Search
Search results
Filterra - Photo Editor Studio
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
App
Explore the ultimate collection of custom-made filters, effects & tools to unleash your creativity...
edjing Pro LE - dj mixer
Music and Games
7.0
Rate It
App
Discover edjing Pro, the track-mixing app that turns you into a professional DJ, now on its FREE...
edjing Pro - dj mixer
Music and Games
App
NEW: After edjing, the #1 DJ app with its +25 million downloads, discover edjing Pro, the...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Charlie's Farm (2014) in Movies
Jun 18, 2017
Imaginative kills (2 more)
Great special effects
Another cool slasher icob
A head smashing fun romp
Poor Charlie, orpaned at age 9 when his cannibalizing parents were lynched by the locals for murdering and eating the transient workers they hired on their desolate pig farm.
Fast forward 25 years and Tara Reid and her friends are roaming the Australian land in search of urban legend Charlie and his farm. What they find will definitely satisfy the veiwer once they locate the farm and all hell breaks loose.
A good script, excellent effects, and a beast of a killer played with absolute disdain for the trespassing adults by a mountain of a man named Nathan Jones who portrays Charlie with an almost childlike innocence even though he's slaughters his victims he seems to be playing with them, like a kid with a magnifying glass who enjoys burning ants. Jones has played beasts before in films like Troy. And a few years after the release of this he was the monster of a man in Mad Max:Fury Road.
Jones kills(pardon the pun) this role.
I recommend this film for people who enjoy a good slasher flick. Charlie's Farm gives the watcher what they're looking for, and leaves you yearning for one more kill.
Fast forward 25 years and Tara Reid and her friends are roaming the Australian land in search of urban legend Charlie and his farm. What they find will definitely satisfy the veiwer once they locate the farm and all hell breaks loose.
A good script, excellent effects, and a beast of a killer played with absolute disdain for the trespassing adults by a mountain of a man named Nathan Jones who portrays Charlie with an almost childlike innocence even though he's slaughters his victims he seems to be playing with them, like a kid with a magnifying glass who enjoys burning ants. Jones has played beasts before in films like Troy. And a few years after the release of this he was the monster of a man in Mad Max:Fury Road.
Jones kills(pardon the pun) this role.
I recommend this film for people who enjoy a good slasher flick. Charlie's Farm gives the watcher what they're looking for, and leaves you yearning for one more kill.
Sonofdel (6291 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Mar 29, 2019
What was the point
Contains spoilers, click to show
Well i saw the first one of these and i was pleasantly surprised. It had just the right amount of good story, characters, humour and special effects so i was looking forward to this second instalment. What a disappointment !!!!
The story was so convoluted and drawn out that half way through i almost fell asleep. Its got the wrong title for me as Grindlewald (Johnny Depp) is only in the film for about thirty minutes at the most. Its central character is a man who is trying to find out who he really is and so a rather thin plot then develops involving mythical creatures, characters from the first film and a rather too brief glimpse of the Niffler (who made the first film according to my wife). Now she is a massive fan of the Wizarding World and even she got bored and lost in the ridiculous plot. Her description (not mine as i enjoyed it) 'Its like the middle film of The Lord of The Ring Trilogy, pointless and nothing worth watching' unquote. All in all a big disappointment and to me its been stretched into five films because of the financial possibilities. Not worth buying for me.
The story was so convoluted and drawn out that half way through i almost fell asleep. Its got the wrong title for me as Grindlewald (Johnny Depp) is only in the film for about thirty minutes at the most. Its central character is a man who is trying to find out who he really is and so a rather thin plot then develops involving mythical creatures, characters from the first film and a rather too brief glimpse of the Niffler (who made the first film according to my wife). Now she is a massive fan of the Wizarding World and even she got bored and lost in the ridiculous plot. Her description (not mine as i enjoyed it) 'Its like the middle film of The Lord of The Ring Trilogy, pointless and nothing worth watching' unquote. All in all a big disappointment and to me its been stretched into five films because of the financial possibilities. Not worth buying for me.
Paul dixon (6 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Hi all. I must admit I , like a lot of others, was a bit skeptic when the first trailer for this appeared. My wife downright refused to watch it as the original animated version is one of her favourites. However she eventually came round and we popped along to give it a whirl.
While comparisons to the original are inevitable, this version should be watched as a stand alone movie and not a reboot. It’s great fun from start to finish. It looks great, obviously a lot of money has been spent on sets, costumes and effects, and Will Smith is great as the genie. He doesn’t try to out do robin williams, he makes the character his own and does his own thing.
The one thing that does let it down are the new songs. They aren’t in the same league as the other, more well known songs and to me seem forced into the movie. I had forgot all about them before leaving the cinema, they definitely won’t be held in such high esteem as the other songs, a friend like me etc.
Overall go see it, make up your own mind and forget the trailer even exists
While comparisons to the original are inevitable, this version should be watched as a stand alone movie and not a reboot. It’s great fun from start to finish. It looks great, obviously a lot of money has been spent on sets, costumes and effects, and Will Smith is great as the genie. He doesn’t try to out do robin williams, he makes the character his own and does his own thing.
The one thing that does let it down are the new songs. They aren’t in the same league as the other, more well known songs and to me seem forced into the movie. I had forgot all about them before leaving the cinema, they definitely won’t be held in such high esteem as the other songs, a friend like me etc.
Overall go see it, make up your own mind and forget the trailer even exists
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla Vs Megaguirus (2000) in Movies
Mar 9, 2018 (Updated Mar 9, 2018)
Excitable first Godzilla movie of the 21st century has some decent special effects but a more than usually ridiculous plot. Elite anti-monster force known as, and I kid you not, the 'G-Graspers' plan to kill Godzilla by filling him full of black holes; for an elite anti-monster force they seem very unconcerned when weapons test causes an infestation of giant predatory dragonflies known as Meganulons (a call-back to the original Rodan movie in the 1950s). The dragonflies proceed to flood Tokyo (quite how they manage this is not clear) and feed on Godzilla's irradiated mutant blood, which is bound to end badly.
One thing you have to say is that Godzilla Vs Megaguirus is full of big and wacky ideas, but the human characters are unappealing, the plot is very comic-booky even for a Godzilla film (and not in a good way), and the movie can't seem to figure out which of the monsters is supposed to be the good guy. The film drags on for another fifteen minutes after the climactic battle, too. The monster suits and special effects are not too bad, but the same is true of all the Godzilla films from around this point in time, and those don't have the weird flaws of this one.
One thing you have to say is that Godzilla Vs Megaguirus is full of big and wacky ideas, but the human characters are unappealing, the plot is very comic-booky even for a Godzilla film (and not in a good way), and the movie can't seem to figure out which of the monsters is supposed to be the good guy. The film drags on for another fifteen minutes after the climactic battle, too. The monster suits and special effects are not too bad, but the same is true of all the Godzilla films from around this point in time, and those don't have the weird flaws of this one.
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated The Impossible (2012) in Movies
Aug 12, 2018
A true story (3 more)
Amazing cast, incredible performances
Fantastic writing
Great effects
Wow, such a powerful, intense movie!
Wow this is 1 of the most intense and powerful movies I've seen in such a long time.
I love disaster movies and the fact this is actually a true story adds so much to it. You can feel a lot more emotion throughout knowing this actually happened to someone and the characters are a real family that this actually happened to.
This is also thanks to such an incredible cast with amazing writing and acting. There is not 1 actor that is not phenomenal. Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor and a young Tom Holland are all fantastic. Their chemistry is natural and believable and give so much intensity and emotion to all their performances.
The effects are fantastic. The tsunami and the injuries all look great and real. Has a great score and it all makes you think and wonder what it must have been like for the people actually involved.
Absolutely fantastic and can definitely recommend. I paid £1 for the blu ray and it's 1 I will not get rid of and will watch again. If you get chance, watch it.
I love disaster movies and the fact this is actually a true story adds so much to it. You can feel a lot more emotion throughout knowing this actually happened to someone and the characters are a real family that this actually happened to.
This is also thanks to such an incredible cast with amazing writing and acting. There is not 1 actor that is not phenomenal. Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor and a young Tom Holland are all fantastic. Their chemistry is natural and believable and give so much intensity and emotion to all their performances.
The effects are fantastic. The tsunami and the injuries all look great and real. Has a great score and it all makes you think and wonder what it must have been like for the people actually involved.
Absolutely fantastic and can definitely recommend. I paid £1 for the blu ray and it's 1 I will not get rid of and will watch again. If you get chance, watch it.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Flight (2012) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
Watchable but very lacking
For a film by Robert Zemeckis, I was expecting something with a lot more heart and a little less predictable.
The problem with this film is that the main character Whip isn’t particularly likeable. Whilst Denzel Washington does his best and does bring some odd moments of likeability, it’s very difficult to connect with this film when Whip is not a very good person. Of course everything turns out the way you’d expect from the outset but this just makes for a bit of a dull watch. Kelly Reilly is sorely underused and her character just seems to have been thrown in a little haphazardly, making little of her and her journey. The visual effects of the crash itself are very good and the soundtrack is great, although it does throw back a little too much to Forrest Gump. The whole film drags and does get a little talky and dull. It also seems to be putting out a strange message about the effects of alcoholism, and yet how a pilot saved a flight whilst he was drunk and high.... very odd.
It’s the type of film you’d watch once and it’s bearable enough to watch to the end, but not one you’d go out of your way to watch again.
The problem with this film is that the main character Whip isn’t particularly likeable. Whilst Denzel Washington does his best and does bring some odd moments of likeability, it’s very difficult to connect with this film when Whip is not a very good person. Of course everything turns out the way you’d expect from the outset but this just makes for a bit of a dull watch. Kelly Reilly is sorely underused and her character just seems to have been thrown in a little haphazardly, making little of her and her journey. The visual effects of the crash itself are very good and the soundtrack is great, although it does throw back a little too much to Forrest Gump. The whole film drags and does get a little talky and dull. It also seems to be putting out a strange message about the effects of alcoholism, and yet how a pilot saved a flight whilst he was drunk and high.... very odd.
It’s the type of film you’d watch once and it’s bearable enough to watch to the end, but not one you’d go out of your way to watch again.