Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Marvel just about manages to pull it off
With a touching tribute to the amazing Stan Lee, it’s clear from the outset that Captain Marvel isn’t going to be your ordinary MCU instalment, or so Marvel Studios would have us believe. The 21stfilm, yes, I can’t quite believe it either, in the long-standing Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain Marvel is the first superhero film from the studio to focus primarily on a single female lead.
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bad Wigs aside it's really rather good
You could be forgiven for being rather sceptical walking into the cinema to see Aquaman, and it’s easy to see why. An uninspiring set of trailers preceded by the DCEU’s shall we say reluctance to resonate with audiences.
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Making films from books has always been a tricky proposition. For every film adaptation that hits it big such as Jaws, Lord of the Rings and The Silence of the Lambs, there are several that fail to work or are downright disasters such as The Bonfire of the Vanities.
In the film The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams first book in his classic series has finally arrived on the big screen after many delays getting started and a successful version on PBS.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, a simple, easy going fellow whose entire goal in life is to stop the demolition of his beloved home from those who want to put a new highway in its current location.
As Arthur attempts to block the demolition, his good friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), arrives and stalls the demolition with free beer for the work crew. Thinking he has been saved, Arthur is puzzled when Ford takes him to a local pub and buys rounds for the entire pub, saying the world is ending in a few minutes.
Ford in reality is an alien visiting the Earth and learns that the Earth is about to be destroyed to make way for a new galactic expressway. Before he knows what has happened, Arthur is whisked away seconds before the destruction of the Earth by Ford as they end up on a ship of the demolition fleet.
After a series of bizarre events and a narrow escape, Ford and Arthur end up on a passing ship that has been stolen by galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), who just happens to be the lady of Arthur’s dreams and who is also unaware that the Earth has been destroyed in the short amount of time since she left Earth to explore with Zaphod.
As if this was not enough, the ship also has a depressed android named Marvin (Warwick Davis and voiced by Allan Rickman).
It is at this point that the film goes horribly wrong as the amusing and interesting setup quickly goes nowhere. While the crew is sent on a series of quests, each becomes less interesting than the one before it, and the very bland production values of the film are exposed. The sets are very basic and look as if they were borrowed from many of the budget driven British Sci-Fi that frequents PBS. Somehow the idea of an alien room being nothing but a rusty wall and a slapped up sign just does not cut it for me. At times I thought I was watching a home video production done by fans or another late night B movie rather than a major studio summer release.
As bad as the sets were what is even more amazing was the at times laughable attempts at visual effects where it was obvious that the actors were standing in front of screens as the matting lines were visible.
I tried to put a lot of this off to the idea that the film was trying to be quirky in keeping with the book, but quirky is not an excuse for underwhelming effects, basic sets, and lousy costuming and make up effects as I half expected to see zippers on the costumes of many aliens that looked like they were cobbled from parts at a hardware store.
So now that I have covered my issues with the look of the film, let’s look at the story itself. In a word: boring. I could not believe how dull and lazy the film became, and how the staff seemed to be going through the motions. The cast has zero chemistry and Rockwell is so frantic that his character is annoying to watch. After five minutes of his rock star in the spotlight style shtick, I wanted to strangle the character or at least get him on some serious medication.
Director Garth Jennings also has many scenes that simply go nowhere or drag on only to cut at odd times resulting in a complete and utter lack of pacing.
I am a big fan of the book series and I had very high hopes for this film. Sadly the disaster that resulted may very well have Douglas Adams spinning in his grave as his classic work was destroyed. I have to wonder how much of his original draft for the script that was used as the basis for the film survived.
While extreme die hard fans may enjoy the film, even they are likely to be disappointed and I can only hope that if they try to make the next book in the series, “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”, they do a much better job then this effort, as this is one awful film adaptation.
In the film The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams first book in his classic series has finally arrived on the big screen after many delays getting started and a successful version on PBS.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, a simple, easy going fellow whose entire goal in life is to stop the demolition of his beloved home from those who want to put a new highway in its current location.
As Arthur attempts to block the demolition, his good friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), arrives and stalls the demolition with free beer for the work crew. Thinking he has been saved, Arthur is puzzled when Ford takes him to a local pub and buys rounds for the entire pub, saying the world is ending in a few minutes.
Ford in reality is an alien visiting the Earth and learns that the Earth is about to be destroyed to make way for a new galactic expressway. Before he knows what has happened, Arthur is whisked away seconds before the destruction of the Earth by Ford as they end up on a ship of the demolition fleet.
After a series of bizarre events and a narrow escape, Ford and Arthur end up on a passing ship that has been stolen by galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), who just happens to be the lady of Arthur’s dreams and who is also unaware that the Earth has been destroyed in the short amount of time since she left Earth to explore with Zaphod.
As if this was not enough, the ship also has a depressed android named Marvin (Warwick Davis and voiced by Allan Rickman).
It is at this point that the film goes horribly wrong as the amusing and interesting setup quickly goes nowhere. While the crew is sent on a series of quests, each becomes less interesting than the one before it, and the very bland production values of the film are exposed. The sets are very basic and look as if they were borrowed from many of the budget driven British Sci-Fi that frequents PBS. Somehow the idea of an alien room being nothing but a rusty wall and a slapped up sign just does not cut it for me. At times I thought I was watching a home video production done by fans or another late night B movie rather than a major studio summer release.
As bad as the sets were what is even more amazing was the at times laughable attempts at visual effects where it was obvious that the actors were standing in front of screens as the matting lines were visible.
I tried to put a lot of this off to the idea that the film was trying to be quirky in keeping with the book, but quirky is not an excuse for underwhelming effects, basic sets, and lousy costuming and make up effects as I half expected to see zippers on the costumes of many aliens that looked like they were cobbled from parts at a hardware store.
So now that I have covered my issues with the look of the film, let’s look at the story itself. In a word: boring. I could not believe how dull and lazy the film became, and how the staff seemed to be going through the motions. The cast has zero chemistry and Rockwell is so frantic that his character is annoying to watch. After five minutes of his rock star in the spotlight style shtick, I wanted to strangle the character or at least get him on some serious medication.
Director Garth Jennings also has many scenes that simply go nowhere or drag on only to cut at odd times resulting in a complete and utter lack of pacing.
I am a big fan of the book series and I had very high hopes for this film. Sadly the disaster that resulted may very well have Douglas Adams spinning in his grave as his classic work was destroyed. I have to wonder how much of his original draft for the script that was used as the basis for the film survived.
While extreme die hard fans may enjoy the film, even they are likely to be disappointed and I can only hope that if they try to make the next book in the series, “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”, they do a much better job then this effort, as this is one awful film adaptation.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Maneater in Video Games
Jul 26, 2019
Talking Maneater With Bill Munk – Game Director at Tripwire Interactive
Recently I spoke with Bill Munk – Game Director at Tripwire Interactive about their pending game Maneater. I saw the game at E3 and it looks like a promising game indeed.
What is the background and setting for the game?
Maneater is a single-player, open world, action RPG set in a fictionalized version of the US Gulf Coast. Players take on the role of a baby bull shark torn from its mother’s belly. Your only tools are your wits, your jaws, and an uncanny ability to evolve as you feed. Anything and everything is on the menu… provided you kill it before it kills you.
How did the idea to play as a Shark come about?
The concept for Maneater originally came from Alex Quick, the creator of Depth and director for the original Killing Floor. Tripwire Interactive loved the over-the-top and new approach to the action RPG and open world genres so much, they decided to bring the project in-house, increasing the development staff and budget to bring the team’s concept to life.
How many levels and areas are planned for the game at release?
Players should expect a vast variety of environments to explore, including, swamps, beach resorts, sunken ship wrecks, all the way out to the deep blue sea.
What are some of the customizations that will be available and how will players be able to upgrade their character?
As players continue to eat and explore, they’ll acquire key nutrients, which can be used to help them evolve. This is where the “RPG” progression systems in Maneater really come into play. Players can choose from a variety of evolutions, that may help with increased biting power, more maneuverability, armor, and more.
What are some of the moves players will be able to do and will new moves unlock later in the game?
We really want to make sure the act of swimming and feeding feels satisfying and meaty. During our E3 demo, you saw players knifing along the surface of the water, breaching onto land, barrel rolling and charging shark bounty hunters, and diving deep into the water to gain momentum for large leaps.
What can you tell us about the enemies that players will face in the game?
Each region in the game has an Apex Predator. As you battle smaller predators and consume food in each region, the apex will do whatever it takes to protect their food source. Maneater also features a bounty system. As you wreak havoc along the coast, your infamy level will rise. This causes local bounty hunters to search for you while trying to end your feeding frenzy. Depending on your infamy level, the bounty hunters will become more difficult ranging from hunters on small skiffs, all the way up to bringing out the coast guard.
The gameplay we saw at E3 looked like fun but I was curious about how the story will advance and how do you avoid the issue of repetition in the gameplay?
Maneater is a “dueling tales of revenge” story featuring Scaly Pete, who we revealed in our newest E3 trailer. Without revealing too much, Scaly Pete is responsible for tearing you from your mother’s belly, and you manage to escape into the open waters of the gulf. That’s where our story begins. Maneater is presented through the lens of a reality TV show called “Shark Hunters vs. Maneaters” that follows the adventures of Scaly Pete as he’s hunting you throughout our world. This also allows us to follow our player shark and give a voice to the actions of the player through the show’s narrator, who is voiced by Chris Parnell.
Will the game offer multiplayer or DLC?
Right now, we want to focus on making Maneater a fantastic single-player Action RPG experience.
What are some of your favorite moves in the game?
Breaching is one of the most satisfying shark moves we’ve been working on. Breaching out of shallow waters to feed on unsuspecting beach goers on land or even on a large shark bounty hunter boat captures the over-the-top fun and ridiculousness we’re aiming for with Maneater. We’re also working really hard on what we call the “whip-shot”, where you can tail whip anything that’s in your mouth, turning objects into weaponized projectiles.
What can you tell us about the music and sound effects in the game?
We’ve been working really hard on our dynamic music system, that is constantly adapting to what the player is doing throughout the game. It’s also been an interesting challenge creating sound effects for above the water with boats, explosions and civilians and then creating a whole new set of sound effects for the underwater world, including for the underwater wildlife, underwater sounds of the boats and swimmers and so much more.
Are you planning on being at PAX West with the game?
We can’t wait to tell you more about our plans for Maneater at future shows. In the meantime, we’d recommend your readers follow @maneatergame on Twitter for the latest.
Recently I spoke with Bill Munk – Game Director at Tripwire Interactive about their pending game Maneater. I saw the game at E3 and it looks like a promising game indeed.
What is the background and setting for the game?
Maneater is a single-player, open world, action RPG set in a fictionalized version of the US Gulf Coast. Players take on the role of a baby bull shark torn from its mother’s belly. Your only tools are your wits, your jaws, and an uncanny ability to evolve as you feed. Anything and everything is on the menu… provided you kill it before it kills you.
How did the idea to play as a Shark come about?
The concept for Maneater originally came from Alex Quick, the creator of Depth and director for the original Killing Floor. Tripwire Interactive loved the over-the-top and new approach to the action RPG and open world genres so much, they decided to bring the project in-house, increasing the development staff and budget to bring the team’s concept to life.
How many levels and areas are planned for the game at release?
Players should expect a vast variety of environments to explore, including, swamps, beach resorts, sunken ship wrecks, all the way out to the deep blue sea.
What are some of the customizations that will be available and how will players be able to upgrade their character?
As players continue to eat and explore, they’ll acquire key nutrients, which can be used to help them evolve. This is where the “RPG” progression systems in Maneater really come into play. Players can choose from a variety of evolutions, that may help with increased biting power, more maneuverability, armor, and more.
What are some of the moves players will be able to do and will new moves unlock later in the game?
We really want to make sure the act of swimming and feeding feels satisfying and meaty. During our E3 demo, you saw players knifing along the surface of the water, breaching onto land, barrel rolling and charging shark bounty hunters, and diving deep into the water to gain momentum for large leaps.
What can you tell us about the enemies that players will face in the game?
Each region in the game has an Apex Predator. As you battle smaller predators and consume food in each region, the apex will do whatever it takes to protect their food source. Maneater also features a bounty system. As you wreak havoc along the coast, your infamy level will rise. This causes local bounty hunters to search for you while trying to end your feeding frenzy. Depending on your infamy level, the bounty hunters will become more difficult ranging from hunters on small skiffs, all the way up to bringing out the coast guard.
The gameplay we saw at E3 looked like fun but I was curious about how the story will advance and how do you avoid the issue of repetition in the gameplay?
Maneater is a “dueling tales of revenge” story featuring Scaly Pete, who we revealed in our newest E3 trailer. Without revealing too much, Scaly Pete is responsible for tearing you from your mother’s belly, and you manage to escape into the open waters of the gulf. That’s where our story begins. Maneater is presented through the lens of a reality TV show called “Shark Hunters vs. Maneaters” that follows the adventures of Scaly Pete as he’s hunting you throughout our world. This also allows us to follow our player shark and give a voice to the actions of the player through the show’s narrator, who is voiced by Chris Parnell.
Will the game offer multiplayer or DLC?
Right now, we want to focus on making Maneater a fantastic single-player Action RPG experience.
What are some of your favorite moves in the game?
Breaching is one of the most satisfying shark moves we’ve been working on. Breaching out of shallow waters to feed on unsuspecting beach goers on land or even on a large shark bounty hunter boat captures the over-the-top fun and ridiculousness we’re aiming for with Maneater. We’re also working really hard on what we call the “whip-shot”, where you can tail whip anything that’s in your mouth, turning objects into weaponized projectiles.
What can you tell us about the music and sound effects in the game?
We’ve been working really hard on our dynamic music system, that is constantly adapting to what the player is doing throughout the game. It’s also been an interesting challenge creating sound effects for above the water with boats, explosions and civilians and then creating a whole new set of sound effects for the underwater world, including for the underwater wildlife, underwater sounds of the boats and swimmers and so much more.
Are you planning on being at PAX West with the game?
We can’t wait to tell you more about our plans for Maneater at future shows. In the meantime, we’d recommend your readers follow @maneatergame on Twitter for the latest.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
Verdict: Stunt Work of the Year
Story: Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw starts when MI6 Agent Hattie Shaw (Kirby) is framed for stealing a deadly virus that Brixton (Elba) is after, using her ability to go into hiding comes in handy, Luke Hobbs (Johnson) and Deckard (Statham) are recruited to work together to help find her and get the virus out of her before it becomes a threat to the world.
With the three teaming up, they must use their connections to stay ahead of Brixton who has been enhanced to make a deadly threat that neither can defeat on their own, can they put aside their different and save the world again?
Thoughts on Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw
Characters – Hobbs is still working in the field to hunt down bad guys, but he remains family based with his daughter being the most important part of his life, he gets the call to save the world once again and doesn’t say no, heading to London to team up with an old enemy and friend in Deckard. He does play the I am bigger than you card, as the two constantly try to play the alpha male card. Deckard must come out of hiding to rescue his own little sister, he is better designed to the spy like side of this mission, we do get to learn a lot more about his past in this film too. Brixton is the big bad, he even introduces himself as ‘the bad guy’ he has been enhanced, making him a proper deadly weapon that will win any one on one fight, he isn’t afraid to fight with his men, though he is only part of a bigger plan going on. Hattie is the MI6 agent that gets framed, she is Deckard sister and knows how to get off the grid, she can handle herself in a fight and isn’t afraid to use a few tricks she learnt from her mother to get out of a sticky situation.
Performances – Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham must be looked at as one, they are excellent when it comes to the action sequences, you wouldn’t expect anything less, when they have a moment of serious material they do well, it is part of the back and forth between them which does get slightly tiresome after a while. It is almost like the film must stop for 30 seconds to a minute so they can go at each with insults. Idris Elba does look like he is having a hell of a time as the villainous figure, while Vanessa Kirby keeps up with the action heavy stars with ease bring another aspect to the styles of the three.
Story – The story here follows Hobbs and Shaw as they must once again put their differences a side to help Shaw’s sister get away from a deadly enhanced soldier and the virus he is threatening the world with. Breaking down this story, it does feel like any Fast & Furious film, there is no questions there, we get everything we expect with cheesy dialogue to match. If we do look at the story it is strange because we could easily have had this as a Hobbs or Shaw solo film with the way everything unfolds, with only one aspect of the film truly needing them to work together. The pair do seem to lose certain parts of the chemistry and respect for one an other they got from Fast 8, which again confuses why we need so much bickering between the two, as they are both the alpha, neither comes off as the comical side of the buddy relationship, meaning a lot of the jokes just hold up the film. It is nice this story could build on both the pairs backgrounds more, with slightly more focus on Deckard. If we are being honest, we don’t need a deep story here, we just come for the action.
Action/Adventure – The action in this film is huge, the fights, the chases and the explosions, though when it comes to the fights we do get a lot of cuts in them, which just doesn’t work as well as other action heavy films. The adventure does take the crew from London, to Russian to Samoa proving it to be an international mission.
Settings – The film uses the tight streets of London for the spy side of the movie, along with one big car chase, we use the other cities for the wide-open big action sequences in the film.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are also a mixed bad, certain bits look wonderful, including how Brixton is almost attached to his motorbike, it is the couple of moments which you can see the CGI effects at work which let it down.
Scene of the Movie – The base escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The bickering gets tiresome.
Final Thoughts – This is everything you expect in a Fast & Furious film, it is big, the action is ridiculous, and you can just sit back and enjoy.
Overall: Big dumb fun
Rating
Story: Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw starts when MI6 Agent Hattie Shaw (Kirby) is framed for stealing a deadly virus that Brixton (Elba) is after, using her ability to go into hiding comes in handy, Luke Hobbs (Johnson) and Deckard (Statham) are recruited to work together to help find her and get the virus out of her before it becomes a threat to the world.
With the three teaming up, they must use their connections to stay ahead of Brixton who has been enhanced to make a deadly threat that neither can defeat on their own, can they put aside their different and save the world again?
Thoughts on Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw
Characters – Hobbs is still working in the field to hunt down bad guys, but he remains family based with his daughter being the most important part of his life, he gets the call to save the world once again and doesn’t say no, heading to London to team up with an old enemy and friend in Deckard. He does play the I am bigger than you card, as the two constantly try to play the alpha male card. Deckard must come out of hiding to rescue his own little sister, he is better designed to the spy like side of this mission, we do get to learn a lot more about his past in this film too. Brixton is the big bad, he even introduces himself as ‘the bad guy’ he has been enhanced, making him a proper deadly weapon that will win any one on one fight, he isn’t afraid to fight with his men, though he is only part of a bigger plan going on. Hattie is the MI6 agent that gets framed, she is Deckard sister and knows how to get off the grid, she can handle herself in a fight and isn’t afraid to use a few tricks she learnt from her mother to get out of a sticky situation.
Performances – Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham must be looked at as one, they are excellent when it comes to the action sequences, you wouldn’t expect anything less, when they have a moment of serious material they do well, it is part of the back and forth between them which does get slightly tiresome after a while. It is almost like the film must stop for 30 seconds to a minute so they can go at each with insults. Idris Elba does look like he is having a hell of a time as the villainous figure, while Vanessa Kirby keeps up with the action heavy stars with ease bring another aspect to the styles of the three.
Story – The story here follows Hobbs and Shaw as they must once again put their differences a side to help Shaw’s sister get away from a deadly enhanced soldier and the virus he is threatening the world with. Breaking down this story, it does feel like any Fast & Furious film, there is no questions there, we get everything we expect with cheesy dialogue to match. If we do look at the story it is strange because we could easily have had this as a Hobbs or Shaw solo film with the way everything unfolds, with only one aspect of the film truly needing them to work together. The pair do seem to lose certain parts of the chemistry and respect for one an other they got from Fast 8, which again confuses why we need so much bickering between the two, as they are both the alpha, neither comes off as the comical side of the buddy relationship, meaning a lot of the jokes just hold up the film. It is nice this story could build on both the pairs backgrounds more, with slightly more focus on Deckard. If we are being honest, we don’t need a deep story here, we just come for the action.
Action/Adventure – The action in this film is huge, the fights, the chases and the explosions, though when it comes to the fights we do get a lot of cuts in them, which just doesn’t work as well as other action heavy films. The adventure does take the crew from London, to Russian to Samoa proving it to be an international mission.
Settings – The film uses the tight streets of London for the spy side of the movie, along with one big car chase, we use the other cities for the wide-open big action sequences in the film.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are also a mixed bad, certain bits look wonderful, including how Brixton is almost attached to his motorbike, it is the couple of moments which you can see the CGI effects at work which let it down.
Scene of the Movie – The base escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The bickering gets tiresome.
Final Thoughts – This is everything you expect in a Fast & Furious film, it is big, the action is ridiculous, and you can just sit back and enjoy.
Overall: Big dumb fun
Rating
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A stunning visual triumph.
I was a sufficient nerd to buy a “Back to the Future” T-shirt to celebrate “future day” from “Back to the Future 2” two-years ago, and I will probably be a sufficient nerd to buy a “Blade Runner” T-shirt in two-years time to celebrate the setting-date for the original film. One thing’s for sure… 2049 is never going to be long enough away to see the world of the new Blade Runner movie come to fruition: so I look forward to ironically buying that T-shirt too (assuming I make it to 88!). But I digress.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Dracula (English) (1931) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Where it all began...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The year was 1931: Two years after the success of The Jazz Singer and the final introduction of sound movies into the mainstream, sound was still revolutionising the industry. But in 1931, a bit like 3D now, there was still much confusion over to how make films, with directors, producers and actors alike, were still moving over from the suddenly dated silent era, with varying success.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Marvel films have become a staple for any movie fan’s diet over the past few years. We’ve had some bloody fantastic ones; Spiderman 2, Iron Man and the second X-Men to name a few; and we’ve had some pretty rubbish ones, Hulk, The Fantastic Four and Spiderman 3 are ones that spring to mind.
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avatar (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
James Cameron has had his work cut out trying to eclipse the success of his previous film Titanic, way back in 1997 and to this day it remains the highest grossing film of all time. It’s hard to believe that it’s been 12 years since his name was plastered on the big screen but he’s back with Avatar, a science fiction epic to rival Titanic’s crown.
Avatar has been marketed to death with 10-minute trailers littering cinemas across the globe and it hasn’t stopped there, James Cameron has been parading himself and the films stars around like toy soldiers to ensure it receives as much attention as he thinks it deserves, but is it actually any good?
Let’s start with the premise, an ex marine (Sam Worthington) who has been paralysed from the waist down in battle has been sent to an alien planet called Pandora to help mine for a very valuable metal and would you believe it, it’s name is ‘Unobtainium’, no jokes. Whilst there, he meets the Na’vi, an alien race that resemble giant smurfs. He becomes intrigued by their way of life, not to mention falling in love with one of them (Zoe Saldana). No, I’m not kidding and yes it does sound ridiculous.
The film starts pretty slowly, but then again at just under three hours long it has plenty of time to build momentum and after those first 10-minutes you get sucked into the whole environment of Pandora in the most dazzling 3D I have ever seen in the cinema. The special effects are complimented perfectly with the 3D experience and the alien environment is stunning, so stunning in fact that you have to see it, to believe it.
Considering the story is about blue smurf like aliens and is to say the least, a little thin on the ground; I was surprised to be sat there with all different kinds of emotion splattered across my face. One minute I would be wanting to shout out at the screen in sheer rage at what was going on, other times I would be sobbing my heart out in some of the most upsetting scenes I have seen in a modern Sci-fi. It just doesn’t happen, Sci-fi and tears just don’t go together; it’s like eating chocolate with fish. The transition between action, thriller, comedy and drama is exceptionally watertight and Avatar blends these genres all perfectly to form what is a complete package of a film.
Unfortunately, whilst the acting is sublime from most corners, with Zoe Saldana being the stand out performance as one of the female Na’vi, some of the human actors don’t really get enough screen time; annoying considering the films length. Sigourney Weaver is viciously underused and even though she plays her character with brilliance, she needed more screen time to fully develop the role.
Thankfully though, Cameron’s film limits the faults to those few and Avatar remains a magical ride, which whilst not being utterly original, reeks of box office championship and may just take over Titanic as the biggest film of all time.
Avatar is then, what everyone had ever wanted it to be, it combines unparalleled special effects in superb 3D with fabulous performances from the actors who really looked like they wanted to be in their roles. Trust the hype and you will witness history in the making.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/17/avatar-2009/
Avatar has been marketed to death with 10-minute trailers littering cinemas across the globe and it hasn’t stopped there, James Cameron has been parading himself and the films stars around like toy soldiers to ensure it receives as much attention as he thinks it deserves, but is it actually any good?
Let’s start with the premise, an ex marine (Sam Worthington) who has been paralysed from the waist down in battle has been sent to an alien planet called Pandora to help mine for a very valuable metal and would you believe it, it’s name is ‘Unobtainium’, no jokes. Whilst there, he meets the Na’vi, an alien race that resemble giant smurfs. He becomes intrigued by their way of life, not to mention falling in love with one of them (Zoe Saldana). No, I’m not kidding and yes it does sound ridiculous.
The film starts pretty slowly, but then again at just under three hours long it has plenty of time to build momentum and after those first 10-minutes you get sucked into the whole environment of Pandora in the most dazzling 3D I have ever seen in the cinema. The special effects are complimented perfectly with the 3D experience and the alien environment is stunning, so stunning in fact that you have to see it, to believe it.
Considering the story is about blue smurf like aliens and is to say the least, a little thin on the ground; I was surprised to be sat there with all different kinds of emotion splattered across my face. One minute I would be wanting to shout out at the screen in sheer rage at what was going on, other times I would be sobbing my heart out in some of the most upsetting scenes I have seen in a modern Sci-fi. It just doesn’t happen, Sci-fi and tears just don’t go together; it’s like eating chocolate with fish. The transition between action, thriller, comedy and drama is exceptionally watertight and Avatar blends these genres all perfectly to form what is a complete package of a film.
Unfortunately, whilst the acting is sublime from most corners, with Zoe Saldana being the stand out performance as one of the female Na’vi, some of the human actors don’t really get enough screen time; annoying considering the films length. Sigourney Weaver is viciously underused and even though she plays her character with brilliance, she needed more screen time to fully develop the role.
Thankfully though, Cameron’s film limits the faults to those few and Avatar remains a magical ride, which whilst not being utterly original, reeks of box office championship and may just take over Titanic as the biggest film of all time.
Avatar is then, what everyone had ever wanted it to be, it combines unparalleled special effects in superb 3D with fabulous performances from the actors who really looked like they wanted to be in their roles. Trust the hype and you will witness history in the making.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/17/avatar-2009/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
DC gets it right
I’m not going to sit here and tell you that Wonder Woman is alright because it’s been directed by a woman, or that it’s the most progressive superhero film of the last decade. No, neither of those things are true.
However, the titular superhero, played superbly by Gal Gadot stars in by far the best film in the ever-expanding DC Universe – though with Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman as stablemates, that really isn’t saying much.
Before she became Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an invincible warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise, Diana meets a US pilot (Chris Pine) who tells her about the conflict that’s raging in the outside world. Convinced she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her safe haven for the very first time. She fights alongside men of war and along the way discovers her true potential and her destiny.
So, let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. Director Patty Jenkins is one of the only women to have helmed a big summer blockbuster. Mimi Leder crafted Deep Impact back in 1998 and since then, female directors have been few and far between with Kathryn Bigelow being a notable exception. The gravitas of this cannot be understated.
How does the cast do? Well, it’s a story of two halves. Gal Gadot has proven herself in Batman v Superman and with a full film behind her, she is exceptional. It’s almost impossible to now think of anyone better suited to playing the titular character. Chris Pine is fine but he’s in the film far too much – not really his fault, but a superhero sidekick is usually relegated to a few witty one-liners rather than a fully-fledged supporting role.
The villains on the other hand are absolute garbage. Danny Huston hams it up as a German general and Elena Anaya’s portrayal of “Dr Poison” aiming to ramp up the war effort with the introduction of mustard gas is little to no use to the plot. The introduction of another villainous character towards the film’s climax also fails to lift the offering.
But what about the special effects? You guessed it, it’s 50/50. The sequences of Wonder Woman braving No Man’s Land are stunning, especially with the now instantly recognisable theme tune playing in the background, but this is poorly juxtaposed with some very shoddy CGI, it had me thinking of 2003’s Catwoman it was that bad.
Then the finale arrives and we’re thrown head first into the same CGI heavy ending that blights the majority of comic-book films nowadays. So, whilst it’s true that Patty Jenkins certainly knows how to shoot the action, she’s let down by cheap looking special effects.
Overall, Wonder Woman is a perfectly decent addition to the DCEU and certainly head and shoulders above its other offerings. The problem arises when we take a deeper look at Gal Gadot – she’s much, much better than the film she is in, and that’s a problem facing Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Will Smith, Margot Robbie… you get the picture.
Justice League, the ball is in your court.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/02/dc-gets-it-right-wonder-woman-review/
However, the titular superhero, played superbly by Gal Gadot stars in by far the best film in the ever-expanding DC Universe – though with Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman as stablemates, that really isn’t saying much.
Before she became Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an invincible warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise, Diana meets a US pilot (Chris Pine) who tells her about the conflict that’s raging in the outside world. Convinced she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her safe haven for the very first time. She fights alongside men of war and along the way discovers her true potential and her destiny.
So, let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. Director Patty Jenkins is one of the only women to have helmed a big summer blockbuster. Mimi Leder crafted Deep Impact back in 1998 and since then, female directors have been few and far between with Kathryn Bigelow being a notable exception. The gravitas of this cannot be understated.
How does the cast do? Well, it’s a story of two halves. Gal Gadot has proven herself in Batman v Superman and with a full film behind her, she is exceptional. It’s almost impossible to now think of anyone better suited to playing the titular character. Chris Pine is fine but he’s in the film far too much – not really his fault, but a superhero sidekick is usually relegated to a few witty one-liners rather than a fully-fledged supporting role.
The villains on the other hand are absolute garbage. Danny Huston hams it up as a German general and Elena Anaya’s portrayal of “Dr Poison” aiming to ramp up the war effort with the introduction of mustard gas is little to no use to the plot. The introduction of another villainous character towards the film’s climax also fails to lift the offering.
But what about the special effects? You guessed it, it’s 50/50. The sequences of Wonder Woman braving No Man’s Land are stunning, especially with the now instantly recognisable theme tune playing in the background, but this is poorly juxtaposed with some very shoddy CGI, it had me thinking of 2003’s Catwoman it was that bad.
Then the finale arrives and we’re thrown head first into the same CGI heavy ending that blights the majority of comic-book films nowadays. So, whilst it’s true that Patty Jenkins certainly knows how to shoot the action, she’s let down by cheap looking special effects.
Overall, Wonder Woman is a perfectly decent addition to the DCEU and certainly head and shoulders above its other offerings. The problem arises when we take a deeper look at Gal Gadot – she’s much, much better than the film she is in, and that’s a problem facing Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Will Smith, Margot Robbie… you get the picture.
Justice League, the ball is in your court.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/02/dc-gets-it-right-wonder-woman-review/