Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Rango (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Y’all want to know what Rango is about? Have a seat by the camp fire and I’ll tell ya. The chameleon that would one day be known as Rango (voiced by Johnny Depp) begins the movie as a pet, traveling across the desert with a human family in their SUV. However, fate or perhaps the Spirit of the West (voiced by Timothy Olyphant) has other plans for him. Soon he is separated from his human family and he meets a wise armadillo named Roadkill (voiced by Alfred Molina) who tells him about the Spirit of the West, fate and, more importantly to him, where to find water.
Fans of Johnny Depp will recognize an amazing reference, tribute if you will, to the 1998 movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas that starred the actor. On his way to the nearest town where he can get some water, he meets one of the locals, a young lady lizard named Beans (voiced by Isla Fisher) who offers him a ride to the edge of town, a town aptly named Dirt. As he tries to fit in with the locals he realizes that he can reinvent himself here, so he gives himself the name Rango but thanks to a lie that he told to the guys in the saloon he soon finds himself in a showdown with one of the meanest gangs in town. Through a very funny turn of events he not only survives but becomes the town hero. In honor of his victory the Mayor (voiced by Ned Beatty) offers him the job of sheriff which Rango gladly accepts.
Soon after, the limited water supply in town disappears and it is up to Rango (along with some quirky townfolk) to solve the mystery and save Dirt. Along his journey, Rango eventually comes to a point where he must decide what kind of lizard he wants to be, a hero of the people or a person who just plays one. Will he make the right choices? Will he find the water? Will he save the town? See the movie to find out the answers to these questions and more.
I have seen many family movies that were very entertaining for the kids but extremely boring for the adults. Luckily Rangois not one of those movies. Not only does the movie have a very talented voice cast, it also has entertaining action that enhances the story instead of over-powering or taking away from it. The visuals were so realistic that at times I almost forgot it was an animated film and it has plenty of humor to make the audience laugh, regardless of age.
At the end of the movie as we all were heading towards the exit I overhead a person saying to their friends how the movie actually felt like the old westerns that they had watched growing up and I found myself agreeing. The story unfolded with a natural flow, beautiful scenery and wild west action that kept the audience engaged from start to finish.
Fans of Johnny Depp will recognize an amazing reference, tribute if you will, to the 1998 movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas that starred the actor. On his way to the nearest town where he can get some water, he meets one of the locals, a young lady lizard named Beans (voiced by Isla Fisher) who offers him a ride to the edge of town, a town aptly named Dirt. As he tries to fit in with the locals he realizes that he can reinvent himself here, so he gives himself the name Rango but thanks to a lie that he told to the guys in the saloon he soon finds himself in a showdown with one of the meanest gangs in town. Through a very funny turn of events he not only survives but becomes the town hero. In honor of his victory the Mayor (voiced by Ned Beatty) offers him the job of sheriff which Rango gladly accepts.
Soon after, the limited water supply in town disappears and it is up to Rango (along with some quirky townfolk) to solve the mystery and save Dirt. Along his journey, Rango eventually comes to a point where he must decide what kind of lizard he wants to be, a hero of the people or a person who just plays one. Will he make the right choices? Will he find the water? Will he save the town? See the movie to find out the answers to these questions and more.
I have seen many family movies that were very entertaining for the kids but extremely boring for the adults. Luckily Rangois not one of those movies. Not only does the movie have a very talented voice cast, it also has entertaining action that enhances the story instead of over-powering or taking away from it. The visuals were so realistic that at times I almost forgot it was an animated film and it has plenty of humor to make the audience laugh, regardless of age.
At the end of the movie as we all were heading towards the exit I overhead a person saying to their friends how the movie actually felt like the old westerns that they had watched growing up and I found myself agreeing. The story unfolded with a natural flow, beautiful scenery and wild west action that kept the audience engaged from start to finish.
Lonely Planet Oman, UAE & Arabian Peninsula
Lonely Planet, Stuart Butler, Anthony Ham and Jenny Walker
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Oman, UAE & Arabian...
Natasha Khan recommended Bad by Michael Jackson in Music (curated)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020 (Updated Jul 5, 2021)
In this sequel to the so far best film of the DCEU, Patty Jenkins dares to ask, what if Wishmaster was a family friendly superhero movie?
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Real Guns & Games - Master Collection
Lifestyle and Entertainment
App
Recommend by Rewind 2010 : Rewind iPhone Apps in the Appstore!* 50% HOT SALE - In app purchase....
Stylish Sprint
Games and Entertainment
App
Stylish Sprint is an action running game where you play as a stickman who travels the world in...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2019
Thought-Provoking
Roma follows the story of Cleo, a domestic worker for a middle class family in Mexico. who is dealing with the strife of classism in the 70’s.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Ross (3284 KP) rated Dark Forge (Masters & Mages #2) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Another slog of a book but with a good overall plot
*** I received a free advance copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review ***
Dark Forge follows on from Cold Iron and sees the hero, Aranthur, travelling through the desert-lands battling against "The Pure", a group of magikal fundamentalists that believe access to the world's magik should be restricted to those of noble birth.
As a rare treat, the book starts with a lengthy prologue telling of a group of mercenaries working for the Pure attempting to storm an ancient site and gain ownership of a magical artefact. A few dozen pages break from Aranthur was welcome and this was an exciting part of the story. As with the first book, the narrative style is something of a barrier to me, all the mundane details of clothing, horses, weapons are expounded ad nauseum, but when something important happens, or some new magik is used suddenly it's all very vague and hand-wavey.
That brings us back to Aranthur. We pick up with him and his crew acting as messengers for the General's army, relaying messages back and forth across the divisions of the forces. At times this changes to acting as advance scouts, other times running messages through the middle of battles. Given the rest of the story is told from Aranthur's PoV alone, this means we can see a great deal of the action through his eyes.
At long last we are treated to something of an inventory from Aranthur, as he goes over the magik he currently knows and their purpose. This felt like a brilliant improvement over book 1, where he just did a magik thing somehow. However this is short lived as over the course of the book odd words are used, with little explanation (and always in italics, suggesting they are important words but for the life of me I couldn't remember what most of them were).
A major failing for this book for me was that despite all being from one character's PoV, and we hear plenty of his thoughts and feelings, we are not privy to his experimentation with magik or some of his suspicions and theories (he suddenly in the heat of battle tries something he had been thinking about and it works - would have been so much more effective if there had been any hint of this previously). Similarly, so much of it is all metaphysical nonsense which I can't stand and can only see it as a cheap way out for an author as you don't have to explain things if they're all mystical.
The book reads like maybe the 5th in a series, where all the magical aspects and parts and peoples of the world have been solidly embedded, rather than book 2 where the world-building is being done almost real-time and there is something of a making-it-up-as-he-goes-along feel.
The overarching plot of the book is solid, and while I would have liked to see more traditional combat like the first book, and less magical/mystical stuff the action was plentiful and reasonably well told.
As with the first book, its only about 400 pages but felt like so much more to me, and it really was a bit of a slog at times.
I will finish this series with the conclusion when it is released but have enjoyed other series a lot more.
Dark Forge follows on from Cold Iron and sees the hero, Aranthur, travelling through the desert-lands battling against "The Pure", a group of magikal fundamentalists that believe access to the world's magik should be restricted to those of noble birth.
As a rare treat, the book starts with a lengthy prologue telling of a group of mercenaries working for the Pure attempting to storm an ancient site and gain ownership of a magical artefact. A few dozen pages break from Aranthur was welcome and this was an exciting part of the story. As with the first book, the narrative style is something of a barrier to me, all the mundane details of clothing, horses, weapons are expounded ad nauseum, but when something important happens, or some new magik is used suddenly it's all very vague and hand-wavey.
That brings us back to Aranthur. We pick up with him and his crew acting as messengers for the General's army, relaying messages back and forth across the divisions of the forces. At times this changes to acting as advance scouts, other times running messages through the middle of battles. Given the rest of the story is told from Aranthur's PoV alone, this means we can see a great deal of the action through his eyes.
At long last we are treated to something of an inventory from Aranthur, as he goes over the magik he currently knows and their purpose. This felt like a brilliant improvement over book 1, where he just did a magik thing somehow. However this is short lived as over the course of the book odd words are used, with little explanation (and always in italics, suggesting they are important words but for the life of me I couldn't remember what most of them were).
A major failing for this book for me was that despite all being from one character's PoV, and we hear plenty of his thoughts and feelings, we are not privy to his experimentation with magik or some of his suspicions and theories (he suddenly in the heat of battle tries something he had been thinking about and it works - would have been so much more effective if there had been any hint of this previously). Similarly, so much of it is all metaphysical nonsense which I can't stand and can only see it as a cheap way out for an author as you don't have to explain things if they're all mystical.
The book reads like maybe the 5th in a series, where all the magical aspects and parts and peoples of the world have been solidly embedded, rather than book 2 where the world-building is being done almost real-time and there is something of a making-it-up-as-he-goes-along feel.
The overarching plot of the book is solid, and while I would have liked to see more traditional combat like the first book, and less magical/mystical stuff the action was plentiful and reasonably well told.
As with the first book, its only about 400 pages but felt like so much more to me, and it really was a bit of a slog at times.
I will finish this series with the conclusion when it is released but have enjoyed other series a lot more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Gods Of Egypt (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Gods of Egypt is a visually stunning fantasy film that teeters on the edge of being campy.
The trailers for this film set high expectations, promising a story of the mythical, god-like beings that come from Egyptian lore. But they also raised questions: would the story keep in tune with common mythos, or branch out into a whole new realm?
With Game of Thrones star Nikolaj Coster-Waldau taking the lead, along with 300’s Gerard Butler, the film starts off in a beautiful, ancient Egypt, ruled over by Osiris and his Queen. Horus, Osiris’s son (Coster- Waldau), is ready to assume the crown, but Set (Butler), brother to Osiris, has other plans. He feels scorned for having to live in the desert, and decides it is his time to rule all of Egypt. He murders Osiris, but leaves Horus alive, taking his eyes instead of his life.
Enter a thief, who wants to rescue his beloved from the clutches of Set’s architect (Rufus Sewell). The love of his life somehow talks him into rallying a dejected Horus to fight Set.
All the gods of Egypt are represented in some form or fashion, even if in minor capacity.
The gods have the ability to morph into larger, more powerful beings. They are nigh invincible, but still age, and die. They pray to Ra, god of the sun and grandfather to Horus.
This two-hour movie is filled to the brim with star-power, and superb acting. The special effects are a sight to behold, and they instill a sense of wonderment. The adventure is grand indeed, and will certainly leave you entertained.
That said, the script is sub-par. There are moments where emotional lines could be delivered, but aren’t. This is not from lack of trying on the part of the actors; the writers simply failed to find the proper words. In these moments, there was laughter from the audience at my viewing — during scenes clearly not meant for humor. This is the precarious knife-edge the movie walks between greatness and campy.
I’ve read several articles about how moviegoers are upset at the very Caucasian-looking cast. I shared this sentiment, to a certain degree. It seemed odd that a movie about a specific time and place in history made little effort to be ethnically accurate.
In the end, I let it go. The movie’s lore turned out to be so far from a real-world tie in that it no longer mattered. It was clear this was some sort of alternate universe; one of the major plot holes is a lack of connection to planet Earth.
If you can divorce yourself from some of these elements, you can really enjoy the film for what it is.
My screener companion said he didn’t care for the graphics, because they were obviously fake. I experienced this movie using animated films as my frame of reference, and that made it easier to watch. It is also clearly a High Fantasy film.
In summary: great acting is the glue that holds this film together. Without that talent, it wouldn’t stand up. It is, however, worth seeing if you love fantasy films. You will be entertained, for sure.
3.5 out 5 stars
The trailers for this film set high expectations, promising a story of the mythical, god-like beings that come from Egyptian lore. But they also raised questions: would the story keep in tune with common mythos, or branch out into a whole new realm?
With Game of Thrones star Nikolaj Coster-Waldau taking the lead, along with 300’s Gerard Butler, the film starts off in a beautiful, ancient Egypt, ruled over by Osiris and his Queen. Horus, Osiris’s son (Coster- Waldau), is ready to assume the crown, but Set (Butler), brother to Osiris, has other plans. He feels scorned for having to live in the desert, and decides it is his time to rule all of Egypt. He murders Osiris, but leaves Horus alive, taking his eyes instead of his life.
Enter a thief, who wants to rescue his beloved from the clutches of Set’s architect (Rufus Sewell). The love of his life somehow talks him into rallying a dejected Horus to fight Set.
All the gods of Egypt are represented in some form or fashion, even if in minor capacity.
The gods have the ability to morph into larger, more powerful beings. They are nigh invincible, but still age, and die. They pray to Ra, god of the sun and grandfather to Horus.
This two-hour movie is filled to the brim with star-power, and superb acting. The special effects are a sight to behold, and they instill a sense of wonderment. The adventure is grand indeed, and will certainly leave you entertained.
That said, the script is sub-par. There are moments where emotional lines could be delivered, but aren’t. This is not from lack of trying on the part of the actors; the writers simply failed to find the proper words. In these moments, there was laughter from the audience at my viewing — during scenes clearly not meant for humor. This is the precarious knife-edge the movie walks between greatness and campy.
I’ve read several articles about how moviegoers are upset at the very Caucasian-looking cast. I shared this sentiment, to a certain degree. It seemed odd that a movie about a specific time and place in history made little effort to be ethnically accurate.
In the end, I let it go. The movie’s lore turned out to be so far from a real-world tie in that it no longer mattered. It was clear this was some sort of alternate universe; one of the major plot holes is a lack of connection to planet Earth.
If you can divorce yourself from some of these elements, you can really enjoy the film for what it is.
My screener companion said he didn’t care for the graphics, because they were obviously fake. I experienced this movie using animated films as my frame of reference, and that made it easier to watch. It is also clearly a High Fantasy film.
In summary: great acting is the glue that holds this film together. Without that talent, it wouldn’t stand up. It is, however, worth seeing if you love fantasy films. You will be entertained, for sure.
3.5 out 5 stars