Search
Search results
Ross (3282 KP) rated Doors: Twilight in Books
Mar 24, 2021
Great idea, poorly executed
The idea behind the Doors books is that of three different versions of a story with a shared beginning, but the stories diverge when the characters go through one of three (actually five but two are ignored as far as I'm aware!) doors. A team of people, each hired for their own area of expertise, are tasked with rescuing a rich German man's daughter who has wandered down into the mysterious cellar of their former family home, where a series of doors are believed to lead to strange new places.
The first quarter of these books is identical, with the damsel in distress being introduced and the team coming together and being given their tasks. At this stage, there is next to no organisation around their approach, it really is simply a bunch of people heading into the unknown and being drastically under-prepared. When the team quickly find the missing and take her back to the surface, the reader is left somewhat taken aback at the speed with which it was resolved. This is nothing compared to how the reader feels when the team go back looking for the real missing woman, simply based on their employer's assistant's momentary mistake that the woman's eyes were the wrong colour. This is not challenged by anyone in the team, who head back downstairs. It's a bigger WTF moment than the Batman vs Superman 'Martha' fiasco.
As with some of Heitz's Dwarves books, I think this suffered from fairly poor translation, as a number of phrases and words just are not clear. At no point did i really know where the team were heading, forwards or backwards, which door they went through etc.
And the promise of heading into the future was very much an empty one. Some members of the team briefly find themselves in near-future Frankfurt and there is a short section of the book which adds no value and has no connection to the rest of the book whatsoever. Thereafter, there is just some cliched mysterious dark maze adventures, with some unexplained conspiracy around the use and beginnings of the doors and their purpose. (I am currently around 80% of the way through the 'Colony' book, having mercifully skipped the first, repeated, quarter, and am starting to realise that there is likely to be an overall story arch that only becomes clear once the reader has read all three books).
This book, and the series as a whole, offered so much potential and teased so much, but this one at least completely failed to deliver for me.
Advance copy received from NetGalley and the publishers in exchange for an honest review.
The first quarter of these books is identical, with the damsel in distress being introduced and the team coming together and being given their tasks. At this stage, there is next to no organisation around their approach, it really is simply a bunch of people heading into the unknown and being drastically under-prepared. When the team quickly find the missing and take her back to the surface, the reader is left somewhat taken aback at the speed with which it was resolved. This is nothing compared to how the reader feels when the team go back looking for the real missing woman, simply based on their employer's assistant's momentary mistake that the woman's eyes were the wrong colour. This is not challenged by anyone in the team, who head back downstairs. It's a bigger WTF moment than the Batman vs Superman 'Martha' fiasco.
As with some of Heitz's Dwarves books, I think this suffered from fairly poor translation, as a number of phrases and words just are not clear. At no point did i really know where the team were heading, forwards or backwards, which door they went through etc.
And the promise of heading into the future was very much an empty one. Some members of the team briefly find themselves in near-future Frankfurt and there is a short section of the book which adds no value and has no connection to the rest of the book whatsoever. Thereafter, there is just some cliched mysterious dark maze adventures, with some unexplained conspiracy around the use and beginnings of the doors and their purpose. (I am currently around 80% of the way through the 'Colony' book, having mercifully skipped the first, repeated, quarter, and am starting to realise that there is likely to be an overall story arch that only becomes clear once the reader has read all three books).
This book, and the series as a whole, offered so much potential and teased so much, but this one at least completely failed to deliver for me.
Advance copy received from NetGalley and the publishers in exchange for an honest review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
The extent of my knowledge of Wonder Woman comes from vague memories of the TV show with Lynda Carter in the 70s and the Super Friends cartoon in the early 80s. So I knew she was an Amazon princess from Paradise Island who flew an invisible plane. I may have been Wonder Woman for Halloween back when you stuck your arms through a plastic sheet with Wonder Woman’s torso painted on it, that tied at the neck like a cheap, hospital gown, with a mask with eyes cutout and a mouth you really couldn’t breathe through. So really, I knew OF her, but I never really actually knew much about Wonder Woman.
Fast forward some 40 years later and I’m in a theater learning Diana is the fiercely spirited daughter of Queen Hippolyta who sculpted her from clay and was brought to life by Zeus. Wait. What? Tell me more! She’s raised on the secluded island of Themyscira where, thanks to her aunt Antiope’s training, Diana develops extraordinary skill in combat.
Those skills come in handy when Steve Trevor somehow crashes through the protective barrier surrounding Themyscira, while trying to escape from the Germans. Suddenly made aware of an outside world, Diana decides to leave Themyscira with Trevor for war-torn Europe believing she must help stop the great war.
Gal Gadot portrays Wonder Woman as a strong-willed, worldly but still naïve force to reckon with. Chris Pine plays a wiley American spy who isn’t immune to Diana’s beauty but remains respectful of the innocence he can see behind her conviction. Together they team up with a motley crew of unlikely heroes to bring down a horrific German, whom Diana believes is Ares, the God of War, reborn.
I wasn’t sure what kept me more riveted, the storyline, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine,or Wonder Woman’s physical beauty and prowess. I can tell you that I never heard a screener audience cheer for Batman or Superman like they did for Wonder Woman, just at the sight of the determined superhero slowly walking towards battle, prompted in part by the pounding opening wails of Wonder Woman’s theme music.
Wonder Woman is an origin story well-told, something I really can’t say for the previous Justice League movies. Where Man of Steel, Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad have left me “meh” for future DC movies, Wonder Woman left me hopeful for Justice League and future DC Extended Universe movies. I hope the directors of DCEU movies take some lessons from Wonder Woman’s director, Patty Jenkins. Simply put, we want to root for a multi-dimensional superhero with a story we can easily follow and get behind. In other words, be like Wonder Woman.
Fast forward some 40 years later and I’m in a theater learning Diana is the fiercely spirited daughter of Queen Hippolyta who sculpted her from clay and was brought to life by Zeus. Wait. What? Tell me more! She’s raised on the secluded island of Themyscira where, thanks to her aunt Antiope’s training, Diana develops extraordinary skill in combat.
Those skills come in handy when Steve Trevor somehow crashes through the protective barrier surrounding Themyscira, while trying to escape from the Germans. Suddenly made aware of an outside world, Diana decides to leave Themyscira with Trevor for war-torn Europe believing she must help stop the great war.
Gal Gadot portrays Wonder Woman as a strong-willed, worldly but still naïve force to reckon with. Chris Pine plays a wiley American spy who isn’t immune to Diana’s beauty but remains respectful of the innocence he can see behind her conviction. Together they team up with a motley crew of unlikely heroes to bring down a horrific German, whom Diana believes is Ares, the God of War, reborn.
I wasn’t sure what kept me more riveted, the storyline, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine,or Wonder Woman’s physical beauty and prowess. I can tell you that I never heard a screener audience cheer for Batman or Superman like they did for Wonder Woman, just at the sight of the determined superhero slowly walking towards battle, prompted in part by the pounding opening wails of Wonder Woman’s theme music.
Wonder Woman is an origin story well-told, something I really can’t say for the previous Justice League movies. Where Man of Steel, Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad have left me “meh” for future DC movies, Wonder Woman left me hopeful for Justice League and future DC Extended Universe movies. I hope the directors of DCEU movies take some lessons from Wonder Woman’s director, Patty Jenkins. Simply put, we want to root for a multi-dimensional superhero with a story we can easily follow and get behind. In other words, be like Wonder Woman.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Sisu (2023) in Movies
Dec 4, 2023
Pretty Darned Entertaining
The BankofMarquis stumbled across a Finnish action flick that makes Quentin Tarantino Movies - and the John Wick films - look like Disney movies.
SISU tells the story of the waning days of WWII in Finland where a lone man has left the death and destruction of war behind to live a life of solitude. Into his world come some retreating NAZI’s who (to their detriment, they will soon find out) decide to NOT leave this lone man alone.
Chaos (and violence) ensues.
A variation of the “Man with No Name” type of action film that pits this lone person who just wants to be left alone against a group of thugs, SISU (a Finnish word that has no direct translation but roughly translates to “persevering against tremendous odds”) generates a fun action/revenge flick that is extremely violent…and extremely implausible (but that’s part of the fun).
While this is a Finnish film, all of the actors/characters speak English (except when the Nazi’s speak German), so there is no translating needed.
Jorma Tommila (a veteran Finnish actor that has no U.S. credits that I could find) is stoic, rugged and damned determined as the nameless loner (he gets named about half-way through the film) that perseveres and this is the best part of his performance. His sparkling blue eyes constantly seem active and alive even though the rest of his face is stoic and his body is bruised, bloodied, beaten and mud-covered. His internal resolve shines through in his eyes and really holds the film together well.
Aksel Hennie (who you might know as Alex Vogel one of the Astronauts that is in the ship that turns back to get Matt Damon aka THE MARTIAN) as the Head Nazi is quite good and just as determined to use his men as fodder in his vendetta against the nameless man while Jack Doolan (Horse Tommy in THE BOYS) is ruthless as his main henchman and Mimosa Willamo (the Finnish TV series DEADWIND) is strong and determined as a prisoner held by the Nazis.
Director Jalmari Helander (again, no U.S. credits that I can find) does a wonderful job of keeping the action moving and the choreography of the piece simple (you know where everyone is at all times, so when something comes out of nowhere, you have a pretty good idea as to who/what it is). He does ratchet the violence up to a Tarantino-John Wick- The Equalizer level, so if you are squeamish, this film is not for you.
But, if you are into action films, then…hoo-boy….is SISU a film for you!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
SISU tells the story of the waning days of WWII in Finland where a lone man has left the death and destruction of war behind to live a life of solitude. Into his world come some retreating NAZI’s who (to their detriment, they will soon find out) decide to NOT leave this lone man alone.
Chaos (and violence) ensues.
A variation of the “Man with No Name” type of action film that pits this lone person who just wants to be left alone against a group of thugs, SISU (a Finnish word that has no direct translation but roughly translates to “persevering against tremendous odds”) generates a fun action/revenge flick that is extremely violent…and extremely implausible (but that’s part of the fun).
While this is a Finnish film, all of the actors/characters speak English (except when the Nazi’s speak German), so there is no translating needed.
Jorma Tommila (a veteran Finnish actor that has no U.S. credits that I could find) is stoic, rugged and damned determined as the nameless loner (he gets named about half-way through the film) that perseveres and this is the best part of his performance. His sparkling blue eyes constantly seem active and alive even though the rest of his face is stoic and his body is bruised, bloodied, beaten and mud-covered. His internal resolve shines through in his eyes and really holds the film together well.
Aksel Hennie (who you might know as Alex Vogel one of the Astronauts that is in the ship that turns back to get Matt Damon aka THE MARTIAN) as the Head Nazi is quite good and just as determined to use his men as fodder in his vendetta against the nameless man while Jack Doolan (Horse Tommy in THE BOYS) is ruthless as his main henchman and Mimosa Willamo (the Finnish TV series DEADWIND) is strong and determined as a prisoner held by the Nazis.
Director Jalmari Helander (again, no U.S. credits that I can find) does a wonderful job of keeping the action moving and the choreography of the piece simple (you know where everyone is at all times, so when something comes out of nowhere, you have a pretty good idea as to who/what it is). He does ratchet the violence up to a Tarantino-John Wick- The Equalizer level, so if you are squeamish, this film is not for you.
But, if you are into action films, then…hoo-boy….is SISU a film for you!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Sausage Party (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Utterly Ridiculous
Just when Sharknado: the 4th Awakens made you think film-making couldn’t get any more ridiculous, a movie like Sausage Party comes along to remind you that Hollywood can always go that one step further to mind-boggling peculiarity.
Of course, that’s not always a bad thing, there have been countless weird and wacky films over the years that have gone on to become cult classics – look at Kick-Ass or even Pulp Fiction for examples of that. But for every Pulp Fiction there’s a Sharknado. So is Sausage Party good weird or as stale as a month-old bagel?
From the mind of Seth Rogen, Sausage Party is a strictly adults only animation that combines hugely offensive language and racial stereotypes with surprisingly meaningful religious undertones. And do you know what? It’s a breath of fresh air.
Life is good for all the food items that occupy the shelves at the local supermarket. Frank (Seth Rogen) the sausage, Brenda (Kristen Wiig) the hot dog bun, Teresa Taco and Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) can’t wait to go home with a happy customer. Soon, their world comes crashing down as poor Frank learns the horrifying truth that he will eventually become a meal. After warning his pals about their similar fate, the panicked perishables devise a plan to escape from their human enemies.
Directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan take Rogen’s intriguing premise and inject a warmly familiar animation style, distancing itself just enough to make any comparisons simply inconceivable. Sausage Party is like nothing you will have ever seen.
The voice-acting is great too. Rogen plays his usual film staple – in sausage form – with the spicy Salma Hayek outdoing everyone else as a lustful taco. Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Michael Cera and Jonah Hill also lend their familiar voices to a hot-dog bun, a bottle of spirit and two other frankfurters respectively.
Elsewhere, the comedy, for the most part, hits the spot. As dreadful as it sounds, the racial stereotyping works incredibly well in food form. British tea, Mexican taco shells and German sauerkraut will have you rolling about the aisles with their outrageous vulgarity, but everyone needs to release their inner teenager once in a while.
Unfortunately, the films standout sequence has already been shown in the trailer – a side-splitting food-eye view of a normal kitchen, before every edible item is butchered; that poor Irish potato didn’t stand a chance. This is a real shame as the rest of the film doesn’t quite match up to the standard of that scene.
Nevertheless, there’ll be chuckles throughout as numerous celebrities are parodied in food form. One in particular, immortalised in chewing gum, is incredibly well thought out.
And that’s where Sausage Party succeeds the most. Underneath the polished animation and crude humour, this film is actually kind of clever. It tackles religion, war, race, sexuality and food waste very well indeed and that’s something the genre doesn’t ask for. It’s just unfortunate that it’s not quite as funny as the trailer would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/03/utterly-ridiculous-sausage-party-review/
Of course, that’s not always a bad thing, there have been countless weird and wacky films over the years that have gone on to become cult classics – look at Kick-Ass or even Pulp Fiction for examples of that. But for every Pulp Fiction there’s a Sharknado. So is Sausage Party good weird or as stale as a month-old bagel?
From the mind of Seth Rogen, Sausage Party is a strictly adults only animation that combines hugely offensive language and racial stereotypes with surprisingly meaningful religious undertones. And do you know what? It’s a breath of fresh air.
Life is good for all the food items that occupy the shelves at the local supermarket. Frank (Seth Rogen) the sausage, Brenda (Kristen Wiig) the hot dog bun, Teresa Taco and Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) can’t wait to go home with a happy customer. Soon, their world comes crashing down as poor Frank learns the horrifying truth that he will eventually become a meal. After warning his pals about their similar fate, the panicked perishables devise a plan to escape from their human enemies.
Directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan take Rogen’s intriguing premise and inject a warmly familiar animation style, distancing itself just enough to make any comparisons simply inconceivable. Sausage Party is like nothing you will have ever seen.
The voice-acting is great too. Rogen plays his usual film staple – in sausage form – with the spicy Salma Hayek outdoing everyone else as a lustful taco. Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Michael Cera and Jonah Hill also lend their familiar voices to a hot-dog bun, a bottle of spirit and two other frankfurters respectively.
Elsewhere, the comedy, for the most part, hits the spot. As dreadful as it sounds, the racial stereotyping works incredibly well in food form. British tea, Mexican taco shells and German sauerkraut will have you rolling about the aisles with their outrageous vulgarity, but everyone needs to release their inner teenager once in a while.
Unfortunately, the films standout sequence has already been shown in the trailer – a side-splitting food-eye view of a normal kitchen, before every edible item is butchered; that poor Irish potato didn’t stand a chance. This is a real shame as the rest of the film doesn’t quite match up to the standard of that scene.
Nevertheless, there’ll be chuckles throughout as numerous celebrities are parodied in food form. One in particular, immortalised in chewing gum, is incredibly well thought out.
And that’s where Sausage Party succeeds the most. Underneath the polished animation and crude humour, this film is actually kind of clever. It tackles religion, war, race, sexuality and food waste very well indeed and that’s something the genre doesn’t ask for. It’s just unfortunate that it’s not quite as funny as the trailer would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/03/utterly-ridiculous-sausage-party-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dad's Army (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Full of wasted British talent
I may be fairly young in years, but I grew up around comedies like Only Fools & Horses, One Foot in the Grave and of course Dad’s Army. I remember many evenings sitting at home with my dad as he cried with laughter at all three, though it was the latter’s influence that stuck with me the most.
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Krampus (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Full of festive chills and thrills
It’s the most wonderful time of the year, or in the case of one typical US family, it’s not, as they face off against a whole host of festive monsters and ghouls, all serving their evil overlord, Krampus.
This horror comedy takes the genre to a whole new level, throwing in a nice dose of cheesy festive calamity for good measure. But will you be wishing for it on this year’s Christmas list?
Krampus follows the story of a family, who after getting together for the holiday; forget the spirit of Christmas and what it means to hope for a better future and for the well-being of those around you.
Unfortunately, there aren’t any visits from Santa on the cards for this unlucky group, as their continuous bickering summons Krampus, St. Nicholas’ shadow. Krampus is a popular piece of German folklore, a hooded anthropomorphic figure who punishes naughty children in the run up to Christmas.
Naturally, the legend of Krampus gets an American makeover but surprisingly the end result is one of the best horror comedy films in years with some well-time scares and just the right amount of laughs. The family, known only by their first names, is a well-acted group featuring talent like Toni Collette, Adam Scott and the ever-popular David Koechner.
The family unit has just the right amount of chemistry to make their relationships feel believable with Krista Stadler providing an eerie performance as the film’s eldest character.
What sets Krampus apart from its peers is the ingenious plot and fascinating story, with one particular scene featuring some crazed gingerbread men and demonic toys proving to be the film’s highlight. The constant shifts in tone ensure it never settles into a rut, and unusually for the genre, Krampus manages to steamroll itself to a genuinely pleasing climax that’ll have you talking long after you’ve walked out of the cinema.
There’s also a beautifully animated backstory explaining the origins of our antagonist that just proves how above average this film truly is. Only Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 managed to do such a tasteful cut to animation and it works fantastically well here too.
The titular character is a menacing figure in a long cloak, with dangling chains and large hooves, and despite his lack of screen time, he makes his presence felt. There’ll be no chance of bickering around the Christmas dinner table if there’s the possibility of Krampus showing up.
If there’s one criticism to be directed towards Krampus, it’s the lack of actual horror. Yes, there are scares but the majority of them are of the jump variety and there’s only so much terror that can be inflicted by maniacal biscuits.
Overall, Krampus is a highly entertaining romp with one of the best endings ever seen in the horror comedy genre. This frighteningly funny festive treat should most definitely be on your must watch list – it’s a delight.
Just remember, he knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake! Krampus is coming to town.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/06/full-of-festive-thrills-and-chills-krampus-review/
This horror comedy takes the genre to a whole new level, throwing in a nice dose of cheesy festive calamity for good measure. But will you be wishing for it on this year’s Christmas list?
Krampus follows the story of a family, who after getting together for the holiday; forget the spirit of Christmas and what it means to hope for a better future and for the well-being of those around you.
Unfortunately, there aren’t any visits from Santa on the cards for this unlucky group, as their continuous bickering summons Krampus, St. Nicholas’ shadow. Krampus is a popular piece of German folklore, a hooded anthropomorphic figure who punishes naughty children in the run up to Christmas.
Naturally, the legend of Krampus gets an American makeover but surprisingly the end result is one of the best horror comedy films in years with some well-time scares and just the right amount of laughs. The family, known only by their first names, is a well-acted group featuring talent like Toni Collette, Adam Scott and the ever-popular David Koechner.
The family unit has just the right amount of chemistry to make their relationships feel believable with Krista Stadler providing an eerie performance as the film’s eldest character.
What sets Krampus apart from its peers is the ingenious plot and fascinating story, with one particular scene featuring some crazed gingerbread men and demonic toys proving to be the film’s highlight. The constant shifts in tone ensure it never settles into a rut, and unusually for the genre, Krampus manages to steamroll itself to a genuinely pleasing climax that’ll have you talking long after you’ve walked out of the cinema.
There’s also a beautifully animated backstory explaining the origins of our antagonist that just proves how above average this film truly is. Only Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 managed to do such a tasteful cut to animation and it works fantastically well here too.
The titular character is a menacing figure in a long cloak, with dangling chains and large hooves, and despite his lack of screen time, he makes his presence felt. There’ll be no chance of bickering around the Christmas dinner table if there’s the possibility of Krampus showing up.
If there’s one criticism to be directed towards Krampus, it’s the lack of actual horror. Yes, there are scares but the majority of them are of the jump variety and there’s only so much terror that can be inflicted by maniacal biscuits.
Overall, Krampus is a highly entertaining romp with one of the best endings ever seen in the horror comedy genre. This frighteningly funny festive treat should most definitely be on your must watch list – it’s a delight.
Just remember, he knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake! Krampus is coming to town.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/06/full-of-festive-thrills-and-chills-krampus-review/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated In The Shadow of Blackbirds in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I had this random tendency to not write a review, at all, for Cat Winters' <i>In the Shadow of Blackbirds</i>, to which the copy at the library had an extremely sucky synopsis (though the design IS pretty):
In a city filled with the dead and dying,
while a nightmarish war rages halfway across the world,
the grieving look for answers in photographs and séances.
It's 1918. San Diego.
And a girl who doesn't believe in spirits
steps off the train and into a new life...
Apparently the one sentence synopsis provided by the publisher (yes, I read those) is a lot more helpful than this inside jacket cover synopsis, which gives a the book a mysterious aura that separates it from the other 2015-2016 Gateway Award Nominees.
The book, albeit a fantastically creepy concept, apparently goes from one end of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum by the end of the book.
The so-called beginning of the spectrum I'm speaking of is the absolute, complete paranoia of the time period. Literally all of the characters depicted throughout the book was highly addicted to onions, spirit photography, or shunning the Germans. Of course, the more historical fiction and actual historical texts I read of World War I, I sometimes find it highly hilarious mainly due to the simple fact that Americans actually came from Europe and the majority of them have German blood (okay, a lot of ya'll have European blood). Funny how that actually works.
The only characters that I actually liked was Mary Shelley Black (thankfully the main character) and Stephen Embers (or rather, Live Stephen and not Dead Stephen, who actually spent a good few times squishing Mary Shelley). Both Mary Shelley and Stephen were more "adventurous" (logic and science) and tended to stray from the rest of the pack. On the unfortunate side... dear old Stephen Embers is apparently dead, which eventually results in the book being one of your typical ghost stories/shows where the dead have unfinished business.
However, in Stephen's case, all Mary Shelley seems to get from him is something about blackbirds - blackbirds attacking him.
The other end of the spectrum, as the book continues and Mary Shelley gets closer to finding out Stephen's "unfinished" business, is apparently the book going from the main character being the most logical and unparanoid one to being one of the paranoid ones. She goes from being one of the logical ones who reasons and questions everything to someone who "freaked" out over a cough or "drowning" herself in onions. Onions are apparently the garlic of the book while the vampire is the influenza.
Simply put, <i>In the Shadow of Blackbirds</i> started to become a little bit too "insane" for my taste and for me to handle at certain points until the very end. Cat Winters' debut novel was a chilling read that left me walking away feeling mainly satisfied with how Stephen and Mary Shelley eventually come to terms with their relationship.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-in-the-shadow-of-blackbirds-by-cat-winters/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
In a city filled with the dead and dying,
while a nightmarish war rages halfway across the world,
the grieving look for answers in photographs and séances.
It's 1918. San Diego.
And a girl who doesn't believe in spirits
steps off the train and into a new life...
Apparently the one sentence synopsis provided by the publisher (yes, I read those) is a lot more helpful than this inside jacket cover synopsis, which gives a the book a mysterious aura that separates it from the other 2015-2016 Gateway Award Nominees.
The book, albeit a fantastically creepy concept, apparently goes from one end of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum by the end of the book.
The so-called beginning of the spectrum I'm speaking of is the absolute, complete paranoia of the time period. Literally all of the characters depicted throughout the book was highly addicted to onions, spirit photography, or shunning the Germans. Of course, the more historical fiction and actual historical texts I read of World War I, I sometimes find it highly hilarious mainly due to the simple fact that Americans actually came from Europe and the majority of them have German blood (okay, a lot of ya'll have European blood). Funny how that actually works.
The only characters that I actually liked was Mary Shelley Black (thankfully the main character) and Stephen Embers (or rather, Live Stephen and not Dead Stephen, who actually spent a good few times squishing Mary Shelley). Both Mary Shelley and Stephen were more "adventurous" (logic and science) and tended to stray from the rest of the pack. On the unfortunate side... dear old Stephen Embers is apparently dead, which eventually results in the book being one of your typical ghost stories/shows where the dead have unfinished business.
However, in Stephen's case, all Mary Shelley seems to get from him is something about blackbirds - blackbirds attacking him.
The other end of the spectrum, as the book continues and Mary Shelley gets closer to finding out Stephen's "unfinished" business, is apparently the book going from the main character being the most logical and unparanoid one to being one of the paranoid ones. She goes from being one of the logical ones who reasons and questions everything to someone who "freaked" out over a cough or "drowning" herself in onions. Onions are apparently the garlic of the book while the vampire is the influenza.
Simply put, <i>In the Shadow of Blackbirds</i> started to become a little bit too "insane" for my taste and for me to handle at certain points until the very end. Cat Winters' debut novel was a chilling read that left me walking away feeling mainly satisfied with how Stephen and Mary Shelley eventually come to terms with their relationship.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-in-the-shadow-of-blackbirds-by-cat-winters/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 11, 2020
If you asked me why I skipped seeing this one twice before it's UK release I wouldn't be able to give you a proper answer. I guess I just didn't fancy it, and the second time Odeon outdid Cineworld with a really early Parasite screening so that felt like the sensible choice instead.
Jojo wants to be a good German, but as he's about to go off to a Nazi Youth Camp he worries about how he'll do. Luckily he has a friend to help him through it, Adolf Hitler. The Fuhrer is always with him in spirit.
Recovering at home after an accident Jojo discovers that he's not alone in the house. He discovers Elsa hiding in a wall space upstairs, hidden by his mother. Jojo is torn, he should report her to the authorities but that could be bad news for him and his mother.
I was genuinely surprised about who was turning up to see this. There were a lot of family groups and groups of teenagers. It shouldn't really shock me, everyone has their own interests in a wide variety of things, but I wasn't expecting to see such young people coming to see it.
By far my favourite thing about this film was Sam Rockwell as Captain Klenzendorf, a little bitter with his situation and begrudgingly training the kids for the battles ahead, he's making the best of a bad situation. He's funny, and more importantly, glorious in battle. From the ridiculous to a surprisingly moving scene at the end, he was the performance of the whole film for me.
Child actors have their ups and downs, some have the knack right out of the gate but I didn't really get that from Roman Griffin Davis or Archie Yates. Both got some good moments out of the script but their delivery and the consistency of the characters didn't carry through it as a whole.
Thomasin McKenzie however brought a little something extra to her role of Elsa. I didn't mind her slightly more serious parts in this but it was difficult to get much more out of it when so much revolved around her and Jojo in scenes together. I don't like "awkward" and some of the scenes are *shudder*.
I can't really talk about the film without talking about Taika Waititi as Hitler. I found him quite amusing to begin with but when the character started to change as Jojo did I felt it was a little over the top.
Dramatic moments pop up when you really aren't expecting them, two in particular stuck with me afterwards. One, as I mentioned, with Sam Rockwell and the other with Scarlett Johansson. Rockwell's was a complete surprise, but ScarJo's, though unexpected, was overplayed a lot in the build up.
Jojo Rabbit is a very odd film, I didn't know what to expect at all really and the final result left me no wiser. Entertaining yes, but not something I would have to see again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/jojo-rabbit-movie-review.html
Jojo wants to be a good German, but as he's about to go off to a Nazi Youth Camp he worries about how he'll do. Luckily he has a friend to help him through it, Adolf Hitler. The Fuhrer is always with him in spirit.
Recovering at home after an accident Jojo discovers that he's not alone in the house. He discovers Elsa hiding in a wall space upstairs, hidden by his mother. Jojo is torn, he should report her to the authorities but that could be bad news for him and his mother.
I was genuinely surprised about who was turning up to see this. There were a lot of family groups and groups of teenagers. It shouldn't really shock me, everyone has their own interests in a wide variety of things, but I wasn't expecting to see such young people coming to see it.
By far my favourite thing about this film was Sam Rockwell as Captain Klenzendorf, a little bitter with his situation and begrudgingly training the kids for the battles ahead, he's making the best of a bad situation. He's funny, and more importantly, glorious in battle. From the ridiculous to a surprisingly moving scene at the end, he was the performance of the whole film for me.
Child actors have their ups and downs, some have the knack right out of the gate but I didn't really get that from Roman Griffin Davis or Archie Yates. Both got some good moments out of the script but their delivery and the consistency of the characters didn't carry through it as a whole.
Thomasin McKenzie however brought a little something extra to her role of Elsa. I didn't mind her slightly more serious parts in this but it was difficult to get much more out of it when so much revolved around her and Jojo in scenes together. I don't like "awkward" and some of the scenes are *shudder*.
I can't really talk about the film without talking about Taika Waititi as Hitler. I found him quite amusing to begin with but when the character started to change as Jojo did I felt it was a little over the top.
Dramatic moments pop up when you really aren't expecting them, two in particular stuck with me afterwards. One, as I mentioned, with Sam Rockwell and the other with Scarlett Johansson. Rockwell's was a complete surprise, but ScarJo's, though unexpected, was overplayed a lot in the build up.
Jojo Rabbit is a very odd film, I didn't know what to expect at all really and the final result left me no wiser. Entertaining yes, but not something I would have to see again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/jojo-rabbit-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Rush (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today we bring you the latest from dircetor Ron Howard. A movie about what is considered to be one of the greatest rivalries in sports history and to this day, the greatest rivalry in the history of Formula 1 racing … the biographical action film RUSH. Released in the United States on September 20th RUSH tells the story behind the 1976 Formula 1 racing season and the intense rivalry between britsh racing champion James Hunt and austrain racing champion Niki Lauda. Staring Chis Hemsworth (Thor, Red Dawn) as Hunt and Daniel Bruhl (Inglourious Bastards, The Bourne Ultimatum) as Lauda, RUSH follows the two racing legends from their first confrontation at a Formula 3 race at England’s Crystal Palace circuit in 1970 to their accention to Formula 1 racing, to Lauda’s near-fatal carsh at the German Grand Prix and finally to the final race of the season, the Japanese Grand Prix.
What makes this movie different from other stories about the two rivals, is that it is told from the viewpoint of Niki Lauda. Written by legendary screenwritter Peter Morgan, Lauda had been approached many times by studios and writers for nearly 30 years wanting to make a movie from his point of view. Lauda had also been hesitent to make a movie for many years in part because of the death of James Hunt in 1993 at the age of 45 and felt that it wouldn’t have been ‘right’ to make a movie without his rival’s input. After meeting with dircetor Ron Howard, reading Peter Morgan’s screenplay, and with the blessing of James Hunt’s family Lauda finally agreed the movie should be made and i’m here to tell YOU my fellow movie-goers that the 30 years was worth the wait. With a supporting cast inclding Olivia Wilde, Alexandra Maria Lara, and Piefranscesco Favino it is apparent that the studios were serious about making this movie and making it right. Hemsworth and Bruhl definately deliver the goods portraying Hunt and Lauda and I will not be surprised if both of them recieve awards for their potrayals is the two leading characters in the movie. RUSH is different from alot of other movies because there is no REAL villian. It tells the story of two very different competitors in a sport where death is one small mistake away who couldn’t stand one another but at the sametime, when all is said and done they respected each other. It’s the story of two heros who pushed themselves to the limit .. sometimes losing themselves in the process and having to come to terms with the fact that they were not invinvcible.
I for one enjoyed the movie more than any other movie so far this year and I would highly recommend it to you all! Go and see it! Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 89% rating and i’m giving it 5 out of 5 stars! And with talk of the movie being nominated for awards ALREADY … How can you say ‘NO’ to recommendations like that!? It is rated R though so leave the kids at home.
What makes this movie different from other stories about the two rivals, is that it is told from the viewpoint of Niki Lauda. Written by legendary screenwritter Peter Morgan, Lauda had been approached many times by studios and writers for nearly 30 years wanting to make a movie from his point of view. Lauda had also been hesitent to make a movie for many years in part because of the death of James Hunt in 1993 at the age of 45 and felt that it wouldn’t have been ‘right’ to make a movie without his rival’s input. After meeting with dircetor Ron Howard, reading Peter Morgan’s screenplay, and with the blessing of James Hunt’s family Lauda finally agreed the movie should be made and i’m here to tell YOU my fellow movie-goers that the 30 years was worth the wait. With a supporting cast inclding Olivia Wilde, Alexandra Maria Lara, and Piefranscesco Favino it is apparent that the studios were serious about making this movie and making it right. Hemsworth and Bruhl definately deliver the goods portraying Hunt and Lauda and I will not be surprised if both of them recieve awards for their potrayals is the two leading characters in the movie. RUSH is different from alot of other movies because there is no REAL villian. It tells the story of two very different competitors in a sport where death is one small mistake away who couldn’t stand one another but at the sametime, when all is said and done they respected each other. It’s the story of two heros who pushed themselves to the limit .. sometimes losing themselves in the process and having to come to terms with the fact that they were not invinvcible.
I for one enjoyed the movie more than any other movie so far this year and I would highly recommend it to you all! Go and see it! Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 89% rating and i’m giving it 5 out of 5 stars! And with talk of the movie being nominated for awards ALREADY … How can you say ‘NO’ to recommendations like that!? It is rated R though so leave the kids at home.