Search
Search results
Peter Shephard (2822 KP) rated Merchants Cove in Tabletop Games
Jun 4, 2021
Great range of character options (4 more)
Single player option
Great looking board and pieces
Expansions are great
Every character is like playing a different subgame
Great and Varied game
I backed this on Kickstarter, with the Oracle, Dragon Rancher and Inn Keeper expansions. Over the course of our first evening playing, my wife and I had 1 game of learning the rules, then another three games fairly quickly.
The pieces (ships, meeples, and individual gaming boards) are fantastic (although a couple are a little fiddly/weak) and every single character has their own flavour and type of sub-game;
The Alchemist makes potions by drawing marbles, firstly from a bag, then from a "decanter" (echoes of Quacks of Quiddlingberg)
The Blacksmith makes weapons and armour from dice rolls and combos in furnaces (not quite Yahtzee)
The Captain sails her fleet of ships to go fishing and treasure hunting using a spinning compass mechanism (can't put my finger what this reminds me of)
The Chronomancer (a great Back to the Future nod) travels through time portals to get pieces of technology, using a slide-and-shift board (like a mini Labrynth)
The Dragon rancher (believe it or not) hatches, raises and sells dragons; a couple of mechanics which work well together (even if one is shovelling poop) but not really like a game I've played
The Innkeeper is a great sub-sub-game; he can only sell drinks at one point, but he can put people up in his Inn which gives a bonus. A little bit of prediction work, but not like a other game I can think of.
The Oracle uses a scatter/dish for her fetishes and dice, and this limits what she can do - but I'd say she has the most varied scope of games (dots, predictions, and a few others)
The aim of the game is to be the Merchant who makes the most money, without attracting too much Corruption. Each game is played over three days, and each day has a limited amount of time. Each task the characters do has a different amount of time-cost - it might take 1h to brew potions, but it takes 2h to get ingredients from the decanter and prepare the potions. At several points each day, random Adventurers are drawn from the bag, and put into the travelling ships, as chosen by the drawer. However, there are also rogues who take up space and don't buy anything!
My only real complaint with the game is the comparatively long set up (5-10 minutes seems to be our average) for a 30-45m play time for 2 players - but it is really worth it. If/when this goes to retail, I'd say every gaming group who enjoys a combination of resource management, meeple and worker placement, and beautiful set-piece games, should give this a try.
The pieces (ships, meeples, and individual gaming boards) are fantastic (although a couple are a little fiddly/weak) and every single character has their own flavour and type of sub-game;
The Alchemist makes potions by drawing marbles, firstly from a bag, then from a "decanter" (echoes of Quacks of Quiddlingberg)
The Blacksmith makes weapons and armour from dice rolls and combos in furnaces (not quite Yahtzee)
The Captain sails her fleet of ships to go fishing and treasure hunting using a spinning compass mechanism (can't put my finger what this reminds me of)
The Chronomancer (a great Back to the Future nod) travels through time portals to get pieces of technology, using a slide-and-shift board (like a mini Labrynth)
The Dragon rancher (believe it or not) hatches, raises and sells dragons; a couple of mechanics which work well together (even if one is shovelling poop) but not really like a game I've played
The Innkeeper is a great sub-sub-game; he can only sell drinks at one point, but he can put people up in his Inn which gives a bonus. A little bit of prediction work, but not like a other game I can think of.
The Oracle uses a scatter/dish for her fetishes and dice, and this limits what she can do - but I'd say she has the most varied scope of games (dots, predictions, and a few others)
The aim of the game is to be the Merchant who makes the most money, without attracting too much Corruption. Each game is played over three days, and each day has a limited amount of time. Each task the characters do has a different amount of time-cost - it might take 1h to brew potions, but it takes 2h to get ingredients from the decanter and prepare the potions. At several points each day, random Adventurers are drawn from the bag, and put into the travelling ships, as chosen by the drawer. However, there are also rogues who take up space and don't buy anything!
My only real complaint with the game is the comparatively long set up (5-10 minutes seems to be our average) for a 30-45m play time for 2 players - but it is really worth it. If/when this goes to retail, I'd say every gaming group who enjoys a combination of resource management, meeple and worker placement, and beautiful set-piece games, should give this a try.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Woman in the Window (2021) in Movies
May 24, 2021
It is NOT Rear Window
A piece of advice for you when you start to watch the “Alfred Hitchcock-esque” thriller, THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW. If you are at all a Hitchcock fan, you will be spending the first part of this film comparing it to the 1954 classic REAR WINDOW and this would be a disservice to this film.
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
New Vibes, New Dopeness
When I first saw that Sony was playing nice with Disney/Marvel, I almost lost it when I saw that Spider-Man would make an appearance in Captain America: Civil War. Nerd Moment: I’ve always thought that all of the Marvel properties belonged together and this was a step in the right direction. It’s been amazing what’s happened since. In this third reboot since the new century, Spider-Man: Homecoming is the story of a young Peter Parker handling his role as a teenager and a webslinging superhero.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Peter (Tom Holland) is a lovable kid surrounded by a fun cast of friends and foes. They took a different and, in my opinion, smarter route by making Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) younger and more relatable. Not only did it pay off but it helped contribute to side jokes in the story involving Happy (Jon Favreau) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Yes, there are so many characters to love here, both familiar and new…that is until we get to the villain played by one of my favorite actors Michael Keaton. Don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t horrible, I just couldn’t buy his motivation which made it hard at times to connect to the overall story and conflict.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Watching some of these scenes play out seriously made me wish I was Spider-Man. The aerial combat and clever use of webs is such a treat to watch and experience, both at home. and in the theater. Marvel hit another home run here with cinematic perfection that stretches all over the great city of New York.
Conflict: 10
The conflict isn’t just about Spider-Man fighting bad guys. Rather it’s about having to do all of this and be a kid at the same time…and impress Tony Stark…and get used to his new suit…and keep all of this a secret from his caretaker. So many things wrapped into one makes this such a fun ride. Yes, there is plenty of spider fights to enjoy, but there is so much more to love about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Really enjoyed the story and how it plays into the Marvel universe as a whole. A few twists here and there keep things interesting. Again there is so much driving conflict here and character growth that it’s easy to miss the complexities of everything involved in the story. Again, not in love with Vulture’s motivation, but it doesn’t diminish things too badly.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
The difficulty of Peter trying to get used to his new suit alone was enough to keep me beaming watching this movie. Marvel movies are known for packing a mega punch and Spider-Man: Homecoming definitely stands up there as one of the stronger ones. Great movie.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Peter (Tom Holland) is a lovable kid surrounded by a fun cast of friends and foes. They took a different and, in my opinion, smarter route by making Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) younger and more relatable. Not only did it pay off but it helped contribute to side jokes in the story involving Happy (Jon Favreau) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Yes, there are so many characters to love here, both familiar and new…that is until we get to the villain played by one of my favorite actors Michael Keaton. Don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t horrible, I just couldn’t buy his motivation which made it hard at times to connect to the overall story and conflict.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Watching some of these scenes play out seriously made me wish I was Spider-Man. The aerial combat and clever use of webs is such a treat to watch and experience, both at home. and in the theater. Marvel hit another home run here with cinematic perfection that stretches all over the great city of New York.
Conflict: 10
The conflict isn’t just about Spider-Man fighting bad guys. Rather it’s about having to do all of this and be a kid at the same time…and impress Tony Stark…and get used to his new suit…and keep all of this a secret from his caretaker. So many things wrapped into one makes this such a fun ride. Yes, there is plenty of spider fights to enjoy, but there is so much more to love about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Really enjoyed the story and how it plays into the Marvel universe as a whole. A few twists here and there keep things interesting. Again there is so much driving conflict here and character growth that it’s easy to miss the complexities of everything involved in the story. Again, not in love with Vulture’s motivation, but it doesn’t diminish things too badly.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
The difficulty of Peter trying to get used to his new suit alone was enough to keep me beaming watching this movie. Marvel movies are known for packing a mega punch and Spider-Man: Homecoming definitely stands up there as one of the stronger ones. Great movie.
Star Wars: Rivals™
Games and Entertainment
7.5
Rate It
App
Fast-paced, competitive shooter set in the Star Wars™ universe! Confront your rivals in the first...
Cricket Career 2015 - T20 Edition
Games and Sports
App
Some of our Minor Achievements No.1 Sports game in the Indian app Store! No.1 Paid game in Sri...
The Official Caesars Slots
Games and Entertainment
6.0
Rate It
App
From the creators of Slotomania comes the top shelf experience that is Caesars Casino, the world’s...
Tournament App
Sports and Utilities
App
Tournament Maker is a tournament creation and management tool. It is ideal for anyone who is...
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/