Search
Search results
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Soul Catcher (The Outsider #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Soul Catcher by Leigh Bridger
Genre: Sci-fi, Romance
ISBN: 9780982175682
Rating: 4
Livia hasn't had a perfect life—in fact she hasn't even had a good life. It all started when her father died when she was young, then got worse when her mother and baby brother died in a fire that she may or may not have started. She also starts painting pictures of evil horrible demons in her sleep, and is forced to burn the pictures and ban them… but one demon escapes, and comes for her.
She finds out that he had been pursuing her in every life—she's been reincarnated? what?—and has killed her every time for the past 200+ years. She also finds out that she has a soul mate, (who jumped into the body that the demon had used to hurt her, and now she can't look at him without getting sick) but has hidden herself from him in almost every life, subconsciously, because of something that happened in the past. She and Ian set off to find answers and to kill the pig-faced demon… for good this time. But this time ends up being the most dangerous life she's ever lived.
Soul Catcher was an addicting read. I would have read it in one sitting if I'd been allowed. It actually stuck with me all night and I'm pretty sure I dreamed about it.
I liked the philosophy of the world that Livia lived in. There were soul jumpers, like Ian and Dante, who could jump into any body he needed to be in at the time. There were soul catchers like her, who could banish dark spirits and talk to the light ones. The plot itself was very complex, and every chapter added something new to the story. One thing that made Soul Catcher stand out was how Livia and Ian's love grew. It wasn't immediate you're-my-soul-mate-you're-perfect-for-me kind of love. It was a lot more real than that. Livia starts by trying to avoid him at all costs, but ends up having to go on a trip with him to find out about their pasts. You could say they "bonded," or you could say that Ian finally got to her—even while he was in the body she hated passionately—either way, their love was real enough to be believable.
I really liked Livia, even though she had her downfalls and her insecurities. She was definitely the bad-ass heroine we know and love: slightly sarcastic, very obnoxious, stubborn as an ox, and head over heels in love but unwilling to admit it because she sees it as a weakness. Ian was a great character: he'd have to be to put up with Livia. He'd do anything for her, is dying for her to love him, thinks she is the most beautiful girl in the world—and even bends so low as to trick her into kissing him (she didn't appreciate that.). But he's all light-hearted, fun to be around, with a sexy Irish accent.
I really liked the ending. The whole story had good humor and good comic relief, but the ending was sweet, cute, and funny. It pulled everything together nicely, and left you with a smirk on your face. I say take it to the beach with an umbrella and lemonade. Or whatever other drink you like best.
Content/recommendation: some sex and sexual references, heavy language, ages 18+
~ Haleyknitz
Genre: Sci-fi, Romance
ISBN: 9780982175682
Rating: 4
Livia hasn't had a perfect life—in fact she hasn't even had a good life. It all started when her father died when she was young, then got worse when her mother and baby brother died in a fire that she may or may not have started. She also starts painting pictures of evil horrible demons in her sleep, and is forced to burn the pictures and ban them… but one demon escapes, and comes for her.
She finds out that he had been pursuing her in every life—she's been reincarnated? what?—and has killed her every time for the past 200+ years. She also finds out that she has a soul mate, (who jumped into the body that the demon had used to hurt her, and now she can't look at him without getting sick) but has hidden herself from him in almost every life, subconsciously, because of something that happened in the past. She and Ian set off to find answers and to kill the pig-faced demon… for good this time. But this time ends up being the most dangerous life she's ever lived.
Soul Catcher was an addicting read. I would have read it in one sitting if I'd been allowed. It actually stuck with me all night and I'm pretty sure I dreamed about it.
I liked the philosophy of the world that Livia lived in. There were soul jumpers, like Ian and Dante, who could jump into any body he needed to be in at the time. There were soul catchers like her, who could banish dark spirits and talk to the light ones. The plot itself was very complex, and every chapter added something new to the story. One thing that made Soul Catcher stand out was how Livia and Ian's love grew. It wasn't immediate you're-my-soul-mate-you're-perfect-for-me kind of love. It was a lot more real than that. Livia starts by trying to avoid him at all costs, but ends up having to go on a trip with him to find out about their pasts. You could say they "bonded," or you could say that Ian finally got to her—even while he was in the body she hated passionately—either way, their love was real enough to be believable.
I really liked Livia, even though she had her downfalls and her insecurities. She was definitely the bad-ass heroine we know and love: slightly sarcastic, very obnoxious, stubborn as an ox, and head over heels in love but unwilling to admit it because she sees it as a weakness. Ian was a great character: he'd have to be to put up with Livia. He'd do anything for her, is dying for her to love him, thinks she is the most beautiful girl in the world—and even bends so low as to trick her into kissing him (she didn't appreciate that.). But he's all light-hearted, fun to be around, with a sexy Irish accent.
I really liked the ending. The whole story had good humor and good comic relief, but the ending was sweet, cute, and funny. It pulled everything together nicely, and left you with a smirk on your face. I say take it to the beach with an umbrella and lemonade. Or whatever other drink you like best.
Content/recommendation: some sex and sexual references, heavy language, ages 18+
~ Haleyknitz
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Something's Alive on the Titanic in Books
May 16, 2018
Something's Alive on the Titanic has a bit of a split story line, with one part of the book taking place in 1975, and the other part taking place in 1995. Written by the late Robert Serling, who is, in fact, Rod Serling's older brother, Something's Alive on the Titanic plays off of the idea that Dr. Robert Ballard was not the first one to discover the final resting place of the Titanic. Instead, a team led by John Hawke, at the behest of code-breaker Derek Montague, departs on an expedition to retrieve treasure from the Titanic's watery grave after Montague discovers that a shipment from a smuggling ring under the guise of a salvage company by the name of Sovereign Metals.
A true product of its time, and remaining faithful to the time-period in which the story is set, one of the few things of note to make in regards to its characters is the absolute lack of a strong female presence. The two women that are present, especially Chaney in the 1975 portion of the book, are Mary Sue-esque and, without a doubt, sexualized. Another note to be made comes in the form of the male characters: they are portrayed as stereotypical, stubborn men that, despite being superstitious, are also skeptics. This manner of male character is more prominent in the second part of the book than the first.
The plot, on the other hand, was pretty stellar. In 1975, the expedition lacks the proper equipment to dive down into the depths of the Atlantic and explore the ship for extended periods of time. They make the most of what they do have, however. Intent on claiming the lost treasure, most of John Hawke's crew show little regard for the fact that they are desecrating a grave: greed is, after all, the heart of all evil. While the Atlantic Ocean treats the crew well, the Titanic is anything but forgiving: the decrepit ship plays host to more than the relics of the souls that once stood upon its deck. Whatever that thing is, it doesn't play nicely. In 1995, the US Navy gathers a crew to find out what exactly happened in 1975, and to complete the earlier expedition's salvage mission.
Given the presence of a female in a heavily male dominated field, it goes without saying that there's a bit of teasing and a bit of romance. That subplot is fairly minor and serves mostly to remind readers of a certain character's penchant for being a total asshole and little more. There is also sex, briefly, but I'll leave that to someone else.
Serling's knowledge of the Titanic is actually pretty accurate, down to the fact that the fourth funnel on the ship was a fake, there was a shortage of lifeboats, and most of the lifeboats were dropped before they were filled.
It isn't very often that a book really draws me in, but that could be attributed to the fact that I no longer read as I used to. Serling's prose kept me on the edge of my seat and at times, it even raised my heart rate a little. Rather than paint us an entire picture of the supernatural phenomena that takes place, he begins with little bits and pieces, crumbs if you will, until finally, you begin to question the sanity of the characters involved, whilst simultaneously hoping for the best.
A true product of its time, and remaining faithful to the time-period in which the story is set, one of the few things of note to make in regards to its characters is the absolute lack of a strong female presence. The two women that are present, especially Chaney in the 1975 portion of the book, are Mary Sue-esque and, without a doubt, sexualized. Another note to be made comes in the form of the male characters: they are portrayed as stereotypical, stubborn men that, despite being superstitious, are also skeptics. This manner of male character is more prominent in the second part of the book than the first.
The plot, on the other hand, was pretty stellar. In 1975, the expedition lacks the proper equipment to dive down into the depths of the Atlantic and explore the ship for extended periods of time. They make the most of what they do have, however. Intent on claiming the lost treasure, most of John Hawke's crew show little regard for the fact that they are desecrating a grave: greed is, after all, the heart of all evil. While the Atlantic Ocean treats the crew well, the Titanic is anything but forgiving: the decrepit ship plays host to more than the relics of the souls that once stood upon its deck. Whatever that thing is, it doesn't play nicely. In 1995, the US Navy gathers a crew to find out what exactly happened in 1975, and to complete the earlier expedition's salvage mission.
Given the presence of a female in a heavily male dominated field, it goes without saying that there's a bit of teasing and a bit of romance. That subplot is fairly minor and serves mostly to remind readers of a certain character's penchant for being a total asshole and little more. There is also sex, briefly, but I'll leave that to someone else.
Serling's knowledge of the Titanic is actually pretty accurate, down to the fact that the fourth funnel on the ship was a fake, there was a shortage of lifeboats, and most of the lifeboats were dropped before they were filled.
It isn't very often that a book really draws me in, but that could be attributed to the fact that I no longer read as I used to. Serling's prose kept me on the edge of my seat and at times, it even raised my heart rate a little. Rather than paint us an entire picture of the supernatural phenomena that takes place, he begins with little bits and pieces, crumbs if you will, until finally, you begin to question the sanity of the characters involved, whilst simultaneously hoping for the best.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Apr 21, 2019
I've said it before, The Conjuring is my all time favourite scary movie. However, since the success of that first movie, there have been a number of spin off movies, in an bid to build what's now known as the 'Conjuring Universe'. These movies have all varied in quality, ranging from the not too bad (Annabelle Creation) to the downright awful (The Nun). With a third Annabelle movie due out this year, not to mention another Conjuring sequel and other planned universe movies such as The Crooked Man, there's no sign of them stopping anytime soon.
Which brings us to The Curse of La Llorona, the latest entry to the universe and one which is based on Mexican folklore. La Llorona, also known as "The Weeping Woman", is the ghost of a woman who drowned her children and now cries while looking for them in the river. Nowadays, children are told to be well behaved and respectful of their elders, otherwise La Llorona will come and take them away.
This movie wasn't originally billed as being part of the Conjuring universe, and featured a pretty dull first trailer. However, a subsequent trailer featured a familiar face from the Annabelle movies in the form of Father Perez (Tony Amendola), and a link to the Conjuring universe was later confirmed, despite his presence in this movie being somewhat brief.
We're in Los Angeles, 1976. Anna (Linda Cardellini) is a widow with two young kids and working in social services. She still mourns the death of her police officer husband while trying to keep her family together and maintain her demanding job. That job involves dealing with some difficult cases involving children and one such case takes her to the Alvarez home. The mother appears to have lost her mind, while her children are locked in a cupboard that has strange markings on the door. As the title of the movie suggests, there is a curse at play and it's not long before that curse, and the horror that brings with it, is passed onto Anna and her children.
Like The Nun, La Llorona is essentially just a woman with scary face makeup who shrieks at people every so often and tries to make you jump. But thankfully, there's a little more to La Llorona than just that. Some slow, effective reveals provide some pretty decent chills and scares, making this a much more solid and enjoyable movie as she begins to terrorise the children before eventually invading their home and going full on evil.
After Father Perez brings us all up to speed on the backstory of La Llorona, and a flashback to 1763 gives us a visual and graphic representation, the family are referred to an ex priest who is better suited in helping them shake off the curse. He comes to their home in order to prepare for the arrival, and hopefully the removal of, La Llorona. It all feels very formulaic, similar to countless movies we've seen before, such as Poltergeist.
The Curse of La Llorona is pretty corny at times, attempting to inject humour which doesn't always seem to work. However, I did like it. It's certainly a huge step up from last year's disappointing Nun movie and featured enough intensity and scares in its short 93 minute runtime to make it enjoyable enough.
Which brings us to The Curse of La Llorona, the latest entry to the universe and one which is based on Mexican folklore. La Llorona, also known as "The Weeping Woman", is the ghost of a woman who drowned her children and now cries while looking for them in the river. Nowadays, children are told to be well behaved and respectful of their elders, otherwise La Llorona will come and take them away.
This movie wasn't originally billed as being part of the Conjuring universe, and featured a pretty dull first trailer. However, a subsequent trailer featured a familiar face from the Annabelle movies in the form of Father Perez (Tony Amendola), and a link to the Conjuring universe was later confirmed, despite his presence in this movie being somewhat brief.
We're in Los Angeles, 1976. Anna (Linda Cardellini) is a widow with two young kids and working in social services. She still mourns the death of her police officer husband while trying to keep her family together and maintain her demanding job. That job involves dealing with some difficult cases involving children and one such case takes her to the Alvarez home. The mother appears to have lost her mind, while her children are locked in a cupboard that has strange markings on the door. As the title of the movie suggests, there is a curse at play and it's not long before that curse, and the horror that brings with it, is passed onto Anna and her children.
Like The Nun, La Llorona is essentially just a woman with scary face makeup who shrieks at people every so often and tries to make you jump. But thankfully, there's a little more to La Llorona than just that. Some slow, effective reveals provide some pretty decent chills and scares, making this a much more solid and enjoyable movie as she begins to terrorise the children before eventually invading their home and going full on evil.
After Father Perez brings us all up to speed on the backstory of La Llorona, and a flashback to 1763 gives us a visual and graphic representation, the family are referred to an ex priest who is better suited in helping them shake off the curse. He comes to their home in order to prepare for the arrival, and hopefully the removal of, La Llorona. It all feels very formulaic, similar to countless movies we've seen before, such as Poltergeist.
The Curse of La Llorona is pretty corny at times, attempting to inject humour which doesn't always seem to work. However, I did like it. It's certainly a huge step up from last year's disappointing Nun movie and featured enough intensity and scares in its short 93 minute runtime to make it enjoyable enough.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
10 years in the making
A film adaptation of Stephen King’s wildly successful Dark Tower novels has been rumoured for over a decade. In 2007, J.J. Abrams was attached to direct the film but dropped out in December 2009.
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Make sure you take a pillow
Horror buffs and Stephen King fans everywhere have been waiting for this moment since 2009. It is of course, a modern adaptation of the author’s novel, IT.
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated American Sniper (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Incredibly Harrowing
There’s something about Clint Eastwood’s varied directing career that puts him among the greats of the craft. Along with Spielberg, Scott and Fincher, Eastwood has created some of cinema’s greatest films – yet he goes about it in a completely different fashion to his peers, he doesn’t shout about it.
Here, Eastwood directs Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller in his latest offering, American Sniper, but does it stand as one of the better films on his resume?
American Sniper follows the story of Chris Kyle, a decorated marksman in the US military at a time when the war against terror strikes fear into the hearts of practically everyone across the globe.
An Oscar-nominated Bradley Cooper plays the lead role beautifully, in what is the best performance of his career, while Sienna Miller makes a welcome return to the big screen as his loyal wife Taya.
As the film plays out, we see the duo go about their lives – apart and together as they come to terms with raising a family, despite Kyle’s constant deployment to Iraq and the many troubles that brings as he tries to resume normal life.
Eastwood really hits hard with the imagery, never glamorising the war on terror or conflict itself and this is perhaps the strongest part of the picture. Many films in the genre almost feel like military propaganda, but here, the brutality is raw in the emotions of the lead characters and squalid locations.
The surroundings themselves are beautifully shot with Eastwood’s trademark flair for long, sweeping camera angles being used in abundance. Thankfully he lets the stunning locations speak for themselves throughout the majority of the film, not tampering with them despite that becoming a norm recently.
These scenery shots are juxtaposed with the damp, dirty conditions the soldiers must deal with frequently, with sunset-flooded vistas giving way to crumbling buildings and claustrophobic rooms.
However, the very nature of the movie, following Cooper’s character on his various Tours, does get repetitive at times and there are certain moments that feel like you’re watching someone playing a video game like Resident Evil or Call of Duty as one minor set piece leads to a larger one – though the tense final act makes up for this somewhat.
American Sniper also makes you increasingly aware of the human cost that comes with conflict. This is a bleak film, make no mistake and it’s especially harrowing seeing how Taya (Sienna Miller) copes with being away from her husband for long periods of time, especially with the job of raising a family.
Despite a running time of over two hours, Sniper never feels long, a testament to the snappy pacing and wonderful performances Sienna+Miller+Sienna+Miller+Films+American+dQWprK3Evu6lthroughout, and despite a lack of backstory for some of the other characters, Eastwood delves into the lifestyle of Chris and his wife beautifully.
Overall, Eastwood has another memorable film to add to his CV, and whilst it would be insulting to call it ‘fun’, American Sniper is enjoyable to watch in a whole different way. Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller are both excellent and when the whole cinema leaves the screen in complete silence, you know that the message has got across.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/23/incredibly-harrowing-american-sniper-review/
Here, Eastwood directs Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller in his latest offering, American Sniper, but does it stand as one of the better films on his resume?
American Sniper follows the story of Chris Kyle, a decorated marksman in the US military at a time when the war against terror strikes fear into the hearts of practically everyone across the globe.
An Oscar-nominated Bradley Cooper plays the lead role beautifully, in what is the best performance of his career, while Sienna Miller makes a welcome return to the big screen as his loyal wife Taya.
As the film plays out, we see the duo go about their lives – apart and together as they come to terms with raising a family, despite Kyle’s constant deployment to Iraq and the many troubles that brings as he tries to resume normal life.
Eastwood really hits hard with the imagery, never glamorising the war on terror or conflict itself and this is perhaps the strongest part of the picture. Many films in the genre almost feel like military propaganda, but here, the brutality is raw in the emotions of the lead characters and squalid locations.
The surroundings themselves are beautifully shot with Eastwood’s trademark flair for long, sweeping camera angles being used in abundance. Thankfully he lets the stunning locations speak for themselves throughout the majority of the film, not tampering with them despite that becoming a norm recently.
These scenery shots are juxtaposed with the damp, dirty conditions the soldiers must deal with frequently, with sunset-flooded vistas giving way to crumbling buildings and claustrophobic rooms.
However, the very nature of the movie, following Cooper’s character on his various Tours, does get repetitive at times and there are certain moments that feel like you’re watching someone playing a video game like Resident Evil or Call of Duty as one minor set piece leads to a larger one – though the tense final act makes up for this somewhat.
American Sniper also makes you increasingly aware of the human cost that comes with conflict. This is a bleak film, make no mistake and it’s especially harrowing seeing how Taya (Sienna Miller) copes with being away from her husband for long periods of time, especially with the job of raising a family.
Despite a running time of over two hours, Sniper never feels long, a testament to the snappy pacing and wonderful performances Sienna+Miller+Sienna+Miller+Films+American+dQWprK3Evu6lthroughout, and despite a lack of backstory for some of the other characters, Eastwood delves into the lifestyle of Chris and his wife beautifully.
Overall, Eastwood has another memorable film to add to his CV, and whilst it would be insulting to call it ‘fun’, American Sniper is enjoyable to watch in a whole different way. Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller are both excellent and when the whole cinema leaves the screen in complete silence, you know that the message has got across.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/23/incredibly-harrowing-american-sniper-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Snow White has certainly been receiving a lot of attention this year and it’s been hard to ignore two films competing with each other to win the accolade of best cinema adaptation.
Julia Roberts has already starred in sickly sweet adaptation Mirror Mirror and here Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame takes on the lead role in the gritty, dramatic adaptation of the fairytale. But is it a good take on a children’s classic?
Snow White & The Huntsman opens as you would expect with a look back at the aforementioned Princess’ traumatic childhood, from the death of her mother, to witnessing the death of her father King Magnus, it seems like any normal child would’ve had a few problems after this but Snow seems a little more reserved.
Snow White’s father is killed at the hands of her wicked stepmother, played wonderfully by Charlize Theron who really gets her teeth into the role she’s been given and plays the character with a nice dose of evil intertwined with brief moments of sincerity. Those of you familiar with the story will no doubt know that Snow White hides with the seven dwarves to escape the clutches of her stepmother, but more on that later.
Chris Hemsworth, who seems to be getting more and more acting jobs these days does a nice job as the widowed, constantly drunk huntsman, though his accent is a little hard to assess, no doubt done to cover his Australian roots.
Hemsworth is sent by the wicked Queen to kill Snow White so that her eternal youth isn’t threatened but things run less than smoothly as he realises that he is being tricked, he and Snow then decide to go on the run, bumping into the seven dwarves along the way.
The Kingdom in which they live is beautifully realised in fabulous CGI, from the dark forest, to the towering stone walls of the castle and then further into the ‘sanctuary’ a place where people can go to relax and unwind. Fairies, badgers, foxes, rabbits, mushrooms with beady little eyes and moss covered tortoises are amongst the creatures here and ruling over them all is the spirit of the forest, a fabulous and very real looking white stag.
This is, however, where Snow White & The Huntsman falls short. Yes, the CGI is impeccable and yes the acting is good, but it all feels a little bit soulless. It’s all about the frills rather than creating a deep and meaningful story. It has the basics right but it’s impossible to care about the characters because there isn’t enough back-story. Each set piece is interspersed with a little bit of emotion, but it’s not really enough and because of this, the entire film feels disjointed.
This is made worse by the fact the film is stretched to over two hours when there isn’t really enough story to create a two hour film.
Unfortunately, these points detract from what is a wonderful and beautifully realised adaptation of a classic children’s fairytale. To compare it to Mirror Mirror would be unfair as they are both so different. Snow White & The Huntsman is like last year’s Alice in Wonderland, it all looks and sounds great, but is ultimately; decidedly average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/06/07/snow-white-the-huntsman-review/
Julia Roberts has already starred in sickly sweet adaptation Mirror Mirror and here Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame takes on the lead role in the gritty, dramatic adaptation of the fairytale. But is it a good take on a children’s classic?
Snow White & The Huntsman opens as you would expect with a look back at the aforementioned Princess’ traumatic childhood, from the death of her mother, to witnessing the death of her father King Magnus, it seems like any normal child would’ve had a few problems after this but Snow seems a little more reserved.
Snow White’s father is killed at the hands of her wicked stepmother, played wonderfully by Charlize Theron who really gets her teeth into the role she’s been given and plays the character with a nice dose of evil intertwined with brief moments of sincerity. Those of you familiar with the story will no doubt know that Snow White hides with the seven dwarves to escape the clutches of her stepmother, but more on that later.
Chris Hemsworth, who seems to be getting more and more acting jobs these days does a nice job as the widowed, constantly drunk huntsman, though his accent is a little hard to assess, no doubt done to cover his Australian roots.
Hemsworth is sent by the wicked Queen to kill Snow White so that her eternal youth isn’t threatened but things run less than smoothly as he realises that he is being tricked, he and Snow then decide to go on the run, bumping into the seven dwarves along the way.
The Kingdom in which they live is beautifully realised in fabulous CGI, from the dark forest, to the towering stone walls of the castle and then further into the ‘sanctuary’ a place where people can go to relax and unwind. Fairies, badgers, foxes, rabbits, mushrooms with beady little eyes and moss covered tortoises are amongst the creatures here and ruling over them all is the spirit of the forest, a fabulous and very real looking white stag.
This is, however, where Snow White & The Huntsman falls short. Yes, the CGI is impeccable and yes the acting is good, but it all feels a little bit soulless. It’s all about the frills rather than creating a deep and meaningful story. It has the basics right but it’s impossible to care about the characters because there isn’t enough back-story. Each set piece is interspersed with a little bit of emotion, but it’s not really enough and because of this, the entire film feels disjointed.
This is made worse by the fact the film is stretched to over two hours when there isn’t really enough story to create a two hour film.
Unfortunately, these points detract from what is a wonderful and beautifully realised adaptation of a classic children’s fairytale. To compare it to Mirror Mirror would be unfair as they are both so different. Snow White & The Huntsman is like last year’s Alice in Wonderland, it all looks and sounds great, but is ultimately; decidedly average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/06/07/snow-white-the-huntsman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Noah (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Biblical epics never seem to translate well from paper to the big screen. Mel Gibson’s 2004 misfire, The Passion of the Christ, showed just how difficult it was to turn promising source material into silver screen gold.
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/