Search
Search results
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
May 9, 2019 (Updated May 26, 2019)
"Oh, I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna hurt you really, really bad."
Suicide Squad, aka Suicide Squandered, was one of my most anticipated movies of 2016. It would bring back to the big screen one of the most iconic comic book characters, Mr. J, and Harley Quinn would make her long awaited movie debut. It also promised to offer a different approach on the superhero genre, as it would star the villains instead of the good guys.
However, the movie delivers much less than what it teases. It begins on a high note, by introducing some characters in a fun, energetic and fast-paced way, in spite of the messy editing that makes these segments look like mini trailers. It goes downhill from there, showing only a couple of scenes more that could justify all the love these superhero movies get. Ultimately, what distinguishes these sequences from the mediocre ones are the characters in them and whether the audience cares for them or not.
Displaying some information on the screen about certain characters or telling their backstory doesn't necessarily contribute to their development, nor to the knowledge the viewer has about them. Therefore, it's impossible to care about all the characters and only those who are played by the (more) famous actors have any meaning to the audience.
Will Smith's Deadshot is the best of the bunch. Smith has this unique ability to deliver comedic lines that many comedians wish they had. His charisma drives most of the movie and so does his character's motivation. Right now, he could be the only character capable of leading a franchise of his own. Deadshot ended up establishing a mildly interesting dynamic with Joel Kinnaman's forgettable Rick Flag.
Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn is the other character we end up caring about. Robbie provides a fantastic performance and hits all the right notes. Her amazing backstory is only slightly explored and it has potential for a future psychological thriller movie. With the right script and direction, it could be an incredible film. People have already talked about her body and I can only add that she could possibly be right below Kate Hudson's Penny Lane on the sexiest female movie characters. She could.
I love all sorts of crazy and psychotic performances on screen. In fact, one of my favourites is Gary Oldman's in Leon. Jared Leto delivers another one of those performances. It's truly stellar, I loved his interpretation of the Joker and I believe Leto can still receive high praise for his extraordinary efforts. It could happen in the form of that Batman movie, by Matt Reeves.
Just to conclude my thought on the performances, I would like to add that Viola Davis is an excellent Amanda Waller, even more menacing that Cara Delevingne's witch, more on that later. Jai Courtney was great , he got all the best jokes. Jay Hernandez sounds a lot like Jon Bernthal's Frank Castle, doesn't he? His Diablo is the best character, out of the less interesting ones. I love Katana from CW's Arrow and it was disappointing to see that the screenwriters didn't care about her, even more so because Karen Fukuhara seems perfect for the role. Killer Croc has the best entrance on water ever.
A movie is as good as its villain, right? Indeed. Cara Delevingne's Enchantress could very well be the worst movie villain ever. Malekith is relegated to second place. Honestly, I don't know who's to blame. Sure, Delevingne's acting isn't top-notch, but the screenwriters made her dance (?) in a weird way and her voice is laughable. The final result is ridiculous and by far the worst aspect of the movie.
While Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was a dark film and proud to 'own that shit', Suicide Squad is ashamed to exhibit that dark side, which results in confusing tone shifts. One moment, it's clearly a DC movie, and another, it is a Marvel family friendly one. Therefore, the comedy sometimes doesn't land, at all. Besides, I also didn't find anything special about the way the action was shot. It was generic stuff, mostly.
Suicide Squad is a huge waste of potential, that could have benefited from some character development and sharp editing. Its greatest strenght is undoubtedly the work done by the talented cast. Could a different cut fix some of these issues? Probably, yes. I was going to attribute 6 stars to this, but a second watch didn't help, either. By the way, what was your favourite sequence? Spoiler alert: mine was the one in which Joker jumps into the acid to Harley.
However, the movie delivers much less than what it teases. It begins on a high note, by introducing some characters in a fun, energetic and fast-paced way, in spite of the messy editing that makes these segments look like mini trailers. It goes downhill from there, showing only a couple of scenes more that could justify all the love these superhero movies get. Ultimately, what distinguishes these sequences from the mediocre ones are the characters in them and whether the audience cares for them or not.
Displaying some information on the screen about certain characters or telling their backstory doesn't necessarily contribute to their development, nor to the knowledge the viewer has about them. Therefore, it's impossible to care about all the characters and only those who are played by the (more) famous actors have any meaning to the audience.
Will Smith's Deadshot is the best of the bunch. Smith has this unique ability to deliver comedic lines that many comedians wish they had. His charisma drives most of the movie and so does his character's motivation. Right now, he could be the only character capable of leading a franchise of his own. Deadshot ended up establishing a mildly interesting dynamic with Joel Kinnaman's forgettable Rick Flag.
Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn is the other character we end up caring about. Robbie provides a fantastic performance and hits all the right notes. Her amazing backstory is only slightly explored and it has potential for a future psychological thriller movie. With the right script and direction, it could be an incredible film. People have already talked about her body and I can only add that she could possibly be right below Kate Hudson's Penny Lane on the sexiest female movie characters. She could.
I love all sorts of crazy and psychotic performances on screen. In fact, one of my favourites is Gary Oldman's in Leon. Jared Leto delivers another one of those performances. It's truly stellar, I loved his interpretation of the Joker and I believe Leto can still receive high praise for his extraordinary efforts. It could happen in the form of that Batman movie, by Matt Reeves.
Just to conclude my thought on the performances, I would like to add that Viola Davis is an excellent Amanda Waller, even more menacing that Cara Delevingne's witch, more on that later. Jai Courtney was great , he got all the best jokes. Jay Hernandez sounds a lot like Jon Bernthal's Frank Castle, doesn't he? His Diablo is the best character, out of the less interesting ones. I love Katana from CW's Arrow and it was disappointing to see that the screenwriters didn't care about her, even more so because Karen Fukuhara seems perfect for the role. Killer Croc has the best entrance on water ever.
A movie is as good as its villain, right? Indeed. Cara Delevingne's Enchantress could very well be the worst movie villain ever. Malekith is relegated to second place. Honestly, I don't know who's to blame. Sure, Delevingne's acting isn't top-notch, but the screenwriters made her dance (?) in a weird way and her voice is laughable. The final result is ridiculous and by far the worst aspect of the movie.
While Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was a dark film and proud to 'own that shit', Suicide Squad is ashamed to exhibit that dark side, which results in confusing tone shifts. One moment, it's clearly a DC movie, and another, it is a Marvel family friendly one. Therefore, the comedy sometimes doesn't land, at all. Besides, I also didn't find anything special about the way the action was shot. It was generic stuff, mostly.
Suicide Squad is a huge waste of potential, that could have benefited from some character development and sharp editing. Its greatest strenght is undoubtedly the work done by the talented cast. Could a different cut fix some of these issues? Probably, yes. I was going to attribute 6 stars to this, but a second watch didn't help, either. By the way, what was your favourite sequence? Spoiler alert: mine was the one in which Joker jumps into the acid to Harley.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Goodbye Normal Jean
It would be easy to write off X-Men: Dark Phoenix as a complete and utter disaster. With the departure of Bryan Singer (again) from the franchise, first-time director Simon Kinberg taking his place and rumours of costly reshoots pushing the budget north of $200million, things weren’t looking good for this adaptation of the popular Marvel comic.
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Galaxy like you've never seen it before
Crafting sequels is never easy, but creating a fitting sequel to 2015’s biggest movie and one of the world’s biggest franchises is no easy feat. Not only do you have to make a film that moves the game on from The Force Awakens, but one that also meets the incredibly high expectations of fans across the globe.
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Brad Pitt has become one of Hollywood’s best loved actors over the years and it isn’t difficult to see why. His chiselled good looks, slick blonde hair and quiet confidence have all ensured he is never short of work. Here, he teams up with director Marc Forster who helmed the disappointing James Bond sequel, Quantum of Solace, in the latest zombie film to hit the screens; World War Z, but is it any good?
Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator who has chosen the quiet life and retired early to spend more time with his wife and children. Whilst taking his wife Karin and two daughters Rachel and Constance out in the car, they become stuck in heavy traffic which marks the start of the mayhem. From then on this 116 minute thrill ride puts the viewer on the edge of their seat more times than an Alton Towers rollercoaster.
After fleeing the hordes of ridiculously fast and ridiculously terrifying undead, Lane and his family board a US aircraft carrier where they are told they will be safe; however, as always, there is a price to pay. Gerry must start work once again to try and find the epicentre of the zombie virus – otherwise, the entire world will be lost. From here, Gerry’s mission is to travel across the globe trying to find what it is that has infected nearly 100% of the planet’s population.
What plays out could be described as a formulaic horror film, but it is so much more than that. Whilst it’s true that there isn’t enough character development, in fact there is only 5 minutes of it right at the beginning, director Marc Forster has cleverly allowed the audience to make up their own minds about the family’s back story and whether we care if they survive or not.
World War Z is not a film for the faint hearted, and whilst blood and guts are quite sparse for a movie with a 15 certificate, there are some truly terrifying moments, many of which will have your heart pumping through your chest.
There are scenes here that really get the adrenaline flowing, one of which involving a stowaway zombie onboard a commercial jet will leave you biting your lip, grabbing your seat and looking through your fingers in shock, horror and intense excitement. It’s safe to say I came away with very bitten fingernails.
Special effects are on par with some of the better blockbusters of the last couple of years. They aren’t as in your face as those in Transformers, nor as lacklustre as the CGI in I am Legend, they are right in the middle and because the effect is used incredibly subtly, you don’t notice when extras stop playing the zombies and the animators take over.
However, it is in the acting that this film really succeeds. Pitt is fantastic as Gerry Lane, his quiet sense of confidence never turns into arrogance as he fights for survival and this will hold the character in high esteem with audiences. He doesn’t pretend to be an action hero, heck, he even makes the kind of mistakes that any human would do if they were under pressure, and thankfully he does all of this beautifully; his characterisation is absolute perfection. The rest of his family are also excellent, Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins who play Rachel and Constance respectively are very good indeed; you truly believe they are missing their father and cannot wait to see him return. The rest of the cast do very well with the limited roles they have, but let’s not forget that this is a Brad Pitt one-man show and he is more than up to the job.
Unfortunately, the cinematography really lets the film down. There is far too much handy-cam in the first 30 minutes, something which I hate. Directors often use it to sustain a sense of alarm and terror, but Marc Forster has used it to such an extent here that it made me feel physically sick. Moreover, whilst the story is solid, it is nothing more than that, and often the plot takes a back seat to the impressive action pieces meaning that the film seems to go through the motions of 10 minutes plot, 10 action, and so on.
Overall, World War Z is a very impressive film. The sheer scale of the virus means that Marc Forster has utilised some beautiful scenery from across the globe. Whilst it may be slightly too long for a zombie film at just under 2 hours, and have a distinct lack of character development; the impressive story, brilliant acting and very good special effects help lift it above the norm. This is a ride better than any rollercoaster, and is 100% worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/22/world-war-z-review-2013/
Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator who has chosen the quiet life and retired early to spend more time with his wife and children. Whilst taking his wife Karin and two daughters Rachel and Constance out in the car, they become stuck in heavy traffic which marks the start of the mayhem. From then on this 116 minute thrill ride puts the viewer on the edge of their seat more times than an Alton Towers rollercoaster.
After fleeing the hordes of ridiculously fast and ridiculously terrifying undead, Lane and his family board a US aircraft carrier where they are told they will be safe; however, as always, there is a price to pay. Gerry must start work once again to try and find the epicentre of the zombie virus – otherwise, the entire world will be lost. From here, Gerry’s mission is to travel across the globe trying to find what it is that has infected nearly 100% of the planet’s population.
What plays out could be described as a formulaic horror film, but it is so much more than that. Whilst it’s true that there isn’t enough character development, in fact there is only 5 minutes of it right at the beginning, director Marc Forster has cleverly allowed the audience to make up their own minds about the family’s back story and whether we care if they survive or not.
World War Z is not a film for the faint hearted, and whilst blood and guts are quite sparse for a movie with a 15 certificate, there are some truly terrifying moments, many of which will have your heart pumping through your chest.
There are scenes here that really get the adrenaline flowing, one of which involving a stowaway zombie onboard a commercial jet will leave you biting your lip, grabbing your seat and looking through your fingers in shock, horror and intense excitement. It’s safe to say I came away with very bitten fingernails.
Special effects are on par with some of the better blockbusters of the last couple of years. They aren’t as in your face as those in Transformers, nor as lacklustre as the CGI in I am Legend, they are right in the middle and because the effect is used incredibly subtly, you don’t notice when extras stop playing the zombies and the animators take over.
However, it is in the acting that this film really succeeds. Pitt is fantastic as Gerry Lane, his quiet sense of confidence never turns into arrogance as he fights for survival and this will hold the character in high esteem with audiences. He doesn’t pretend to be an action hero, heck, he even makes the kind of mistakes that any human would do if they were under pressure, and thankfully he does all of this beautifully; his characterisation is absolute perfection. The rest of his family are also excellent, Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins who play Rachel and Constance respectively are very good indeed; you truly believe they are missing their father and cannot wait to see him return. The rest of the cast do very well with the limited roles they have, but let’s not forget that this is a Brad Pitt one-man show and he is more than up to the job.
Unfortunately, the cinematography really lets the film down. There is far too much handy-cam in the first 30 minutes, something which I hate. Directors often use it to sustain a sense of alarm and terror, but Marc Forster has used it to such an extent here that it made me feel physically sick. Moreover, whilst the story is solid, it is nothing more than that, and often the plot takes a back seat to the impressive action pieces meaning that the film seems to go through the motions of 10 minutes plot, 10 action, and so on.
Overall, World War Z is a very impressive film. The sheer scale of the virus means that Marc Forster has utilised some beautiful scenery from across the globe. Whilst it may be slightly too long for a zombie film at just under 2 hours, and have a distinct lack of character development; the impressive story, brilliant acting and very good special effects help lift it above the norm. This is a ride better than any rollercoaster, and is 100% worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/22/world-war-z-review-2013/
Alexandra Hammond and her family are living in Washington DC, and on the outside, they are a typical modern family. But Alexandra and her husband, Josh, are exhausted and frustrated as parents of two children: eleven-year-old Iris and thirteen-year-old Tilly. Tilly, you see, has been diagnosed with PDD-NOS, a form of autism, and it means that Alexandra's lovely, intelligent daughter, who could read by the age of three, is also prone to violent outbursts where she yells out curse words, has an inability to control many of her thoughts and actions, and truly, just doesn't seem to fit into the mold society wishes to place our children. When yet another school kicks Tilly out, Alexandra and Josh are at a loss. So Alexandra turns to Scott Bean, a self-professed expert with "difficult" children whose seminars and private sessions she's been attending for several years now. Scott is starting Camp Harmony in New Hampshire: an isolated society for families struggling with children like Tilly, free of outside influences, electronics, harmful foods and stimulants, and most of all, free from judgement. So Alexandra and Josh do the unthinkable: they sell everything and pack up the kids and head to New Hampshire, joining Scott and two other families in making Camp Harmony work. But will it work? Can it work?
If you haven't read anything by Carolyn Parkhurst, you're missing out. She's a wonderful author, whose books are simply beautiful. My particular favorite is [b:The Dogs of Babel|89691|The Dogs of Babel|Carolyn Parkhurst|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1344269639s/89691.jpg|1585061], a lovely, haunting novel about a woman, her husband, and her dog that I read 10 years ago and still touches me to this day. While I wasn't as affected by this novel, it still has many flashes of the amazing brilliance of Parkhurst and her wonderful way with the written word. Her characters form before you eyes.
In [b:Harmony|29236564|Harmony|Carolyn Parkhurst|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1469411954s/29236564.jpg|49477924], Parkhurst does an excellent job conveying Alexandra's fear and anxiety over the frightening aspects of our society and its effects on our children, and how our society has changed, with things like autism and food allergies seemingly becoming more prevalent each year. She doesn't preach, she just paints a picture with her words and Alexandra's thoughts. The book is told between alternating points of view and time periods. We hear from Alexandra in the past, telling the story of Tilly (and Iris) growing up and how things have reached this point and then we hear from Iris, in the present, at Camp Harmony.
Alexandra captures a life and marriage in moments and snapshots, with Parkhurst easily depicting the desperation that parents of children that are different feel. You can sense her terror and why she would actually consider packing up entire family and moving them to an isolated camp in the middle of nowhere, led by a man they really know nothing about.
Iris' perspective, meanwhile, is just beautiful and touching. Parkhurst wonderfully conveys her voice. There were times when I felt Iris was a bit "old" for an eleven-year-old, but I chalked a lot of that up to having a sister such as Tilly and having to grow up rather quickly. And as the book progressed, there were many moments where Iris came across as a scared, naive kid, after all. Iris' depiction of the camp-through her innocent eyes-is perfect, and she has a wonderful way of portraying her sister, where you will grow to love Tilly, as well, and understand Alexandra's fierce desire to protect both her children.
All in all, despite its serious subject matter, the book is often humorous, and I loved its portrayal of real characters and situations, despite the fact that they all gathered in an isolated camp site in New Hampshire. My only real issue with the book was the camp's leader, Scott Bean. To me, he was the least developed character of the bunch, and while you sensed that perhaps we were hurtling toward trouble, the ending seemed a little quick and too pat for such a well-written and developed book.
Still, this book was quite well-done and certainly a must for any parent struggling with a child who feels different, or really, any parent struggling to raise a child in today's modern society. Parkhurst is a wonderful writer, and she will not disappoint with her latest. 3.5+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss - thank you! It is available everywhere as of 08/02/2016.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>;
If you haven't read anything by Carolyn Parkhurst, you're missing out. She's a wonderful author, whose books are simply beautiful. My particular favorite is [b:The Dogs of Babel|89691|The Dogs of Babel|Carolyn Parkhurst|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1344269639s/89691.jpg|1585061], a lovely, haunting novel about a woman, her husband, and her dog that I read 10 years ago and still touches me to this day. While I wasn't as affected by this novel, it still has many flashes of the amazing brilliance of Parkhurst and her wonderful way with the written word. Her characters form before you eyes.
In [b:Harmony|29236564|Harmony|Carolyn Parkhurst|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1469411954s/29236564.jpg|49477924], Parkhurst does an excellent job conveying Alexandra's fear and anxiety over the frightening aspects of our society and its effects on our children, and how our society has changed, with things like autism and food allergies seemingly becoming more prevalent each year. She doesn't preach, she just paints a picture with her words and Alexandra's thoughts. The book is told between alternating points of view and time periods. We hear from Alexandra in the past, telling the story of Tilly (and Iris) growing up and how things have reached this point and then we hear from Iris, in the present, at Camp Harmony.
Alexandra captures a life and marriage in moments and snapshots, with Parkhurst easily depicting the desperation that parents of children that are different feel. You can sense her terror and why she would actually consider packing up entire family and moving them to an isolated camp in the middle of nowhere, led by a man they really know nothing about.
Iris' perspective, meanwhile, is just beautiful and touching. Parkhurst wonderfully conveys her voice. There were times when I felt Iris was a bit "old" for an eleven-year-old, but I chalked a lot of that up to having a sister such as Tilly and having to grow up rather quickly. And as the book progressed, there were many moments where Iris came across as a scared, naive kid, after all. Iris' depiction of the camp-through her innocent eyes-is perfect, and she has a wonderful way of portraying her sister, where you will grow to love Tilly, as well, and understand Alexandra's fierce desire to protect both her children.
All in all, despite its serious subject matter, the book is often humorous, and I loved its portrayal of real characters and situations, despite the fact that they all gathered in an isolated camp site in New Hampshire. My only real issue with the book was the camp's leader, Scott Bean. To me, he was the least developed character of the bunch, and while you sensed that perhaps we were hurtling toward trouble, the ending seemed a little quick and too pat for such a well-written and developed book.
Still, this book was quite well-done and certainly a must for any parent struggling with a child who feels different, or really, any parent struggling to raise a child in today's modern society. Parkhurst is a wonderful writer, and she will not disappoint with her latest. 3.5+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss - thank you! It is available everywhere as of 08/02/2016.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>;
I have a tough time reviewing books about Black Feminism. I enjoy reading them - well, maybe "enjoy" isn't quite the right word. They can be tough. I am glad to have read them. But how to review them? I'm a white woman, it's not really my place to critique these works. But it would be remiss of me to not talk about them - denying them the same space on my blog that I give to everything else I read is its own kind of erasure. I'm not sure how best to resolve this, but for this specific book, at least, I can talk about what I learned from it.
What I learned is that some of my childhood was straight-up racist. I always thought of my childhood as pretty idyllic - my parents were high school sweethearts, and to this day still adore each other. We lived in a house my parents owned. (My most formative years were actually spent in the house my mother grew up in; my parents bought it from my grandparents when I was seven.) We got to run around and play on a quiet neighborhood street where we knew all of our neighbors. We had pets of various species, we got technology fairly quickly since my father was a computer geek, we had a garden out back that Mom canned beans out of every year.
But I was homeschooled until eighth grade. (With Bob Jones and Abeka Books, notoriously Christian curriculum. I thought humans lived with dinosaurs well into my twenties.) We went to a conservative Christian church every Sunday. (And Tuesday. And some Fridays.) While my parents taught that I could be anything I wanted to be, the church definitely over rode that with "women should be subservient to men" and "don't trust your own judgment, ask God/your parents/the elders."
The incident that Jerkins' book brought back to mind, though, was a party I went to. I'm pretty sure it was someone's birthday party, but at a church. Not our church. There were a lot of people, though, so I could be wrong about the birthday party. It was this party where I got the tiny scar in my eyebrow - some kid broke the bat on the pinata and threw it behind him, where it hit me in the face. Before that, though, was the cake walk. There were footprints laid out on the concrete floor, and we paced around them while music played, kind of like musical chairs, I think. (I was younger than ten, my memory is a little fuzzy.) I won the cake! I thought nothing of this until reading This Will Be My Undoing.
"The cakewalk was a dance performed in the late nineteenth century at slave get-togethers. You lean or rear back and kick your feet out left and right or vice versa as you move forward......White people would watch them dance, fascinated by the exoticness of it all. These spectacles were purposeful humiliations. But the cakewalk evolved as slaves' own form of subversion. While serving at large and fancy parties in the early 1800s, they would watch well-to-do white people perform strict and stiff dances, like cotillions and quadrilles, and mimic them, exaggerating the bowing and small skips and hops and adding some high steps and jumps. In diaries kept by white people in the antebellum South, the cakewalk is not depicted as a form of satire. After all, why would a sweet slave mock his benevolent master? To white people's eyes, this imitation seemed like flattery. They were delighted that the slaves were attempting their civilized dances. In fact, they would hold competitions and the winning slaves would receive a cake, hence the name. Yet they were being mocked, right in front of their faces."
WHY WAS THIS BEING HELD AT A CHURCH PARTY? I don't recall if it was all white kids, but it probably was. My hometown was not very ethnically diverse. The more I learn - academically, politically, socially, secularly - the more I realize my childhood was pretty fucked up in a lot of different ways. I don't know if it was more or less fucked up than most white kids' childhoods - white supremacy is insidious. I was an ignorant child at the time, but to realize, decades later, how racist holding a cakewalk is, stopped me in my tracks. (Incidentally, this means that calling something "a cakewalk" has its roots in racism, like so many other things in our language. Cakewalks weren't easy - but the best dancers made them look that way.)
So that's what I can say about this book. I learned something about my childhood. Beyond that, all I will offer is that Jerkins is an excellent writer; the book flows well and is an easy read, despite the subject matter not being easy. Read it. It's important.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
What I learned is that some of my childhood was straight-up racist. I always thought of my childhood as pretty idyllic - my parents were high school sweethearts, and to this day still adore each other. We lived in a house my parents owned. (My most formative years were actually spent in the house my mother grew up in; my parents bought it from my grandparents when I was seven.) We got to run around and play on a quiet neighborhood street where we knew all of our neighbors. We had pets of various species, we got technology fairly quickly since my father was a computer geek, we had a garden out back that Mom canned beans out of every year.
But I was homeschooled until eighth grade. (With Bob Jones and Abeka Books, notoriously Christian curriculum. I thought humans lived with dinosaurs well into my twenties.) We went to a conservative Christian church every Sunday. (And Tuesday. And some Fridays.) While my parents taught that I could be anything I wanted to be, the church definitely over rode that with "women should be subservient to men" and "don't trust your own judgment, ask God/your parents/the elders."
The incident that Jerkins' book brought back to mind, though, was a party I went to. I'm pretty sure it was someone's birthday party, but at a church. Not our church. There were a lot of people, though, so I could be wrong about the birthday party. It was this party where I got the tiny scar in my eyebrow - some kid broke the bat on the pinata and threw it behind him, where it hit me in the face. Before that, though, was the cake walk. There were footprints laid out on the concrete floor, and we paced around them while music played, kind of like musical chairs, I think. (I was younger than ten, my memory is a little fuzzy.) I won the cake! I thought nothing of this until reading This Will Be My Undoing.
"The cakewalk was a dance performed in the late nineteenth century at slave get-togethers. You lean or rear back and kick your feet out left and right or vice versa as you move forward......White people would watch them dance, fascinated by the exoticness of it all. These spectacles were purposeful humiliations. But the cakewalk evolved as slaves' own form of subversion. While serving at large and fancy parties in the early 1800s, they would watch well-to-do white people perform strict and stiff dances, like cotillions and quadrilles, and mimic them, exaggerating the bowing and small skips and hops and adding some high steps and jumps. In diaries kept by white people in the antebellum South, the cakewalk is not depicted as a form of satire. After all, why would a sweet slave mock his benevolent master? To white people's eyes, this imitation seemed like flattery. They were delighted that the slaves were attempting their civilized dances. In fact, they would hold competitions and the winning slaves would receive a cake, hence the name. Yet they were being mocked, right in front of their faces."
WHY WAS THIS BEING HELD AT A CHURCH PARTY? I don't recall if it was all white kids, but it probably was. My hometown was not very ethnically diverse. The more I learn - academically, politically, socially, secularly - the more I realize my childhood was pretty fucked up in a lot of different ways. I don't know if it was more or less fucked up than most white kids' childhoods - white supremacy is insidious. I was an ignorant child at the time, but to realize, decades later, how racist holding a cakewalk is, stopped me in my tracks. (Incidentally, this means that calling something "a cakewalk" has its roots in racism, like so many other things in our language. Cakewalks weren't easy - but the best dancers made them look that way.)
So that's what I can say about this book. I learned something about my childhood. Beyond that, all I will offer is that Jerkins is an excellent writer; the book flows well and is an easy read, despite the subject matter not being easy. Read it. It's important.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Gravity (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
We’ve long been spoiled by depictions of space in most science fiction, or at least in popular science fiction. A frontier, a futuristic ocean of sorts for maritime-type traversal. It’s hardly ever depicted as a particularly dangerous place. That’s exactly why Alfanso Cuaron’s Gravity is so incredibly refreshing and surprisingly so at that. All he really had to do was set out to depict a story in space that highlights how dangerous it really is. And boy does he succeed. Gravity is not only intriguing in its science, but also an incredibly gripping thriller.
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Thoughts on Terminator: Dark Fate
Characters – Dani is the sweet Mexican girl that keeps her family organized with everyday events, making sure her father gets to appointments and her brother joins her for work, her family means everything to her. When Grace turns up, she finds her perfect life ruined, when she needs to go on the run with her from a Terminator, not knowing why a normal young woman has been targeted, she will learn her importance to the future and learn skills alone the way. The only negative side for Dani, is that we don’t learn enough about her before the events happen, it is hard to figure out just how old she is too. Sarah Connor hasn’t stopped hunting Terminators, she is prepared for them all and saves the day, she knows how to stay off the radar, well for the most part one giant plot hole with her talk here, but is a bitter hard as nails woman. The Terminator has many surprises this time, he helps, gets plenty of laughs and as always will fight the superior model. The bad Terminator can fuse with anything it touches, being able to break into more than one threat and isn’t going to stop for anything, he is relentless and on a similar mission focused level as the first two villainous Terminators. Grace is the enhanced soldier sent back to protect Dani, she does need to be kept alive with medicine, proving to be a different level of protection then we have seen before, she has all the human traits, she has lived, fought and battled through the future and knows why she is here and how important this mission is.
Performances – First we will go through the returning cast, Linda Hamilton is wonderful to watch, not only is she perfect here, she lets the new cast members shine, which was one of the weakness of a film that did the same trick, Halloween. Arnold Schwarzenegger gives his best action performance since his return to acting, not only does he still have the fighting down, he has got perfect dead pan comedy down too. Mackenzie Davis might well have just made her an action star for years to come here, giving a performance that could be a star making one. Natalia Reyes does everything right for her character, it isn’t her performance that lets her down, it is certain developments in her character that hold her back. Gabriel Luna as the new Terminator is great too, it is nice they picked a lesser known actor, because a big name would have shifted focus on them instead of a faceless killer.
Story – The story here follows a young Mexican woman that has been targeted by a Terminator, for a reason she doesn’t know, she has a super soldier and Sarah Connor to protect her, as she learns about a future, where like Sarah Connor, she will have a big part to play in the war against the machines. This is a sequel that feels like it has re-imagined the original, mixed with the second one, this is all good because having a new face that needs to learn their part in the future is what makes Terminator different in story, the idea that technology has moved on, also helps this story unfold nicely showing us just how much we are going to see. For a story that is 2 hours long, this barely feels that long if we are being honest and by the end you will be wanting to see more, because even though we have returning characters, they don’t feel thrown in like Arnie’s in the last film.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action here is massive, this shows some great teamwork from the stunt teams too, the fights are people bashing the hell out of an indestructible robot, which means we can hit harder and it not look stupid, while we might have a couple too many cuts during them though. The sci-fi idea has moved on from previous films, which shows us just how much could change in the future, the war will always be coming.
Settings – The film does use the settings are a plot point, where it is, we need to get here, then here, via here, all but the final battle seems simple enough locations.
Special Effects – The effects for the most part are wonderful, there are a few questionable moments, but when you see the Terminator get hit, the metal exposing, doesn’t look out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Opening Chase.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There is one on the nose reference to gun control in America.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable action movie that brings the Terminator back to life for everybody to enjoy, this is bar far the best Terminator movie since Judgement Day.
Overall: Excellent Movie.
Rating
Characters – Dani is the sweet Mexican girl that keeps her family organized with everyday events, making sure her father gets to appointments and her brother joins her for work, her family means everything to her. When Grace turns up, she finds her perfect life ruined, when she needs to go on the run with her from a Terminator, not knowing why a normal young woman has been targeted, she will learn her importance to the future and learn skills alone the way. The only negative side for Dani, is that we don’t learn enough about her before the events happen, it is hard to figure out just how old she is too. Sarah Connor hasn’t stopped hunting Terminators, she is prepared for them all and saves the day, she knows how to stay off the radar, well for the most part one giant plot hole with her talk here, but is a bitter hard as nails woman. The Terminator has many surprises this time, he helps, gets plenty of laughs and as always will fight the superior model. The bad Terminator can fuse with anything it touches, being able to break into more than one threat and isn’t going to stop for anything, he is relentless and on a similar mission focused level as the first two villainous Terminators. Grace is the enhanced soldier sent back to protect Dani, she does need to be kept alive with medicine, proving to be a different level of protection then we have seen before, she has all the human traits, she has lived, fought and battled through the future and knows why she is here and how important this mission is.
Performances – First we will go through the returning cast, Linda Hamilton is wonderful to watch, not only is she perfect here, she lets the new cast members shine, which was one of the weakness of a film that did the same trick, Halloween. Arnold Schwarzenegger gives his best action performance since his return to acting, not only does he still have the fighting down, he has got perfect dead pan comedy down too. Mackenzie Davis might well have just made her an action star for years to come here, giving a performance that could be a star making one. Natalia Reyes does everything right for her character, it isn’t her performance that lets her down, it is certain developments in her character that hold her back. Gabriel Luna as the new Terminator is great too, it is nice they picked a lesser known actor, because a big name would have shifted focus on them instead of a faceless killer.
Story – The story here follows a young Mexican woman that has been targeted by a Terminator, for a reason she doesn’t know, she has a super soldier and Sarah Connor to protect her, as she learns about a future, where like Sarah Connor, she will have a big part to play in the war against the machines. This is a sequel that feels like it has re-imagined the original, mixed with the second one, this is all good because having a new face that needs to learn their part in the future is what makes Terminator different in story, the idea that technology has moved on, also helps this story unfold nicely showing us just how much we are going to see. For a story that is 2 hours long, this barely feels that long if we are being honest and by the end you will be wanting to see more, because even though we have returning characters, they don’t feel thrown in like Arnie’s in the last film.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action here is massive, this shows some great teamwork from the stunt teams too, the fights are people bashing the hell out of an indestructible robot, which means we can hit harder and it not look stupid, while we might have a couple too many cuts during them though. The sci-fi idea has moved on from previous films, which shows us just how much could change in the future, the war will always be coming.
Settings – The film does use the settings are a plot point, where it is, we need to get here, then here, via here, all but the final battle seems simple enough locations.
Special Effects – The effects for the most part are wonderful, there are a few questionable moments, but when you see the Terminator get hit, the metal exposing, doesn’t look out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Opening Chase.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There is one on the nose reference to gun control in America.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable action movie that brings the Terminator back to life for everybody to enjoy, this is bar far the best Terminator movie since Judgement Day.
Overall: Excellent Movie.
Rating
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Art of Hunting (The Gravedigger Chronicles #2) in Books
Nov 8, 2019
I read the first installment of the Gravedigger Chronicles, Sea Of Ghosts a little while ago and the sheer imagination really grabbed my attention. While waiting for the second book I read Campbell's first trilogy and this confirmed a grasp for creating very different, if very dark, fantasy worlds.
The first book follows the story of Thomas Granger, ex-Colonel with the elite 'Gravediggers' army unit now the owner and warden of a decrepit prison in a world that is literally drowning. Humans share the world with the intelligent and long-lived Unmer, for centuries their slaves until a band of telepaths overthrew them. In revenge the Unmer seeded the sees with thousands of small bottles - icusae - which are constantly producing poisonous 'brine', making the seas toxic and raising the sea level.
Granger sets off on a quest to find is estranged daughter Ianthe - herself an incredibly powerful but blind telepath - and so we see this strange and often brutal world, meeting Briana Marks the arrogant head of the telepaths and Ethan Maskeleyne, metaphysicist and hunter of Unmer treasure.
The book ends cataclysmically with Ianthe all but destroying the telepaths' power with her mind and setting the trapped Unmer prince Marquetta free at the same time as her father - now with magical armour and sword - arrives to rescue her himself.
The second book carried straight on from the first, detailing the aftermath of the battle and the Unmer's plans to once again rule, beginning with Marquetta's plan to marry Ianthe. Granger is naturally suspicious of his motives towards his only daughter. Marquetta also needs to eliminate another Unmer lord, Conquillas, who has been hired as an assassin by Briana Marks to kill Marquetta and his uncle. Conquillas is an Unmer rebel who has studied war and hunting until it is an art form to him. Marquetta plans to eliminate him by challenging him to a tournament which is rigged so that Conquillas cannot survive.
Learning of the plans, Granger decides to leave his daughter and travel to find Conquillas and warn him. But soon he has more to worry about as his Unmer sword literally has a mind of its own. Meanwhile Maskeleyne is on his own quest to discover why the unfortunate people who have 'drowned' in the brine seas (but still have a sort of life) are bringing him keys.
As can be seen from the brief description above this is a complex book. Although the story is told from four viewpoints - Granger, Ianthe, Maskeleyne and Briana Marks - the bulk of the story is carried by Granger (on his own quest) and Ianthe (following with the Unmer). Granger is a terrific character - he is gruff and insentimental and is not always a sympathetic character. But he is also very driven and always sees the solution to anything as a straight line, regardless of any obstacles on that path he will just bulldoze straight through them. Ianthe is more subtle as a character because she is essentially tagging along with Marquetta and apart from the marriage plot doesn't really contribute very much.
The world they inhabit is excellent. This is a different kind of fantasy world. Rather than being stuck in medieval worlds as tends to be the case, there is a lot of technology. There are guns and gas cutting torches for example. Everything seems to be very very old and anything enchanted by the Unmer is as dangerous to the innocent wielder as their target.
After the first book it is interesting to see more of the Unmer in action. Marquetta is a proud and determined prince, his uncle fills the role of scheming manipulator well and it is not clear if Marquetta follows his uncle or is merely another pawn in the play. Conquillas is also well drawn for the few scenes he is in, the consumate warrior and hunter while still being otherworldly and cold towards the humans that he deals with. Maskeleyne also comes to the fore in this book after being something of a villain in the first book in this book he is not at odds with the other main characters and so is a much more rounded person rather than a cipher to explain Unmer artifacts and move the plot along.
Yes this is a hard read; the chapters are long (there are only 8 chapters in the book) which means it is a long time between breaks in the narrative and the start does take a long long time to get going although a lot of the information is vital in setting up the rest of the book. Once it gets going however it flows well. In fact I would say the tournament at the end was a little rushed - some more insight into the early rounds would have been interesting I think - but as the main point is to get the final showdown this can be excused.
Overall, a fantastic second part and I eagerly look forward the the third installment.
Rating: Some slight swearing and crude references
The first book follows the story of Thomas Granger, ex-Colonel with the elite 'Gravediggers' army unit now the owner and warden of a decrepit prison in a world that is literally drowning. Humans share the world with the intelligent and long-lived Unmer, for centuries their slaves until a band of telepaths overthrew them. In revenge the Unmer seeded the sees with thousands of small bottles - icusae - which are constantly producing poisonous 'brine', making the seas toxic and raising the sea level.
Granger sets off on a quest to find is estranged daughter Ianthe - herself an incredibly powerful but blind telepath - and so we see this strange and often brutal world, meeting Briana Marks the arrogant head of the telepaths and Ethan Maskeleyne, metaphysicist and hunter of Unmer treasure.
The book ends cataclysmically with Ianthe all but destroying the telepaths' power with her mind and setting the trapped Unmer prince Marquetta free at the same time as her father - now with magical armour and sword - arrives to rescue her himself.
The second book carried straight on from the first, detailing the aftermath of the battle and the Unmer's plans to once again rule, beginning with Marquetta's plan to marry Ianthe. Granger is naturally suspicious of his motives towards his only daughter. Marquetta also needs to eliminate another Unmer lord, Conquillas, who has been hired as an assassin by Briana Marks to kill Marquetta and his uncle. Conquillas is an Unmer rebel who has studied war and hunting until it is an art form to him. Marquetta plans to eliminate him by challenging him to a tournament which is rigged so that Conquillas cannot survive.
Learning of the plans, Granger decides to leave his daughter and travel to find Conquillas and warn him. But soon he has more to worry about as his Unmer sword literally has a mind of its own. Meanwhile Maskeleyne is on his own quest to discover why the unfortunate people who have 'drowned' in the brine seas (but still have a sort of life) are bringing him keys.
As can be seen from the brief description above this is a complex book. Although the story is told from four viewpoints - Granger, Ianthe, Maskeleyne and Briana Marks - the bulk of the story is carried by Granger (on his own quest) and Ianthe (following with the Unmer). Granger is a terrific character - he is gruff and insentimental and is not always a sympathetic character. But he is also very driven and always sees the solution to anything as a straight line, regardless of any obstacles on that path he will just bulldoze straight through them. Ianthe is more subtle as a character because she is essentially tagging along with Marquetta and apart from the marriage plot doesn't really contribute very much.
The world they inhabit is excellent. This is a different kind of fantasy world. Rather than being stuck in medieval worlds as tends to be the case, there is a lot of technology. There are guns and gas cutting torches for example. Everything seems to be very very old and anything enchanted by the Unmer is as dangerous to the innocent wielder as their target.
After the first book it is interesting to see more of the Unmer in action. Marquetta is a proud and determined prince, his uncle fills the role of scheming manipulator well and it is not clear if Marquetta follows his uncle or is merely another pawn in the play. Conquillas is also well drawn for the few scenes he is in, the consumate warrior and hunter while still being otherworldly and cold towards the humans that he deals with. Maskeleyne also comes to the fore in this book after being something of a villain in the first book in this book he is not at odds with the other main characters and so is a much more rounded person rather than a cipher to explain Unmer artifacts and move the plot along.
Yes this is a hard read; the chapters are long (there are only 8 chapters in the book) which means it is a long time between breaks in the narrative and the start does take a long long time to get going although a lot of the information is vital in setting up the rest of the book. Once it gets going however it flows well. In fact I would say the tournament at the end was a little rushed - some more insight into the early rounds would have been interesting I think - but as the main point is to get the final showdown this can be excused.
Overall, a fantastic second part and I eagerly look forward the the third installment.
Rating: Some slight swearing and crude references
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
