Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Triumph
Brutal. Spectacular. Emotional. These are just some of the adjectives you could use to describe Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Dunkirk. The director of Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento and Interstellar is one of the greatest film-makers working today and he raises the bar once again with this bleak tale from World War II.
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Geostorm (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The 90's are back
I’ve got to start by telling you I wasn’t holding out much hope for Geostorm and that’s for quite a few reasons. Firstly, Gerard Butler’s career has been on a bit of a slide recently.
Last year was particularly rough for the Scotsman, with London Has Fallen and Gods of Egypt receiving less than 2 stars here at Movie Metropolis. Secondly, Geostorm has had one of the most turbulent productions of any blockbuster in recent memory.
It actually completed main shooting in 2014 but after a negative audience reaction, it’s release date was pushed back numerous times and costly reshoots were drafted in to sort out the presumed mess. Now, in Autumn 2017 it’s arrived. But what’s it like?
After an unprecedented series of natural disasters, the world’s leaders banded together to create an intricate net of satellites to control the global climate and keep people safe. But now, something is wrong: the system built to protect the planet is attacking it, and it becomes a race against the clock to uncover the real threat before a worldwide geostorm wipes out everything and everyone along with it.
Sounding like something straight from the SyFy channel, Geostorm’s premise is utterly ridiculous but disaster movies have never been particularly well-known for their deep, meaningful and accurate storylines. In fact, some of the very best films in the genre, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Volcano wrestled with significant plot holes – audiences don’t care about that when they can watch the planet getting destroyed.
Morbid, right? Most definitely, but the same applies here. The special effects are so darn good, as a tidal wave obliterates Dubai, and the action interspersed at the right intervals, that the lack of cohesive plot and at times hideous and expositional dialogue really doesn’t matter.
The cinematography by director Dean Devlin (in his first feature film) is really rather good. It’s not ground-breaking but considering 95% of the movie is CGI, he works with green screen well and the script’s twists and turns make it a damn sight more interesting than the majority of 2017’s blockbusters.
“Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully.”
Gerard Butler is actually very decent, but there is a lot more talent on offer here than you would first expect. Ed Harris is always dependable and Andy Garcia plays a President similar to Morgan Freeman’s turn in 1998s Deep Impact. It’s cheesier than a Dairylea triangle, but that’s exactly how disaster films are meant to be.
Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully. Dante’s Peak, Earthquake and Volcano can all be felt here. It takes itself a lot less seriously than 2015’s San Andreas, and has a decent sense of humour to boot.
The scenes on-board the International Space Station are a little dull and to be fair, for a film titled Geostorm, there could be a little more ‘storming’ going on, but it’s a fun, throwaway film that requires nothing but your mind to switch off.
Overall, despite a ridiculously turbulent birth, Geostorm is an honest film. Sure, it’s premise is plagued by plot inconsistencies and the characters aren’t fleshed out enough for us to care about their fates, but it’s a rollercoaster ride of special effects and disaster, which I’m not ashamed to say, I really enjoyed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/21/geostorm-review/
Last year was particularly rough for the Scotsman, with London Has Fallen and Gods of Egypt receiving less than 2 stars here at Movie Metropolis. Secondly, Geostorm has had one of the most turbulent productions of any blockbuster in recent memory.
It actually completed main shooting in 2014 but after a negative audience reaction, it’s release date was pushed back numerous times and costly reshoots were drafted in to sort out the presumed mess. Now, in Autumn 2017 it’s arrived. But what’s it like?
After an unprecedented series of natural disasters, the world’s leaders banded together to create an intricate net of satellites to control the global climate and keep people safe. But now, something is wrong: the system built to protect the planet is attacking it, and it becomes a race against the clock to uncover the real threat before a worldwide geostorm wipes out everything and everyone along with it.
Sounding like something straight from the SyFy channel, Geostorm’s premise is utterly ridiculous but disaster movies have never been particularly well-known for their deep, meaningful and accurate storylines. In fact, some of the very best films in the genre, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Volcano wrestled with significant plot holes – audiences don’t care about that when they can watch the planet getting destroyed.
Morbid, right? Most definitely, but the same applies here. The special effects are so darn good, as a tidal wave obliterates Dubai, and the action interspersed at the right intervals, that the lack of cohesive plot and at times hideous and expositional dialogue really doesn’t matter.
The cinematography by director Dean Devlin (in his first feature film) is really rather good. It’s not ground-breaking but considering 95% of the movie is CGI, he works with green screen well and the script’s twists and turns make it a damn sight more interesting than the majority of 2017’s blockbusters.
“Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully.”
Gerard Butler is actually very decent, but there is a lot more talent on offer here than you would first expect. Ed Harris is always dependable and Andy Garcia plays a President similar to Morgan Freeman’s turn in 1998s Deep Impact. It’s cheesier than a Dairylea triangle, but that’s exactly how disaster films are meant to be.
Geostorm channels those brilliantly camp disaster movies from the 80s and 90s beautifully. Dante’s Peak, Earthquake and Volcano can all be felt here. It takes itself a lot less seriously than 2015’s San Andreas, and has a decent sense of humour to boot.
The scenes on-board the International Space Station are a little dull and to be fair, for a film titled Geostorm, there could be a little more ‘storming’ going on, but it’s a fun, throwaway film that requires nothing but your mind to switch off.
Overall, despite a ridiculously turbulent birth, Geostorm is an honest film. Sure, it’s premise is plagued by plot inconsistencies and the characters aren’t fleshed out enough for us to care about their fates, but it’s a rollercoaster ride of special effects and disaster, which I’m not ashamed to say, I really enjoyed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/21/geostorm-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An emotional goodbye
Over the last three years, The Hunger Games franchise has thrilled and delighted fans and newcomers to the series with its mix of wonderful special effects, a great cast and intriguing plots.
With the second instalment, Catching Fire, proving to be the best in the series, expectations for the finale, Mockingjay Part 2 were incredibly high. But is this the end we all wanted, and more importantly deserved?
Mockingjay Part 2 picks up immediately after the events of Part 1, as Jennifer Lawrence’s Katniss Everdeen recovers from a vicious attack by her friend and on-off lover Peeta, played by Josh Hutcherson in a troubled and career-best performance.
With Katniss becoming a symbol of hope in a time of dictatorship, Lawrence marches with her friends and allies to storm the Capitol and overthrow the tyrannical President Snow, a deliciously evil Donald Sutherland.
The catch? Snow and previous Game makers have booby-trapped the Capitol with a range of sadistic tests trying to stop the rebellion in its tracks.
The Hunger Games has become renowned for a fantastic supporting cast that includes talent like Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore, with the latter being particularly memorable.
Unfortunately, as is often the case with large Young Adult franchises, these fantastic actors are lost somewhat as director Francis Lawrence tries to tie up all loose ends with the main teens; Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth.
The aforementioned three have been part of a love triangle so convoluted it’s difficult to remember who is in love with who, but thankfully this takes a back seat to the action, though each of the three brings enough acting credibility to make the more romantic elements bearable.
Moreover, Mockingjay Part 2 pushes the boundaries of the much-maligned 12A certificate. This is by far the most harrowing and bleak of the four films and none of its predecessors were exactly a ray of sunshine. The characters are pushed to breaking point as the realisation of the Capitol’s evil fully sinks in and the inevitable loss of life is both thrilling and utterly devastating.
The special effects have been rightly ramped up for this final instalment with District 13 and the Capitol looking truly stunning. Each of the action sequences is filmed with such confidence and this shows off the exceptional sets much better than the handy cam that plagued the first film.
Unfortunately, the need to fill a movie nearly 140 minutes in length has led to a tone that occasionally jars and drags a little too frequently. This was a problem with Part 2’s predecessor and whilst the idea to split the final book into two films works better here, the balance is still not quite right and still reeks of money-making.
However, each of the action sequences are edge of the seat stuff with an underground sewer providing the film’s most pulse-racing and dramatic scenes. There’s a whiff of Ridley Scott’s Alien in Francis Lawrence’s direction throughout this extended set piece.
Overall, The Hunger Games series has ended on a high. From its beautiful cinematography to an exceptional main and supporting cast, director Francis Lawrence, who has been with the series since Catching Fire, has managed to craft a harrowing end to a group of films whose influence will be felt for many years to come.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/22/an-emotional-goodbye-the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2-review/
With the second instalment, Catching Fire, proving to be the best in the series, expectations for the finale, Mockingjay Part 2 were incredibly high. But is this the end we all wanted, and more importantly deserved?
Mockingjay Part 2 picks up immediately after the events of Part 1, as Jennifer Lawrence’s Katniss Everdeen recovers from a vicious attack by her friend and on-off lover Peeta, played by Josh Hutcherson in a troubled and career-best performance.
With Katniss becoming a symbol of hope in a time of dictatorship, Lawrence marches with her friends and allies to storm the Capitol and overthrow the tyrannical President Snow, a deliciously evil Donald Sutherland.
The catch? Snow and previous Game makers have booby-trapped the Capitol with a range of sadistic tests trying to stop the rebellion in its tracks.
The Hunger Games has become renowned for a fantastic supporting cast that includes talent like Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore, with the latter being particularly memorable.
Unfortunately, as is often the case with large Young Adult franchises, these fantastic actors are lost somewhat as director Francis Lawrence tries to tie up all loose ends with the main teens; Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth.
The aforementioned three have been part of a love triangle so convoluted it’s difficult to remember who is in love with who, but thankfully this takes a back seat to the action, though each of the three brings enough acting credibility to make the more romantic elements bearable.
Moreover, Mockingjay Part 2 pushes the boundaries of the much-maligned 12A certificate. This is by far the most harrowing and bleak of the four films and none of its predecessors were exactly a ray of sunshine. The characters are pushed to breaking point as the realisation of the Capitol’s evil fully sinks in and the inevitable loss of life is both thrilling and utterly devastating.
The special effects have been rightly ramped up for this final instalment with District 13 and the Capitol looking truly stunning. Each of the action sequences is filmed with such confidence and this shows off the exceptional sets much better than the handy cam that plagued the first film.
Unfortunately, the need to fill a movie nearly 140 minutes in length has led to a tone that occasionally jars and drags a little too frequently. This was a problem with Part 2’s predecessor and whilst the idea to split the final book into two films works better here, the balance is still not quite right and still reeks of money-making.
However, each of the action sequences are edge of the seat stuff with an underground sewer providing the film’s most pulse-racing and dramatic scenes. There’s a whiff of Ridley Scott’s Alien in Francis Lawrence’s direction throughout this extended set piece.
Overall, The Hunger Games series has ended on a high. From its beautiful cinematography to an exceptional main and supporting cast, director Francis Lawrence, who has been with the series since Catching Fire, has managed to craft a harrowing end to a group of films whose influence will be felt for many years to come.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/22/an-emotional-goodbye-the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Spectacularly Dumb
With box office takings of over $1.5billion, it was obvious that Universal Pictures would never let Furious 7 be the end of a multi-billion dollar franchise, no matter what many fans truly wanted.
The previous instalment was also, surprisingly, warmly received by critics who were impressed with how sensitively the naturally bombastic series handled the death of lead star Paul Walker. Two years on, the crew are back with Fast and Furious 8; does it do enough to keep the franchise on a high?
Now that Dom (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their honeymoon, Brian and Mia have retired from the game, and the rest of the crew have been exonerated, the plucky team of globetrotters has found a normal life of sorts. But when a mysterious woman (Charlize Theron) seduces Dom back into a world of crime that he can’t seem to escape from, the rest of the gang will face things that will test them like never before.
Newcomer to the franchise, director F. Gary Gray (Law Abiding Citizen, The Italian Job) manages to craft what is perhaps the most ridiculous entry in the series to date, plagued with tonal imbalances and plot holes so big you could fit the QE2 into them with ease. But you know what? It’s probably the most fun you’ll have in the cinema all year.
The cast are all reunited, barring Paul Walker’s Brian and those publicised rifts between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere to be seen as everyone on screen appears to be having the time of their lives. New recruit Charlize Theron adds a level of class to proceedings as steely supervillain, Cipher. She’s a cracking addition to the series and her acting prowess oozes from every pore, despite the often clunky dialogue.
Of course, successful predecessors command bigger budgets for their follow-ups and Furious 8 is no exception. $250million was spent on creating this film and it shows. It’s a feast for the eyes with explosions, shiny cars, stunning locations and breath-taking special effects. The result is frankly exceptional. From Cuba to NYC and from Berlin to Russia (actually filmed in Iceland), the vistas are nicely filmed and beautifully executed.
The action sequences are also choreographed very well, but from a franchise built on these foundations, I’d expect nothing less. In particular, a street chase through New York City is edge of your seat stuff as literally hundreds of vehicles worm their way through its congested streets.
Negatives? Well, the story is awkward despite some decent twists, the aforementioned plot holes cause a few headaches for a series that prides itself on continuity and some of the comedic elements are poorly placed, but in this eighth outing, much of that can be forgiven. After all, what other franchise could survive eight films and still prove as exciting as its first?
Overall, Fast and Furious 8 is unashamedly ridiculous but who cares? With exceptional special effects and a great new adversary in Charlize Theron, the series once again manages to surpass expectation. Each film tries its best to outdo its predecessor and before long, we’ll no doubt be heading to Mars with the gang. I’m up for that. Are you?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/13/spectacularly-dumb-fast-furious-8-review/
The previous instalment was also, surprisingly, warmly received by critics who were impressed with how sensitively the naturally bombastic series handled the death of lead star Paul Walker. Two years on, the crew are back with Fast and Furious 8; does it do enough to keep the franchise on a high?
Now that Dom (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their honeymoon, Brian and Mia have retired from the game, and the rest of the crew have been exonerated, the plucky team of globetrotters has found a normal life of sorts. But when a mysterious woman (Charlize Theron) seduces Dom back into a world of crime that he can’t seem to escape from, the rest of the gang will face things that will test them like never before.
Newcomer to the franchise, director F. Gary Gray (Law Abiding Citizen, The Italian Job) manages to craft what is perhaps the most ridiculous entry in the series to date, plagued with tonal imbalances and plot holes so big you could fit the QE2 into them with ease. But you know what? It’s probably the most fun you’ll have in the cinema all year.
The cast are all reunited, barring Paul Walker’s Brian and those publicised rifts between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere to be seen as everyone on screen appears to be having the time of their lives. New recruit Charlize Theron adds a level of class to proceedings as steely supervillain, Cipher. She’s a cracking addition to the series and her acting prowess oozes from every pore, despite the often clunky dialogue.
Of course, successful predecessors command bigger budgets for their follow-ups and Furious 8 is no exception. $250million was spent on creating this film and it shows. It’s a feast for the eyes with explosions, shiny cars, stunning locations and breath-taking special effects. The result is frankly exceptional. From Cuba to NYC and from Berlin to Russia (actually filmed in Iceland), the vistas are nicely filmed and beautifully executed.
The action sequences are also choreographed very well, but from a franchise built on these foundations, I’d expect nothing less. In particular, a street chase through New York City is edge of your seat stuff as literally hundreds of vehicles worm their way through its congested streets.
Negatives? Well, the story is awkward despite some decent twists, the aforementioned plot holes cause a few headaches for a series that prides itself on continuity and some of the comedic elements are poorly placed, but in this eighth outing, much of that can be forgiven. After all, what other franchise could survive eight films and still prove as exciting as its first?
Overall, Fast and Furious 8 is unashamedly ridiculous but who cares? With exceptional special effects and a great new adversary in Charlize Theron, the series once again manages to surpass expectation. Each film tries its best to outdo its predecessor and before long, we’ll no doubt be heading to Mars with the gang. I’m up for that. Are you?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/13/spectacularly-dumb-fast-furious-8-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghostbusters (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I ain't afraid of no reboot
So it’s here. One of the most reviled films of the decade before it was even released; the Ghostbusters reboot has a tough job persuading fans of the original films and newcomers alike that it’s worth their time.
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
On the wrong side of 60 you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was time for Liam Neeson to hang up his gun and move away from the cold, steely world of action films, into the fuzzy and sentimental territory of a rom-com.
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Grace and Tippi are conjoined twins, after being homeschooled for 16 years they are forced to attend Hornbeacon High.
The city can longer fund the girls homeschooling, nor can the family afford it, together they must venture the real world of stares, nasty comments, cruelty and obstacles they have to overcome.
Will they make friends? love! could it even be a possibility?
The girls realise they have to make a heart wrenching decision not only for the family but for themselves.
Easy money
<I> If I owned a pistol i could rob a bank.
I could stick a gun in a teller's face
and demand a stack of cash
then motor off in a stolen Maserati.
I could sell drugs to kids on the street corners
or pimp out girls to the highest bidder.
I could break and law I wanted.
If they imprisoned me,
they'd have to lock up Tippi too,
which is false arrest,
Illegal,
and would never stand up in a
court of law.
If I didn't have this damn conscience,
we'd be rich.</I>
I loved this verse (above) It made me laugh at the thought, she has a point, how would that work?
My thoughts,
I loved this book, i have never read anything like this before and it was thought-provoking. I had never thought of things such as when one of them is ill, the other stays in bed until recuperation, or what if one of them falls in love? If one drinks alcohol, will the other get drunk? There were times during this book where i would stop reading and do a thinking pose like J.D from Scrubs and ponder.
This book has made me want to learn more about conjoined twins and the effects on their lives, if anyone know any other books like this let me know, even if its non fiction.
Characters:
The parents - I felt no connection to the parents whatsoever, it felt like they had given up, What with the father being made redundant, depressed, and an alcoholic. The mum was overworked in a bank. However saying that it does show you the effects and costs,strain that it can have on families.
Yasmeen - has her own problems and with that she has become hardened to bullies, the twins need a friend like this
Grace was they shyer of the two whereas Tippi was most outspoken and bitchy.
Jon - I felt no connection with him at all, I just felt he was in the story as Sarah Crossan wanted to touch on the subject of love.
Dragon I felt sorry for as she was having to fend for herself in the sense that her parents couldn't afford ballet lessons so she had to find alternative ways to carry on with her dance,
This is the first book that I have ever read in verse and it was so different, easy to read and quick. the book is 430 pages and read this in less than a day.
Its told in Grace's POV, however it would have been nice to hear from Tippi too.
Sarah Crossan touches very slightly on other subjects but doesn't delve deep into them.
She also shows you that these 2 girls have such a bond that if the possibility of separation was an option they would refuse, despite the health scares, remarks and challenges they will come across.
Overall I rate this book 4 out of 5 stars
The city can longer fund the girls homeschooling, nor can the family afford it, together they must venture the real world of stares, nasty comments, cruelty and obstacles they have to overcome.
Will they make friends? love! could it even be a possibility?
The girls realise they have to make a heart wrenching decision not only for the family but for themselves.
Easy money
<I> If I owned a pistol i could rob a bank.
I could stick a gun in a teller's face
and demand a stack of cash
then motor off in a stolen Maserati.
I could sell drugs to kids on the street corners
or pimp out girls to the highest bidder.
I could break and law I wanted.
If they imprisoned me,
they'd have to lock up Tippi too,
which is false arrest,
Illegal,
and would never stand up in a
court of law.
If I didn't have this damn conscience,
we'd be rich.</I>
I loved this verse (above) It made me laugh at the thought, she has a point, how would that work?
My thoughts,
I loved this book, i have never read anything like this before and it was thought-provoking. I had never thought of things such as when one of them is ill, the other stays in bed until recuperation, or what if one of them falls in love? If one drinks alcohol, will the other get drunk? There were times during this book where i would stop reading and do a thinking pose like J.D from Scrubs and ponder.
This book has made me want to learn more about conjoined twins and the effects on their lives, if anyone know any other books like this let me know, even if its non fiction.
Characters:
The parents - I felt no connection to the parents whatsoever, it felt like they had given up, What with the father being made redundant, depressed, and an alcoholic. The mum was overworked in a bank. However saying that it does show you the effects and costs,strain that it can have on families.
Yasmeen - has her own problems and with that she has become hardened to bullies, the twins need a friend like this
Grace was they shyer of the two whereas Tippi was most outspoken and bitchy.
Jon - I felt no connection with him at all, I just felt he was in the story as Sarah Crossan wanted to touch on the subject of love.
Dragon I felt sorry for as she was having to fend for herself in the sense that her parents couldn't afford ballet lessons so she had to find alternative ways to carry on with her dance,
This is the first book that I have ever read in verse and it was so different, easy to read and quick. the book is 430 pages and read this in less than a day.
Its told in Grace's POV, however it would have been nice to hear from Tippi too.
Sarah Crossan touches very slightly on other subjects but doesn't delve deep into them.
She also shows you that these 2 girls have such a bond that if the possibility of separation was an option they would refuse, despite the health scares, remarks and challenges they will come across.
Overall I rate this book 4 out of 5 stars