing to blind side you - except perhaps for a little twist in the end (with where the ghost was and who was it manipulating etc etc). It’s pretty much a stable plot with all the main points closed (or is it? *queue creepy organ music*) so I’d have to say the gothic ghost story was what was in it for me.
Character wise. Kitty is likable. She’s resourceful, and a survivor from horrible abuse. Big applause for her for being strong and able to stand up and survive through various ordeals. Captain Mabry stood out for me because I enjoyed reading about his character. He seemed to be the strong stable silent type in the asylum where you have various patients with various issues (most were casualties of World War One) and there was a certain calmness about him that made him likable.
It’s pretty much obvious Kitty and Jack were to be together. The romance aspect in the book was all right. Necessary? I’m not sure perhaps. It’s not really for me. When their romance was more cemented was where the book was starting to take a slight turn downhill.
So near the ending when everything was revealed, all plot holes start to close. Sometimes, depending on the writing, you can stretch it out and make it interesting. Or you can make it drag. This one, unfortunately drags. We’re done with the ghosts, everything was answered, and the last 30 pages or so I just wanted the book to end. The romance of Kitty and Jack intensify and this is where intense eye rolling is also induced. Dear Lord, am I reading this just to see if there’s a scary twist at the end? Or am I wasting my time? Well sadly, I wasted my time. It was good to see what happened to characters like Mabry, and even Matron, but it just dragged way too much. Yeah okay we get it Kitty and Jack forever. Why do we need so many pages of this, am I suddenly reading a romance now?
Other than the ghost story in this book, the romance nearly killed it for me and a dragged out ending. Perhaps a nice twist in the ending would be nice. Or maybe skim the 30 pages and be done. I would say take it or leave it with this book. It was moderately enjoyable for me.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 100 Streets (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 100 Streets starts as we meet our characters, troublemaking drug dealing thief Kingsley (Dramah), former rugby player Max (Elba) who is going through a marriage problem after his own affair with his wife Emily (Arterton) who in an act of revenge is dating photographer Jake (Cullen). The final couple we meet are cabbie George (Creed-Miles) and Kathy (Wareing) who are trying to adopt a child, though his past is causing problems in this pursuit.
As the lives cross-paths the people must learn about the mistakes they make to prevent themselves from making any more mistakes.
Thoughts on 100 Streets
Characters – Max is a former England rugby captain, since retiring he started cheating on his wife and getting caught up with the drugs, seeing his future career going up in smoke, he needs to clean up his own actions in any hope of winning his wife back. Emily is the wife of Max who has been going through the struggles of her husbands action, thinking about getting back into acting and trying to move on with her life. Kingsley is the streetwise drug dealing thief that has been caught up against the law, even though he believes he could go onto something bigger, he receives the guidance required to escape this life. We have a cabbie that makes a terrible mistake and must learn to live with the consequences and a photographer that wants to be part of Emily’s life.
Performances – Idris Elba, Gemma Arterton are both great in their roles in the film, we know and expect it from them. Elsewhere we get the less known actors in Franz Drameh and Charlie Creed-Miles that shine in this film.
Story – The story follows the lives of three people, the problems they are facing and the changes that will define them. We get three different worlds, one is the celebrity world and marriage, where the vices can control someone, the middle-class who just want normal lives which can fall apart from past action and the lower-class that must fight for a chance or face the same circles of crime. The way the three lives cross without interaction shows how people can be going through their own struggles meters away from you. Each life will be changed by the events in the film, which is important to see and we can see how theses moments can do the moments that create a future.
Settings – The film is set in London with the idea that we are within 100 streets of each other, in a position where lives can cross paves.
Scene of the Movie – Leaving the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not sure what will happen with Jake next.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully engaging drama that shows the lives people are living without you knowing within metres of your own life. Strong performances throughout do help the film stand out too.
Overall: Drama well worth watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/02/gemma-arterton-weekend-100-streets-2016/
As the lives cross-paths the people must learn about the mistakes they make to prevent themselves from making any more mistakes.
Thoughts on 100 Streets
Characters – Max is a former England rugby captain, since retiring he started cheating on his wife and getting caught up with the drugs, seeing his future career going up in smoke, he needs to clean up his own actions in any hope of winning his wife back. Emily is the wife of Max who has been going through the struggles of her husbands action, thinking about getting back into acting and trying to move on with her life. Kingsley is the streetwise drug dealing thief that has been caught up against the law, even though he believes he could go onto something bigger, he receives the guidance required to escape this life. We have a cabbie that makes a terrible mistake and must learn to live with the consequences and a photographer that wants to be part of Emily’s life.
Performances – Idris Elba, Gemma Arterton are both great in their roles in the film, we know and expect it from them. Elsewhere we get the less known actors in Franz Drameh and Charlie Creed-Miles that shine in this film.
Story – The story follows the lives of three people, the problems they are facing and the changes that will define them. We get three different worlds, one is the celebrity world and marriage, where the vices can control someone, the middle-class who just want normal lives which can fall apart from past action and the lower-class that must fight for a chance or face the same circles of crime. The way the three lives cross without interaction shows how people can be going through their own struggles meters away from you. Each life will be changed by the events in the film, which is important to see and we can see how theses moments can do the moments that create a future.
Settings – The film is set in London with the idea that we are within 100 streets of each other, in a position where lives can cross paves.
Scene of the Movie – Leaving the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not sure what will happen with Jake next.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully engaging drama that shows the lives people are living without you knowing within metres of your own life. Strong performances throughout do help the film stand out too.
Overall: Drama well worth watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/02/gemma-arterton-weekend-100-streets-2016/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Far Cry (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
On a remote island in the Pacific Northwest, a scientist named Dr. Krieger (Udo Kier) is conducting horrific genetic experiments in his secret facility.
Krieger is attempting to create the ultimate soldier for his financial backers and is not above using his own men as test subjects and fodder for his experiments as the morally lacking Krieger only cares about his work and his funding.
In the film “Far Cry”, Director Uwe Boll has taken the classic 3D shooter from Ubisoft and given it his own unique interpretation.
The film stars Til Schweiger as Jack Carver, a former special forces operative who spends his days as a boat captain chartering tourists on whale watching expeditions when he is not enjoying a beer and sleeping the day away.
Jack is hired by a determined investigative reporter named Valerie Cardinal (Emmanuelle Vaugier), to take her to the island so she can get further proof for her story about the bizarre experiments taking place on the island. Valerie has a personal interest in the story as her uncle Max (Ralf Moeller), is one of those stationed at the island facility.
While Jack is reluctant to go near the island he does agree to anchor of the coast and pick up Valerie in a few hours. Of course things do not go as planned as Valerie is captured and Jack’s boat is destroyed leaving him believed to be dead by the Doctor and his forces.
Jack is not one to let this go, and rescues Valerie and looks to find a way off the island while avoiding the ever present troops. The stubborn Valerie is unwilling to leave until she has the information she needs for her story and ignores the dangers.
As if the Doctor and his soldiers were not trouble enough, the super soldiers have escaped and have caused various factions within the Dr’s forces to turn against one another which results in a pitched battle between the factions and the super soldiers.
What follows is a lot of action that is hampered by a weak plot and bad dialogue, and sadly very disappointing monsters.
The leads in the film have very little chemistry with one another and the characters are wafer thin, even by action movie standards. There are attempts at romance and playful banter that fizzle badly leaving only the action sequences to carry the film. Sadly while they are decent enough, especially a good car chase, they cannot overcome the plot issues and the creatures that do not live up to the hype.
Boll has taken a step back here as his recent films have shown progress especially the solid
“Seed” and “1968 Tunnel Rats”. When I visited the set I learned that the production was not allowed to use large aspects of the game and that aside from names, title, and settings, they had to create a new story that was inspired by the game. While the effort is there, the results come up lacking and do not do justice to the game, premise, or talent assembled.
Krieger is attempting to create the ultimate soldier for his financial backers and is not above using his own men as test subjects and fodder for his experiments as the morally lacking Krieger only cares about his work and his funding.
In the film “Far Cry”, Director Uwe Boll has taken the classic 3D shooter from Ubisoft and given it his own unique interpretation.
The film stars Til Schweiger as Jack Carver, a former special forces operative who spends his days as a boat captain chartering tourists on whale watching expeditions when he is not enjoying a beer and sleeping the day away.
Jack is hired by a determined investigative reporter named Valerie Cardinal (Emmanuelle Vaugier), to take her to the island so she can get further proof for her story about the bizarre experiments taking place on the island. Valerie has a personal interest in the story as her uncle Max (Ralf Moeller), is one of those stationed at the island facility.
While Jack is reluctant to go near the island he does agree to anchor of the coast and pick up Valerie in a few hours. Of course things do not go as planned as Valerie is captured and Jack’s boat is destroyed leaving him believed to be dead by the Doctor and his forces.
Jack is not one to let this go, and rescues Valerie and looks to find a way off the island while avoiding the ever present troops. The stubborn Valerie is unwilling to leave until she has the information she needs for her story and ignores the dangers.
As if the Doctor and his soldiers were not trouble enough, the super soldiers have escaped and have caused various factions within the Dr’s forces to turn against one another which results in a pitched battle between the factions and the super soldiers.
What follows is a lot of action that is hampered by a weak plot and bad dialogue, and sadly very disappointing monsters.
The leads in the film have very little chemistry with one another and the characters are wafer thin, even by action movie standards. There are attempts at romance and playful banter that fizzle badly leaving only the action sequences to carry the film. Sadly while they are decent enough, especially a good car chase, they cannot overcome the plot issues and the creatures that do not live up to the hype.
Boll has taken a step back here as his recent films have shown progress especially the solid
“Seed” and “1968 Tunnel Rats”. When I visited the set I learned that the production was not allowed to use large aspects of the game and that aside from names, title, and settings, they had to create a new story that was inspired by the game. While the effort is there, the results come up lacking and do not do justice to the game, premise, or talent assembled.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Devil's Rejects (2005) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Chinese, Japanese, Dirty knees, look at these!
Shortly after the events of House of 1,000 Corpses, Sheriff Wydell and his band of deputies approach and surround the homestead occupied by everyone's favorite murderous, diabolical, psychotic family. Inside, lazy slumbering quickly turns to mounting a counter offensive when the family realizes what is about to happen. The ensuring shootout claims several victims before the aid of tear gas precedes a law enforcement home invasion. Unfortunately, only one family member is captured while Baby and Otis escape out the back. Baby calls their father, Captain Spaulding, to inform him of the pending doom on his way so he can meet up with them subsequently.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 11, 2020
If you asked me why I skipped seeing this one twice before it's UK release I wouldn't be able to give you a proper answer. I guess I just didn't fancy it, and the second time Odeon outdid Cineworld with a really early Parasite screening so that felt like the sensible choice instead.
Jojo wants to be a good German, but as he's about to go off to a Nazi Youth Camp he worries about how he'll do. Luckily he has a friend to help him through it, Adolf Hitler. The Fuhrer is always with him in spirit.
Recovering at home after an accident Jojo discovers that he's not alone in the house. He discovers Elsa hiding in a wall space upstairs, hidden by his mother. Jojo is torn, he should report her to the authorities but that could be bad news for him and his mother.
I was genuinely surprised about who was turning up to see this. There were a lot of family groups and groups of teenagers. It shouldn't really shock me, everyone has their own interests in a wide variety of things, but I wasn't expecting to see such young people coming to see it.
By far my favourite thing about this film was Sam Rockwell as Captain Klenzendorf, a little bitter with his situation and begrudgingly training the kids for the battles ahead, he's making the best of a bad situation. He's funny, and more importantly, glorious in battle. From the ridiculous to a surprisingly moving scene at the end, he was the performance of the whole film for me.
Child actors have their ups and downs, some have the knack right out of the gate but I didn't really get that from Roman Griffin Davis or Archie Yates. Both got some good moments out of the script but their delivery and the consistency of the characters didn't carry through it as a whole.
Thomasin McKenzie however brought a little something extra to her role of Elsa. I didn't mind her slightly more serious parts in this but it was difficult to get much more out of it when so much revolved around her and Jojo in scenes together. I don't like "awkward" and some of the scenes are *shudder*.
I can't really talk about the film without talking about Taika Waititi as Hitler. I found him quite amusing to begin with but when the character started to change as Jojo did I felt it was a little over the top.
Dramatic moments pop up when you really aren't expecting them, two in particular stuck with me afterwards. One, as I mentioned, with Sam Rockwell and the other with Scarlett Johansson. Rockwell's was a complete surprise, but ScarJo's, though unexpected, was overplayed a lot in the build up.
Jojo Rabbit is a very odd film, I didn't know what to expect at all really and the final result left me no wiser. Entertaining yes, but not something I would have to see again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/jojo-rabbit-movie-review.html
Jojo wants to be a good German, but as he's about to go off to a Nazi Youth Camp he worries about how he'll do. Luckily he has a friend to help him through it, Adolf Hitler. The Fuhrer is always with him in spirit.
Recovering at home after an accident Jojo discovers that he's not alone in the house. He discovers Elsa hiding in a wall space upstairs, hidden by his mother. Jojo is torn, he should report her to the authorities but that could be bad news for him and his mother.
I was genuinely surprised about who was turning up to see this. There were a lot of family groups and groups of teenagers. It shouldn't really shock me, everyone has their own interests in a wide variety of things, but I wasn't expecting to see such young people coming to see it.
By far my favourite thing about this film was Sam Rockwell as Captain Klenzendorf, a little bitter with his situation and begrudgingly training the kids for the battles ahead, he's making the best of a bad situation. He's funny, and more importantly, glorious in battle. From the ridiculous to a surprisingly moving scene at the end, he was the performance of the whole film for me.
Child actors have their ups and downs, some have the knack right out of the gate but I didn't really get that from Roman Griffin Davis or Archie Yates. Both got some good moments out of the script but their delivery and the consistency of the characters didn't carry through it as a whole.
Thomasin McKenzie however brought a little something extra to her role of Elsa. I didn't mind her slightly more serious parts in this but it was difficult to get much more out of it when so much revolved around her and Jojo in scenes together. I don't like "awkward" and some of the scenes are *shudder*.
I can't really talk about the film without talking about Taika Waititi as Hitler. I found him quite amusing to begin with but when the character started to change as Jojo did I felt it was a little over the top.
Dramatic moments pop up when you really aren't expecting them, two in particular stuck with me afterwards. One, as I mentioned, with Sam Rockwell and the other with Scarlett Johansson. Rockwell's was a complete surprise, but ScarJo's, though unexpected, was overplayed a lot in the build up.
Jojo Rabbit is a very odd film, I didn't know what to expect at all really and the final result left me no wiser. Entertaining yes, but not something I would have to see again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/jojo-rabbit-movie-review.html