Search
The Act Of Killing (2012)
6.7
Rate It
Movie Watch
Anwar Congo and his friends have been dancing their way through musical numbers, twisting arms in...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
As sponsored by Duck Tape.
I have a fundamental problem with this film. And it’s not that it’s an irrevocably cheesy and derivative action movie, since you could automatically assume that by watching the ridiculously over-the-top trailer. But more on that later.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Season of the Witch (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Nicholas Cage, Warriors, Demons, Witcraft; Season of the Witch really does have it all. However, all that appears interesting is lost in Dominic Sena’s (Whiteout) bland and forgettable biblical road movie.
Whilst it may not be the worst film in the past twelve months, something which still seemingly belongs to Clash of the Titans, there is little here to differentiate it from the frequent blockbuster drivel that Hollywood seems to spit out these days.
Nicholas Cage and Ron Perlman star alongside a host of two dimensional characters which bizzarly includes home grown star Robert Sheehan (Misfits) who perhaps plays the films best role in newfound warrior Kay. Unfortunately, his stellar performance is overshadowed by a script that’s as bland as the special effects.
The saving grace of the film is in its fabulous set pieces which really do shine through, the choice of location and fabulous cinematography especially in the early battle sequences are fantastic and made the film look like it was going to be more of a success than it actually was. It is here that Sena must be given credit as the movie could’ve been much better if it had followed from the quality of the opening.
It is important to note that the CGI and special effects are not being praised here because on a budget of around $40m, the designers could’ve done a whole lot better than some very questionable looking wolves and melting metal.
Cage, who isn’t without his fair share of criticism as an actor is completely miscast in his role, speaking contrived one-liners that won’t shake off those critics who say he cannot act in anything but action movies, but to be fair, this is not entirely his fault, the script leaves much to be desired and poor old Nick is stuck slap bang in the middle, sitting on the fence between his wrongful characterisation and his need to please the critics.
Alongside Cage is Claire Foy, a relatively unknown actress trying to make a big budget breakthrough as ‘the girl’, a rather unfair accreditation at the end of the film. She actually plays the ‘witch’ and does so well, but there isn’t enough dialogue for her to become a central role in the film, so in the end, she sits in a cage for the entire duration and looks menacing; if that’s what you want to call it. This is a problem that blights the entire film, there are only a handful of characters but the alarmingly poor script means that much of what they say is forgotten.
Overall, director Dominic Sena has missed a trick with this biblical tale, unfortunately it doesn’t do enough to make it stand out and therefore it’s lost in a muddle of poor scriptwriting and poor special effects. However, a few standout performances do save it from being a complete disaster and as such, it just about becomes a passable tale.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/12/season-of-the-witch-2011/
Whilst it may not be the worst film in the past twelve months, something which still seemingly belongs to Clash of the Titans, there is little here to differentiate it from the frequent blockbuster drivel that Hollywood seems to spit out these days.
Nicholas Cage and Ron Perlman star alongside a host of two dimensional characters which bizzarly includes home grown star Robert Sheehan (Misfits) who perhaps plays the films best role in newfound warrior Kay. Unfortunately, his stellar performance is overshadowed by a script that’s as bland as the special effects.
The saving grace of the film is in its fabulous set pieces which really do shine through, the choice of location and fabulous cinematography especially in the early battle sequences are fantastic and made the film look like it was going to be more of a success than it actually was. It is here that Sena must be given credit as the movie could’ve been much better if it had followed from the quality of the opening.
It is important to note that the CGI and special effects are not being praised here because on a budget of around $40m, the designers could’ve done a whole lot better than some very questionable looking wolves and melting metal.
Cage, who isn’t without his fair share of criticism as an actor is completely miscast in his role, speaking contrived one-liners that won’t shake off those critics who say he cannot act in anything but action movies, but to be fair, this is not entirely his fault, the script leaves much to be desired and poor old Nick is stuck slap bang in the middle, sitting on the fence between his wrongful characterisation and his need to please the critics.
Alongside Cage is Claire Foy, a relatively unknown actress trying to make a big budget breakthrough as ‘the girl’, a rather unfair accreditation at the end of the film. She actually plays the ‘witch’ and does so well, but there isn’t enough dialogue for her to become a central role in the film, so in the end, she sits in a cage for the entire duration and looks menacing; if that’s what you want to call it. This is a problem that blights the entire film, there are only a handful of characters but the alarmingly poor script means that much of what they say is forgotten.
Overall, director Dominic Sena has missed a trick with this biblical tale, unfortunately it doesn’t do enough to make it stand out and therefore it’s lost in a muddle of poor scriptwriting and poor special effects. However, a few standout performances do save it from being a complete disaster and as such, it just about becomes a passable tale.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/12/season-of-the-witch-2011/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Apocalypse Tomorrow (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
We get thrown into the disasters pretty quickly, so quickly in fact that I really thought I'd missed something, you will be glad to know that it's isn't so complex that you can't pick it up, it's just ridiculous.
The main characters of Neil and Colin are introduced very quickly and we get a rather clumsy potted backstory before they get swept up into the action. Joel Gretsch is a face I know from various things but it's The 4400 that sticks out the most, his acting in this isn't much of a stretch beyond what he's had experience with and he probably has the best character next to Marty.
Apocalypse Tomorrow, or Zodiac: Signs Of The Apocalypse, ticks all the classic TV disaster movie points... animals fleeing from impending danger, terrible CGI, vehicles and people being able to outrun nature, terrible CGI, and a dubious love interest moment... credit where credit is due, they did catch me out with this one. What I was severely upset by though was the fact that we hear about devastation around the world and there were no crappy shots of world famous landmarks being destroyed, don't they know that's what we come to these films for?!
You may know that I hate bouncy camera work, I was pleasantly surprised when (excluding in-car scenes) the camera was solid and not frustrating, TV movies tend to be a little erratic on that point. Sadly they do randomly have one scene where it appears that the cameraman was wearing trampoline shoes while going through caffeine withdrawal, even more confusingly there was a scene where I could have forgiven it happening but they chose a very calm moment to have it and it did nothing but annoy.
The props that are introduced suddenly looked very familiar and if I didn't know any better I'd have said they were original concept pieces for Stargate that had been found in a shed somewhere. The physical pieces don't actually look too bad visually, but the CGI is a mix of passable, bad and terrible, at no time convincing. Bizarrely that gives it pretty good marks for this sort of film.
As with many films that want to be more action than story our characters all get to jump to conclusions and accurate deductions without any work being put in. Significantly in this one it means that right near the beginning we jump from one scene to another and skip what feels like two scenes in the middle. From a tense situation everything goes calm instantly and everything is back to normal. With some better scripting there are a lot of moments like this that could have been avoided.
I feel like my score could be misleading, was this film bad? Yes. But it's just ridiculous enough to be amusing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/apocalypse-tomorrow-movie-review.html
The main characters of Neil and Colin are introduced very quickly and we get a rather clumsy potted backstory before they get swept up into the action. Joel Gretsch is a face I know from various things but it's The 4400 that sticks out the most, his acting in this isn't much of a stretch beyond what he's had experience with and he probably has the best character next to Marty.
Apocalypse Tomorrow, or Zodiac: Signs Of The Apocalypse, ticks all the classic TV disaster movie points... animals fleeing from impending danger, terrible CGI, vehicles and people being able to outrun nature, terrible CGI, and a dubious love interest moment... credit where credit is due, they did catch me out with this one. What I was severely upset by though was the fact that we hear about devastation around the world and there were no crappy shots of world famous landmarks being destroyed, don't they know that's what we come to these films for?!
You may know that I hate bouncy camera work, I was pleasantly surprised when (excluding in-car scenes) the camera was solid and not frustrating, TV movies tend to be a little erratic on that point. Sadly they do randomly have one scene where it appears that the cameraman was wearing trampoline shoes while going through caffeine withdrawal, even more confusingly there was a scene where I could have forgiven it happening but they chose a very calm moment to have it and it did nothing but annoy.
The props that are introduced suddenly looked very familiar and if I didn't know any better I'd have said they were original concept pieces for Stargate that had been found in a shed somewhere. The physical pieces don't actually look too bad visually, but the CGI is a mix of passable, bad and terrible, at no time convincing. Bizarrely that gives it pretty good marks for this sort of film.
As with many films that want to be more action than story our characters all get to jump to conclusions and accurate deductions without any work being put in. Significantly in this one it means that right near the beginning we jump from one scene to another and skip what feels like two scenes in the middle. From a tense situation everything goes calm instantly and everything is back to normal. With some better scripting there are a lot of moments like this that could have been avoided.
I feel like my score could be misleading, was this film bad? Yes. But it's just ridiculous enough to be amusing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/apocalypse-tomorrow-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pompeii (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The disaster movie has always been a genre guaranteed to create incredible box-office returns. If you look at Roland Emmerich’s impressive blockbuster hit 2012, which grossed over $750million, it is clear that destroying well-known landmarks = bums on seats.
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Z For Zachariah (2015) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
Director: Craig Zobel
Writer: Nissar Modi (Screenplay) Robert C O’Brien (Novel)
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Margot Robbie, Chris Pine
Plot: In the wake of a disaster that wipes out most of civilization, two men and a young woman find themselves in an emotionally charged love triangle as the last known survivors.
Tagline – What remains after the world ends?..
Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Starts Promising, Ends Slow
Story: Z for Zachariah starts as Ann (Robbie) goes about her daily routine in a disaster hit world, living on a farm with her dog, she does everything she can just to survive, until she sees a stranger wondering through the mountain range, John (Ejiofor) who was underground during the incident.
Ann and John start trying to put a life together using his knowledge of engineering to help with the work around the farm until another stranger, a miner Caleb (Pine) turns up on the land, which starts to create a new problem, a love triangle.
Thoughts on Z for Zachariah
Characters – Ann is a farm girl that has been with just her dog since the incident that has wiped out most of the population, she is keeps the land together preparing for the harsh winters which she barely made it through before, she does have the lonely feeling until she meet John and Caleb who help show her life after people. John I a scientist who was underground when the incident happened, he decides to come to the surface in search of a life up there, which sees him stumble into Ann’s land, the two might have difference of opinions when it comes to religion and science, but they do try to help make a life together, he uses his skills to help make the farm work easier. Caleb is a miner that ends up on the land, he becomes competition for John in search for attention from Ann, being much more laidback about life and where it will go next.
Performances – The performances are the highlight of this film, Margot Robbie, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Chris Pine all give us wonderful performances, showing the difficult moments they would have been through in this world, we see guilt and hope coming through strong through the performances.
Story – The story follows three people living in a world destroyed by an incident (which we never learn what it is) that has left most of the population dead, with most of land being unliveable and then we get thrown into a love triangle. The side of the story that explores the world that has been through an incident because we start to explore what could have caused it taking science version religion, as soon as we start getting to the love triangle things just get dragged down because we don’t need this, as we do have the complex side to the story already in place.
Sci-Fi – The world that we enter shows us the sci-fi side of the film by seeing just how difficult surviving would be in this world, only it would be nice to have learnt what happened to cause the incident.
Settings – The film does take us to a beautiful location which give us stunning shots, making it a lovely place to live in a world like this.
Scene of the Movie – The water system.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning what has happened to the world.
Final Thoughts – This is a film that starts so well, only to fall into a bland love triangle which only drags all the potential away from this story.
Overall: Doesn’t live up to potential.
Rating
Writer: Nissar Modi (Screenplay) Robert C O’Brien (Novel)
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Margot Robbie, Chris Pine
Plot: In the wake of a disaster that wipes out most of civilization, two men and a young woman find themselves in an emotionally charged love triangle as the last known survivors.
Tagline – What remains after the world ends?..
Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Starts Promising, Ends Slow
Story: Z for Zachariah starts as Ann (Robbie) goes about her daily routine in a disaster hit world, living on a farm with her dog, she does everything she can just to survive, until she sees a stranger wondering through the mountain range, John (Ejiofor) who was underground during the incident.
Ann and John start trying to put a life together using his knowledge of engineering to help with the work around the farm until another stranger, a miner Caleb (Pine) turns up on the land, which starts to create a new problem, a love triangle.
Thoughts on Z for Zachariah
Characters – Ann is a farm girl that has been with just her dog since the incident that has wiped out most of the population, she is keeps the land together preparing for the harsh winters which she barely made it through before, she does have the lonely feeling until she meet John and Caleb who help show her life after people. John I a scientist who was underground when the incident happened, he decides to come to the surface in search of a life up there, which sees him stumble into Ann’s land, the two might have difference of opinions when it comes to religion and science, but they do try to help make a life together, he uses his skills to help make the farm work easier. Caleb is a miner that ends up on the land, he becomes competition for John in search for attention from Ann, being much more laidback about life and where it will go next.
Performances – The performances are the highlight of this film, Margot Robbie, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Chris Pine all give us wonderful performances, showing the difficult moments they would have been through in this world, we see guilt and hope coming through strong through the performances.
Story – The story follows three people living in a world destroyed by an incident (which we never learn what it is) that has left most of the population dead, with most of land being unliveable and then we get thrown into a love triangle. The side of the story that explores the world that has been through an incident because we start to explore what could have caused it taking science version religion, as soon as we start getting to the love triangle things just get dragged down because we don’t need this, as we do have the complex side to the story already in place.
Sci-Fi – The world that we enter shows us the sci-fi side of the film by seeing just how difficult surviving would be in this world, only it would be nice to have learnt what happened to cause the incident.
Settings – The film does take us to a beautiful location which give us stunning shots, making it a lovely place to live in a world like this.
Scene of the Movie – The water system.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning what has happened to the world.
Final Thoughts – This is a film that starts so well, only to fall into a bland love triangle which only drags all the potential away from this story.
Overall: Doesn’t live up to potential.
Rating
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Five years after Godzilla saved us from the MUTO attack the world (or some of it at least) wants to see an end to the potential threat of the Titans. Monarch are studying them and hiding them away from the world, but there are calls to destroy the monsters before more devastation befalls the planet?
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Inside Out (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A delightful treat
If there’s one thing Pixar knows how to do, it’s create memorable films. Long after you’ve walked out the cinema, the likes of Wall.E and Finding Nemo stay with you.
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
Carma (21 KP) rated How to Lose a Fiancé in Books
Jun 17, 2019
Sophia is tired of being told how to live her life by her overbearing, overprotecting father. When he calls her into his office to let her know she will be sent to Greece to marry a stranger she has had enough. She doesnt care that Dions acquisition of her fathers company will save their family, according to her father. She only wants her freedom. After thinking things through she decides to be the worst possible fiancé any one man could ever imagine. That way hed be forced to send her home and shed be free to follow her dreams.
Dion cant believe he agreed to marry the daughter of the man in charge of the company he wants to acquire. His bastard of a biological fathers old company, but no one will know that little tidbit of information. He looked Sophia up online and she seemed to fit into the stereotypical corporate wife he needs. Too bad the walking disaster that heads over to him in the airport is not quite what he was expecting.
Part of Sophias plan involves dressing as wildly as she can without trying to look like she has gone off the deep end. The itchy woolen sweater she chose to change into when they landed only adds to the hideousness of it all. The look on Dions face is worth the itching. Now to fully put her plan into action, she must find a taxidermy fox.
Dion has no idea what to do with this hideous fox that has somehow made its way into his home. Soon hatching a plot with the fox we first encountered in book 1 How to win a fiance. He soon figures out what Sophia is actually up to and together they agree to find a common ground and go ahead with the wedding. Theirs could be a good friendship opportunity for each other, each getting what they desire in life.
Dion and Sophia have pasts and families that dont lend themselves to Hallmark Movie Channel heart touching sentiment. Dion loses the one father figure he has, and Sophias actual father is lacking in just about every redeeming quality. They work through it together and make their own family ties. I voluntarily read and reviewed an advance reader copy without expectations. 4 ½ stars for this newest release from Ms. London.
Dion cant believe he agreed to marry the daughter of the man in charge of the company he wants to acquire. His bastard of a biological fathers old company, but no one will know that little tidbit of information. He looked Sophia up online and she seemed to fit into the stereotypical corporate wife he needs. Too bad the walking disaster that heads over to him in the airport is not quite what he was expecting.
Part of Sophias plan involves dressing as wildly as she can without trying to look like she has gone off the deep end. The itchy woolen sweater she chose to change into when they landed only adds to the hideousness of it all. The look on Dions face is worth the itching. Now to fully put her plan into action, she must find a taxidermy fox.
Dion has no idea what to do with this hideous fox that has somehow made its way into his home. Soon hatching a plot with the fox we first encountered in book 1 How to win a fiance. He soon figures out what Sophia is actually up to and together they agree to find a common ground and go ahead with the wedding. Theirs could be a good friendship opportunity for each other, each getting what they desire in life.
Dion and Sophia have pasts and families that dont lend themselves to Hallmark Movie Channel heart touching sentiment. Dion loses the one father figure he has, and Sophias actual father is lacking in just about every redeeming quality. They work through it together and make their own family ties. I voluntarily read and reviewed an advance reader copy without expectations. 4 ½ stars for this newest release from Ms. London.