Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A Valentine's weekend wonder
It’s hard to believe that one of Marvel’s hottest properties – Deadpool, has taken this long to get to the silver screen. Of course, we can always cast our minds back to 2009’s disastrous X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But for goodness sake, let’s not.
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Minions (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bright, smart and hilarious
They’re everywhere! Minions have become a worldwide phenomenon since their unveiling in 2010’s smash-hit Despicable Me and for their return in its sequel.
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Here we go again
I can’t be the only one surprised that the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has managed to withstand five films. Created on a whim by Disney in 2003, the first film propelled Johnny Depp into the lives of movie fans like never before.
However, come 2017 and Depp’s star is sinking faster than the Black Pearl. After three pretty dreadful sequels, the cast reunites for Salazar’s Revenge. But does a change in directors herald a new and exciting path for the plucky pirates?
Thrust into an all-new adventure, a down-on-his-luck Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) feels the winds of ill-fortune blowing strongly when ghost sailors led by his nemesis, evil Captain Salazar (Javier Bardem), escape from the Devil’s Triangle. Jack’s only hope lies in seeking out the legendary Trident of Poseidon, but to find it, he must forge an uneasy alliance with a brilliant and beautiful astronomer (Kaya Scodelario and a headstrong young man in the British navy (Brenton Thwaites).
Newcomer directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg craft a film that is magnificent to look at and stunning to listen to, but features all of the same problems as its predecessors. The time really is up on this franchise.
Of the cast, only Javier Bardem’s snarling Salazar makes any sort of lasting impact. In fact, he’s probably the best antagonist the series has ever had and makes for a menacing presence throughout. Depp looks like he’s on autopilot, almost as bored of Jack Sparrow’s drunken antics as we are, and the normally excellent Kaya Scodelario (Skins, Maze Runner) plays a particularly bland female lead during the films running time.
Speaking of which, at 142 minutes, this is one migraine inducing slog. All four previous films have suffered from being overstuffed, and with the extra abundance of characters this time around, it’s even more painful. There simply is no need to create a film that’s nearly two and a half hours long, especially considering the plot is as paint-by-numbers as you can get.
Nevertheless, to look at, Salazar’s Revenge really is breath-taking. The action is filmed confidently and the sets are fantastically detailed using some exceptional practical effects. There are ghost sharks, glistening islands and the motion capture used on Javier Bardem and his crew is seamless. Only the CGI-heavy finale lets the film down. The music is also sublime. Geoff Zanelli’s thunderous melody features the trademark theme-tune mixed with some really lovely orchestral music.
Overall, Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge kicks off a summer season filled to the brim with sequels and after the previous film’s poor reception, expectation was almost as low as it is for Transformers: the Last Knight.
What we’ve ended up with is a bit of a double-edged sword then. It’s certainly better than the previous three sequels and almost up to the standard of the 2003 original; the problem is, that film wasn’t particularly good in the first place.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/26/here-we-go-again-pirates-of-the-caribbean-salazars-revenge-review/
However, come 2017 and Depp’s star is sinking faster than the Black Pearl. After three pretty dreadful sequels, the cast reunites for Salazar’s Revenge. But does a change in directors herald a new and exciting path for the plucky pirates?
Thrust into an all-new adventure, a down-on-his-luck Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) feels the winds of ill-fortune blowing strongly when ghost sailors led by his nemesis, evil Captain Salazar (Javier Bardem), escape from the Devil’s Triangle. Jack’s only hope lies in seeking out the legendary Trident of Poseidon, but to find it, he must forge an uneasy alliance with a brilliant and beautiful astronomer (Kaya Scodelario and a headstrong young man in the British navy (Brenton Thwaites).
Newcomer directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg craft a film that is magnificent to look at and stunning to listen to, but features all of the same problems as its predecessors. The time really is up on this franchise.
Of the cast, only Javier Bardem’s snarling Salazar makes any sort of lasting impact. In fact, he’s probably the best antagonist the series has ever had and makes for a menacing presence throughout. Depp looks like he’s on autopilot, almost as bored of Jack Sparrow’s drunken antics as we are, and the normally excellent Kaya Scodelario (Skins, Maze Runner) plays a particularly bland female lead during the films running time.
Speaking of which, at 142 minutes, this is one migraine inducing slog. All four previous films have suffered from being overstuffed, and with the extra abundance of characters this time around, it’s even more painful. There simply is no need to create a film that’s nearly two and a half hours long, especially considering the plot is as paint-by-numbers as you can get.
Nevertheless, to look at, Salazar’s Revenge really is breath-taking. The action is filmed confidently and the sets are fantastically detailed using some exceptional practical effects. There are ghost sharks, glistening islands and the motion capture used on Javier Bardem and his crew is seamless. Only the CGI-heavy finale lets the film down. The music is also sublime. Geoff Zanelli’s thunderous melody features the trademark theme-tune mixed with some really lovely orchestral music.
Overall, Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge kicks off a summer season filled to the brim with sequels and after the previous film’s poor reception, expectation was almost as low as it is for Transformers: the Last Knight.
What we’ve ended up with is a bit of a double-edged sword then. It’s certainly better than the previous three sequels and almost up to the standard of the 2003 original; the problem is, that film wasn’t particularly good in the first place.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/26/here-we-go-again-pirates-of-the-caribbean-salazars-revenge-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Good Dinosaur (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Is it as good as Inside Out?
2015 has been a great year for film. From long-awaited sequels to the conclusion of epic franchises, it’s been one of the best and most successful movie seasons in recent memory, and with Star Wars: the Force Awakens out in December, it can only finish on a high.
It also marks the first time that Pixar has released two films in the same year. Summer saw the release of instant-classic Inside Out and now animation fans get to enjoy another movie from the studio, The Good Dinosaur, but has Pixar bitten of more than it can chew?
The Good Dinosaur follows the story of a young Apatosaurus named Arlo, voiced beautifully by Raymond Ochoa, as he comes to terms with growing up in an ever-changing world where dinosaurs never met their well-documented fates.
He, alongside human child Spot suddenly find themselves embroiled in a dangerous journey after getting lost a long way from their homes.
If this all sounds a little formulaic to you, then that’s because it is. The Good Dinosaur has a plot more akin to Paramount animation, rather than the exceptional storytelling we have come to expect from Pixar. There’s nothing particularly special or unique about the plot and this is a real shame.
Thankfully, Pixar’s usual gut-punches are out in full force and The Good Dinosaur is among one of the emotional films in the studio’s roster. Personal tragedy is never an easy thing to convey in a movie meant to be enjoyed by the whole family, but here it is dealt with in a beautiful and tasteful manner.
Scenes in which Arlo and Spot share their circumstances with each other hit home hard and are deeply saddening to watch.
The cinematography too is absolutely exceptional. The breath-taking prehistoric landscapes are rendered in such stunning animation, they almost feel real. From raging white-water to beautiful sun-flooded forests, everything is a joy to behold and this is where The Good Dinosaur excels – a firefly swarm in particular is spectacular and propels the film into How to Train Your Dragon territory for sheer spectacle.
However, the entire film feels like a show reel, albeit a mesmerising one, for the talents at Pixar. Each shot of scenery is lingered on for a little too long and agoraphobic Arlo’s plight can sometimes take a backseat to this beauty.
Nevertheless, there are some wonderful characters here. A trio of T-Rex, who turn out to be cowboys – or should that be cowdinos, provide The Good Dinosaur with some of its more standout moments and it’s the lack of these sequences where the film is found wanting.
Overall, Pixar has created another excellent piece of animation with The Good Dinosaur. Though not quite at their ‘gold standard,’ the film is a wonder to behold and shows just how gorgeous animated features can be.
Unfortunately, the lack of an original story ensures it’ll prove second best to Inside Out in this year’s battle despite its deeper emotional resonance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/29/is-it-as-good-as-inside-out-the-good-dinosaur-review/
It also marks the first time that Pixar has released two films in the same year. Summer saw the release of instant-classic Inside Out and now animation fans get to enjoy another movie from the studio, The Good Dinosaur, but has Pixar bitten of more than it can chew?
The Good Dinosaur follows the story of a young Apatosaurus named Arlo, voiced beautifully by Raymond Ochoa, as he comes to terms with growing up in an ever-changing world where dinosaurs never met their well-documented fates.
He, alongside human child Spot suddenly find themselves embroiled in a dangerous journey after getting lost a long way from their homes.
If this all sounds a little formulaic to you, then that’s because it is. The Good Dinosaur has a plot more akin to Paramount animation, rather than the exceptional storytelling we have come to expect from Pixar. There’s nothing particularly special or unique about the plot and this is a real shame.
Thankfully, Pixar’s usual gut-punches are out in full force and The Good Dinosaur is among one of the emotional films in the studio’s roster. Personal tragedy is never an easy thing to convey in a movie meant to be enjoyed by the whole family, but here it is dealt with in a beautiful and tasteful manner.
Scenes in which Arlo and Spot share their circumstances with each other hit home hard and are deeply saddening to watch.
The cinematography too is absolutely exceptional. The breath-taking prehistoric landscapes are rendered in such stunning animation, they almost feel real. From raging white-water to beautiful sun-flooded forests, everything is a joy to behold and this is where The Good Dinosaur excels – a firefly swarm in particular is spectacular and propels the film into How to Train Your Dragon territory for sheer spectacle.
However, the entire film feels like a show reel, albeit a mesmerising one, for the talents at Pixar. Each shot of scenery is lingered on for a little too long and agoraphobic Arlo’s plight can sometimes take a backseat to this beauty.
Nevertheless, there are some wonderful characters here. A trio of T-Rex, who turn out to be cowboys – or should that be cowdinos, provide The Good Dinosaur with some of its more standout moments and it’s the lack of these sequences where the film is found wanting.
Overall, Pixar has created another excellent piece of animation with The Good Dinosaur. Though not quite at their ‘gold standard,’ the film is a wonder to behold and shows just how gorgeous animated features can be.
Unfortunately, the lack of an original story ensures it’ll prove second best to Inside Out in this year’s battle despite its deeper emotional resonance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/29/is-it-as-good-as-inside-out-the-good-dinosaur-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Potter goes International
It’s almost unbearable to think that Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone was released…wait for it… 15 years ago this very week. I know, I can’t believe it too, and what’s even more depressing is that the eight film behemoth concluded over five years ago.
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
More of the same
After the phenomenal success of Captain America: Civil War, the multiplexes have calmed down a little; that is until the release of X-Men: Apocalypse next week.
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Hemsworth and Chastain Disappoint
Snow White & the Huntsman was a film that garnered much more attention than it deserved, purely because of the goings on behind the scenes between Twilight starlet, Kristen Stewart and director Rupert Sanders. The film itself was a hollow take on the classic fairy-tale that lacked the magic and sparkle of Disney’s wonderful animation.
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hive Carbon in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
You know when you just watched “The Avengers: Endgame” and you are totally jonesing for an epic war game? Well, I don’t really like war games, so I turned to Hive for my war game itch. Though I was unable to annihilate my opponent’s troops, I was able to entrap their Queen several times, so that’s a W in my book.
DISCLAIMER: There are few versions of Hive, but we will be using the Carbon edition for our review. This includes the ladybug and the mosquito pieces. -T
Hive is a Chess-style abstract game (with a way better skin/theme) where you take control of an army of insects that are trying to enclose your opponent’s Queen Bee. The different insect species have different move abilities that you must employ efficiently in order to win the skirmish. I won’t go through each bug’s movement here, but each one has very interesting movement rules and they make logical sense… well, to me at least. Ok I will give you a couple moves for examples. The Queen Bee can only move one space on her turn. Queen Bees are the biggest bees in the hive, so it makes sense that she would move slowly. The Grasshopper does not move like other insects because they hop over tiles in a straight line and end up at the end of the line. Makes sense. This is the game. Use your bugs and their varying movement styles to trap the Queen Bee and take victory.
Components. This is so easy. This game is a box, a travel case, and a bunch of hexagonal bakelite tiles. The box is a normal box that holds the bag, which holds the tiles. Or you can ditch the bag and just use the box. Or you can ditch the box and just use the bag. I kept both. The bag is good quality. The tiles are big and chunky and wonderful and they just feel so good to hold and place and move. I love bakelite components. A+ from me!
What about the game play? Well, I am not really a huge Chess fan. I can certainly see why people go crazy over it, but it never really clicked for me. This, however, clicks for me juuuuuuust fine. I love the different bugs and figuring out how best to move them. I love being able to be tactical while also still using an overarching strategy. I love watching the reactions when my opponents realize they have been beat. I really just love love love this game. I had it once upon a time, sold it at BGG auction, then missed it so much I had to get it again (at a gamer garage sale). I will never part with it again.
This is not my favorite Chess replacement (see Onitama), but it’s an excellent one. I am not alone in my assessment as you see Purple Phoenix Games gives Hive Carbon a buzzing 9 / 12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/23/hive-carbon-review/
DISCLAIMER: There are few versions of Hive, but we will be using the Carbon edition for our review. This includes the ladybug and the mosquito pieces. -T
Hive is a Chess-style abstract game (with a way better skin/theme) where you take control of an army of insects that are trying to enclose your opponent’s Queen Bee. The different insect species have different move abilities that you must employ efficiently in order to win the skirmish. I won’t go through each bug’s movement here, but each one has very interesting movement rules and they make logical sense… well, to me at least. Ok I will give you a couple moves for examples. The Queen Bee can only move one space on her turn. Queen Bees are the biggest bees in the hive, so it makes sense that she would move slowly. The Grasshopper does not move like other insects because they hop over tiles in a straight line and end up at the end of the line. Makes sense. This is the game. Use your bugs and their varying movement styles to trap the Queen Bee and take victory.
Components. This is so easy. This game is a box, a travel case, and a bunch of hexagonal bakelite tiles. The box is a normal box that holds the bag, which holds the tiles. Or you can ditch the bag and just use the box. Or you can ditch the box and just use the bag. I kept both. The bag is good quality. The tiles are big and chunky and wonderful and they just feel so good to hold and place and move. I love bakelite components. A+ from me!
What about the game play? Well, I am not really a huge Chess fan. I can certainly see why people go crazy over it, but it never really clicked for me. This, however, clicks for me juuuuuuust fine. I love the different bugs and figuring out how best to move them. I love being able to be tactical while also still using an overarching strategy. I love watching the reactions when my opponents realize they have been beat. I really just love love love this game. I had it once upon a time, sold it at BGG auction, then missed it so much I had to get it again (at a gamer garage sale). I will never part with it again.
This is not my favorite Chess replacement (see Onitama), but it’s an excellent one. I am not alone in my assessment as you see Purple Phoenix Games gives Hive Carbon a buzzing 9 / 12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/23/hive-carbon-review/
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Grind in Books
Jun 12, 2019
First of all, can we appreciate how cool this cover is? It’s makes me want to drink so much tea and coffee. When Edward Vukovic offered me a free print copy in exchange for an honest review, I couldn’t pass it up, even though it’s a bit darker than the usual books I read for Lover’s Quarrel.
I knew this book was going to be good and it didn’t disappoint. Ziva’s an excellently complex and well-written character. And this book has the ability to pull you into its world with its excellent descriptions and smooth language.
Unfortunately, this can be a dark and dreary world that will sometimes leave you in unnecessary suspense. Time can also be a little wonky, too, due to the several points of view.
While there are many storylines, Ziva and Isaac are the main characters. Ziva’s an immigrant from Macedonia, trying to make a living working at a clothing factory so she can eventually gain independence from her brother and his wife. Isaac is a bar owner and amateur writer trying to get over the death the death of his own wife.
They by far have the happiest story and they work so well together. I wish the book focused more on them and less on other characters. Every time something important happened with them– Isaac asks Ziva out for coffee, Ziva appears on his doorstep, anything that foreshadows hope and happiness and excitement– storylines were switched. We were suddenly on Simon’s point of view, or Michel’s. And I could have done with less of that.
Especially less focus on Simon.
Simon’s a negative guy with a negative outlook. He’s like an Edgar Allen Poe story in the form of a person. He’ll make you hate life and he hurts everyone around him. Getting through his chapters took forever because he was so dreary.
Michel, a homeless man hiding from dangerous old contacts, had a pretty good storyline. Actually, it was really interesting and complex. If it were its own book, then it would have been a great book to read. But shared with Ziva and Isaac, is was a pain in the butt. And it really hurt both storylines.
Because both storylines were crammed into only 391 pages, they both suffered. I wanted to know more about Michel’s past and Danielle’s home life, and see more of the two of them. I also wanted to know more about Ziva and what happens with her and Isaac, as well as what happens with her work. Ziva’s brother was really well-developed in the beginning and then he just disappears. What’s that about? And what the hell are Ziva and Isaac going to do about the really fast development in their relationship? (I wish I could say, but it’s too much of a spoiler.)
While this is still an excellently written book with an intricate plot, Vukovic’s storytelling skill is not all the way honed yet. I have no doubt that this book will be followed by better books by him.
I knew this book was going to be good and it didn’t disappoint. Ziva’s an excellently complex and well-written character. And this book has the ability to pull you into its world with its excellent descriptions and smooth language.
Unfortunately, this can be a dark and dreary world that will sometimes leave you in unnecessary suspense. Time can also be a little wonky, too, due to the several points of view.
While there are many storylines, Ziva and Isaac are the main characters. Ziva’s an immigrant from Macedonia, trying to make a living working at a clothing factory so she can eventually gain independence from her brother and his wife. Isaac is a bar owner and amateur writer trying to get over the death the death of his own wife.
They by far have the happiest story and they work so well together. I wish the book focused more on them and less on other characters. Every time something important happened with them– Isaac asks Ziva out for coffee, Ziva appears on his doorstep, anything that foreshadows hope and happiness and excitement– storylines were switched. We were suddenly on Simon’s point of view, or Michel’s. And I could have done with less of that.
Especially less focus on Simon.
Simon’s a negative guy with a negative outlook. He’s like an Edgar Allen Poe story in the form of a person. He’ll make you hate life and he hurts everyone around him. Getting through his chapters took forever because he was so dreary.
Michel, a homeless man hiding from dangerous old contacts, had a pretty good storyline. Actually, it was really interesting and complex. If it were its own book, then it would have been a great book to read. But shared with Ziva and Isaac, is was a pain in the butt. And it really hurt both storylines.
Because both storylines were crammed into only 391 pages, they both suffered. I wanted to know more about Michel’s past and Danielle’s home life, and see more of the two of them. I also wanted to know more about Ziva and what happens with her and Isaac, as well as what happens with her work. Ziva’s brother was really well-developed in the beginning and then he just disappears. What’s that about? And what the hell are Ziva and Isaac going to do about the really fast development in their relationship? (I wish I could say, but it’s too much of a spoiler.)
While this is still an excellently written book with an intricate plot, Vukovic’s storytelling skill is not all the way honed yet. I have no doubt that this book will be followed by better books by him.
Saffy Alexandra (89 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019
A feel good film
I would like to first off state that I adore this film as a book, so straight off the bat I was a little worried on what would be happening with these films and how they would differ from the novel.
After watching it, I don’t know what I was so worried about especially when Peter Jackson is the one directing the films (when he did such a fantastic job at Lord of the Rings).
I think the casting for all the characters was spot on, and keeping characters that we were introduced to in Lord of the Rings the same was a fantastic (and so glad that those actors agreed to do these films). Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggin’s is/was an excellent choice that I really couldn’t see any other actor managing to incorporate Bilbo’s sassiness – because let’s face it, that Hobbit knew how to out wit someone and sass when there was need – to his vulnerability and fear of going out into the unknown. I felt he held the role with dignity and grace and made the humorous scenes even better but when he is needed for the more emotional scenes, Freeman is still fantastic at portraying all those reactions clear as day on his face pulling at your heart strings and showing you what a brilliant range he has as an actor!
Another actor I feel that needs credit is Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield. Having never really seen him in any films before then I was sceptical. I really shouldn’t have been. His portrayal as the scowling and grumpy Dwarf Prince/King is next to amazing! He managed to make you fall in love with the cantankerous Dwarf, which is a feat in all of itself, by the end. This man’s range as an actor is also very good and his ability to show you what Thorin is feeling just by his eye’s is an ability that not many actors have.
Now I was unsure when we were told that this book was being made into three films, and I still feel that the films were possibly stretched out more than they should have by us being presented with characters who were not even in the books. But, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
To be fully truthful, knowing that this would be the end of the Middle Earth saga that Peter Jackson was doing, I was not quite ready to say goodbye to the stories that we all grew up with. So I may be biased in saying that I enjoyed having the extra screen time to devour.
The Hobbit Trilogy might not be as fantastic as Lord of the Rings, but it is a trilogy that I would happily watch over and over again. The humour, the wit, and the general good-feeling of these films is something that just makes you feel like you are coming home again after a long trip. One feel good trilogy that I’d happily recommend to anyone.
After watching it, I don’t know what I was so worried about especially when Peter Jackson is the one directing the films (when he did such a fantastic job at Lord of the Rings).
I think the casting for all the characters was spot on, and keeping characters that we were introduced to in Lord of the Rings the same was a fantastic (and so glad that those actors agreed to do these films). Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggin’s is/was an excellent choice that I really couldn’t see any other actor managing to incorporate Bilbo’s sassiness – because let’s face it, that Hobbit knew how to out wit someone and sass when there was need – to his vulnerability and fear of going out into the unknown. I felt he held the role with dignity and grace and made the humorous scenes even better but when he is needed for the more emotional scenes, Freeman is still fantastic at portraying all those reactions clear as day on his face pulling at your heart strings and showing you what a brilliant range he has as an actor!
Another actor I feel that needs credit is Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield. Having never really seen him in any films before then I was sceptical. I really shouldn’t have been. His portrayal as the scowling and grumpy Dwarf Prince/King is next to amazing! He managed to make you fall in love with the cantankerous Dwarf, which is a feat in all of itself, by the end. This man’s range as an actor is also very good and his ability to show you what Thorin is feeling just by his eye’s is an ability that not many actors have.
Now I was unsure when we were told that this book was being made into three films, and I still feel that the films were possibly stretched out more than they should have by us being presented with characters who were not even in the books. But, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
To be fully truthful, knowing that this would be the end of the Middle Earth saga that Peter Jackson was doing, I was not quite ready to say goodbye to the stories that we all grew up with. So I may be biased in saying that I enjoyed having the extra screen time to devour.
The Hobbit Trilogy might not be as fantastic as Lord of the Rings, but it is a trilogy that I would happily watch over and over again. The humour, the wit, and the general good-feeling of these films is something that just makes you feel like you are coming home again after a long trip. One feel good trilogy that I’d happily recommend to anyone.