Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Suspiria (2018) in Movies
Feb 19, 2020
What did I Just Watch?????
Suspiria- i forgot that this movie came out in 2018. I did watch the oringal film, i dont remember what happened but i watched it. So ill most likely i have to watch it again, at some point. In the meantime i watched the remake and it was something. It was something alright. I couldnt tell you what happen, but it was something. Something that i wont watch again, not for a long time or ever. Yes i did some of the psychological espects of the film and some of the horror was good, but overall it was whats that word im looking for, oh yea something.
The plot: Young American dancer Susie Bannion arrives in 1970s Berlin to audition for the world-renowned Helena Markos Dance Co. When she vaults to the role of lead dancer, the woman she replaces breaks down and accuses the company's female directors of witchcraft. Meanwhile, an inquisitive psychotherapist and a member of the troupe uncover dark and sinister secrets as they probe the depths of the studio's hidden underground chambers.
I have nothing else to say in the review but just this, skip it or watch it if you watched and liked the oringal. For me it was something.
The plot: Young American dancer Susie Bannion arrives in 1970s Berlin to audition for the world-renowned Helena Markos Dance Co. When she vaults to the role of lead dancer, the woman she replaces breaks down and accuses the company's female directors of witchcraft. Meanwhile, an inquisitive psychotherapist and a member of the troupe uncover dark and sinister secrets as they probe the depths of the studio's hidden underground chambers.
I have nothing else to say in the review but just this, skip it or watch it if you watched and liked the oringal. For me it was something.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The One and Only Ivan (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Better than most CGI talking animal Disney movies
Originally scheduled for a cinematic release, but now arriving on Disney+ instead, The One and Only Ivan is the latest in a long line of stories involving CGI animals who can talk, banding together to outsmart us humans in order to escape captivity. Only this one is actually based on a true story.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
JT (287 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Re-imagining of classic horror films can go either way. They can stick close to the original while giving it a fresh injection of gore to satisfy the bloodthirsty millennials. Or deviate it from the storyline altogether to put its own spin on the narrative.
In the Child’s Play remake the original ‘Good Guy’ dolls have been replaced by 21st-century technology in the form of ‘Buddi’ dolls which, have been produced by Kaslan Industries. And instead of a psychotic serial killer transferring his soul to the body of a doll, Buddi has all of his safety features disabled by a disgruntled Kaslan employee. The change from possession to A.I. fits perfectly within the modern world where people rely heavily on their phones and various voice-activated gadgets.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars
Best friends, Chucky and Andy (Gabriel Bateman) share a moment
Chucky, as he will inevitably call himself, makes his way to Chicago and into the home of the Barclay’s, where mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza) gets her hands on the defective doll as an early birthday present for son Andy (Gabriel Bateman). After a few small glitches (eyes turning red) Andy and Chucky start to form a close bond. But the bond takes a sinister turn when Chucky starts to act differently in his pursuit of the ultimate friendship.
One of the highlights of the film is the brilliant casting of Mark Hamill as the voice of the murderous doll. Hamill (outside of Star Wars) is well known as a talented voice actor, having provided the voice of the Joker in the animated series. Hamill uses his full range of softly spoken innocence and demented rage to portray a character who is influenced by everything around him (there are blatant references to E.T.) and then uses it to the best of his ability in killing off people in a range of horrific (and comical) ways.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars. It’s not without its faults but this satirical take on the slasher genre is certainly B-movie levels at best.
In the Child’s Play remake the original ‘Good Guy’ dolls have been replaced by 21st-century technology in the form of ‘Buddi’ dolls which, have been produced by Kaslan Industries. And instead of a psychotic serial killer transferring his soul to the body of a doll, Buddi has all of his safety features disabled by a disgruntled Kaslan employee. The change from possession to A.I. fits perfectly within the modern world where people rely heavily on their phones and various voice-activated gadgets.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars
Best friends, Chucky and Andy (Gabriel Bateman) share a moment
Chucky, as he will inevitably call himself, makes his way to Chicago and into the home of the Barclay’s, where mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza) gets her hands on the defective doll as an early birthday present for son Andy (Gabriel Bateman). After a few small glitches (eyes turning red) Andy and Chucky start to form a close bond. But the bond takes a sinister turn when Chucky starts to act differently in his pursuit of the ultimate friendship.
One of the highlights of the film is the brilliant casting of Mark Hamill as the voice of the murderous doll. Hamill (outside of Star Wars) is well known as a talented voice actor, having provided the voice of the Joker in the animated series. Hamill uses his full range of softly spoken innocence and demented rage to portray a character who is influenced by everything around him (there are blatant references to E.T.) and then uses it to the best of his ability in killing off people in a range of horrific (and comical) ways.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars. It’s not without its faults but this satirical take on the slasher genre is certainly B-movie levels at best.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 12, 2021
The sequel to Rob Zombie's divisive Halloween remake suffers in the same way that it's predecessor did, in that when all is said and done, I'm just not a fan of his style within the Halloween template. This one actually doubles down on the nastiness, and is effectively one big misery simulation. None of the characters are likable, and yet, none of them deserve the horrible ways they are killed off (probably).
A huge BUT though...I actually think that Halloween II is slightly better... I will still stand by my opinion that this version of Michael Myers is the scariest. Even more so in this one. Rob Zombie's Myers is remorseless and brutal, and of course, absolutely fucking massive. There's some really nice shots of him as well, especially in the opening hospital scene.
I also quite liked the random music video-esque sequences. It's something different, which is usually cause for alarm bells in this franchise, but it kind of works here.
Halloween II is not even close to being in the top tier of the series, but it does feel like it carries more weight than its predecessor. The practical make up work is pretty outstanding (and grim) and it rounds off Zombie's duology well enough that a third was thankfully out of the question. Ultimately, it serves as yet another reminder of how messy and unsatisfactory this series can be when it strays too far from the original.
A huge BUT though...I actually think that Halloween II is slightly better... I will still stand by my opinion that this version of Michael Myers is the scariest. Even more so in this one. Rob Zombie's Myers is remorseless and brutal, and of course, absolutely fucking massive. There's some really nice shots of him as well, especially in the opening hospital scene.
I also quite liked the random music video-esque sequences. It's something different, which is usually cause for alarm bells in this franchise, but it kind of works here.
Halloween II is not even close to being in the top tier of the series, but it does feel like it carries more weight than its predecessor. The practical make up work is pretty outstanding (and grim) and it rounds off Zombie's duology well enough that a third was thankfully out of the question. Ultimately, it serves as yet another reminder of how messy and unsatisfactory this series can be when it strays too far from the original.
TG
The Great Demarcation: The French Revolution and the Invention of Modern Property
Book
The Great Demarcation explores how the French Revolution transformed the system of property-holding...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Child's Play (1988) in Movies
Nov 13, 2019
Good Guy Doll
Childs Play- after the remake that came out early this year, i finally watched this one. Yes the remake was the first chucky movie that i watched, i wasnt really that intresting in the child's play franchise and still really not that intresting in it. But i wanted to watch the oringal one, i wanted to know where it all started from and what a start in a good way. This movie started Brad Drouif's iconic voice as chucky and went on to voice Chucky in the sequels followed. Also Chris Sarandon who started in Fright Night two years before star in this and Tom Holland, no not that one. The one who directed Fright Night directed this one. So lets talk about it...
The Plot: Gunned down by Detective Mike Norris (Chris Sarandon), dying murderer Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif) uses black magic to put his soul inside a doll named Chucky -- which Karen Barclay (Catherine Hicks) then buys for her young son, Andy (Alex Vincent). When Chucky kills Andy's baby sitter, the boy realizes the doll is alive and tries to warn people, but he's institutionalized. Now Karen must convince the detective of the murderous doll's intentions, before Andy becomes Chucky's next victim.
Their are so many iconic scenes and iconic lines in this movie, that people remember till this day. Lines like...
"Well John it's been fun, but i gotta go, i have a date with a 6 year-old boy. ..."
"I bled and it hurt like a son of a bitch."
"We're friends 'til the end, remember?"
"This is the end, friend."
"Andy remember, friends stick together till the end".
"Hi, I'm Chucky wanna play?"
"I said talk to me, damn it. Or else I'll throw you in the fire."
"You stupid bitch! You filthy slut! I'll teach you to fuck with me!"
So many iconic lines and scenes, Child's play is a iconic late 80's horror movie that had many sequels afterwards.
If you havent seen child's play, than i highly recordmend watching this film.
The Plot: Gunned down by Detective Mike Norris (Chris Sarandon), dying murderer Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif) uses black magic to put his soul inside a doll named Chucky -- which Karen Barclay (Catherine Hicks) then buys for her young son, Andy (Alex Vincent). When Chucky kills Andy's baby sitter, the boy realizes the doll is alive and tries to warn people, but he's institutionalized. Now Karen must convince the detective of the murderous doll's intentions, before Andy becomes Chucky's next victim.
Their are so many iconic scenes and iconic lines in this movie, that people remember till this day. Lines like...
"Well John it's been fun, but i gotta go, i have a date with a 6 year-old boy. ..."
"I bled and it hurt like a son of a bitch."
"We're friends 'til the end, remember?"
"This is the end, friend."
"Andy remember, friends stick together till the end".
"Hi, I'm Chucky wanna play?"
"I said talk to me, damn it. Or else I'll throw you in the fire."
"You stupid bitch! You filthy slut! I'll teach you to fuck with me!"
So many iconic lines and scenes, Child's play is a iconic late 80's horror movie that had many sequels afterwards.
If you havent seen child's play, than i highly recordmend watching this film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare - Absolultion in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The third of a planned four content packs for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare has arrived with Absolution. The collection was first available for the Playstation 4 system and was released for the Xbox One and PC platforms about five weeks later and contains the usual offerings of four new maps and a new chapter for the Zombie mode of the game.
The maps are as follows…
Ember
This is a remake of the classic map “Resistance” From the castle lined landscape to the close-quarters fighting in rooms like gallows or a torture area this is a great map for those looking to run and gun.
Bermuda
This is a fun map based on a Shanty Town fishing village. There are locales ranging from a Fish Market to a Lighthouse and the mix of colors and action make this one really enjoyable.
Permafrost
This is a frozen landscape set in the ruins of a city. The map has several open areas where players can attack from above thanks to holes in the roof and streets. The debris strewn map offers plenty of cover but also numerous places for enemies to attack from all angles.
Fore
This is a large map that is so much fun to play. Set in a mini-golf course, players can run into the arcade, putting areas, and props to attack the enemy. There is plenty of cover and also terrain that is uneven giving a new and diverse set of challenges to players.
While the new maps are lots of fun, the main draw of the collection was the latest chapter in the Zombie mode where four aspiring actors are drawn into actual horror films by a demented Director.
The previous chapters have given us an 80s theme park, a 90s Summer Camp, and a 70s Disco Infused Martial Arts setting. This time out, Attack of the Radioactive things lets players play with and interact with Elvira in a 1950s Atomic Monster setting. The mode starts in Black and White before moving to color and even allows for a red tint Chroma mode.
Of course waves of Zombies and other terrors await and players must run and fight to survive.
This has been another winning collection for Infinite Warfare. While it does not offer anything radically new or different, it does offer plenty of fun and will increase your enjoyment of the game.
I am looking forward to seeing the final pack, around October ahead of the new Call of Duty: World War 2.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/13/call-duty-infinite-warfare-absolution-dlc/
The maps are as follows…
Ember
This is a remake of the classic map “Resistance” From the castle lined landscape to the close-quarters fighting in rooms like gallows or a torture area this is a great map for those looking to run and gun.
Bermuda
This is a fun map based on a Shanty Town fishing village. There are locales ranging from a Fish Market to a Lighthouse and the mix of colors and action make this one really enjoyable.
Permafrost
This is a frozen landscape set in the ruins of a city. The map has several open areas where players can attack from above thanks to holes in the roof and streets. The debris strewn map offers plenty of cover but also numerous places for enemies to attack from all angles.
Fore
This is a large map that is so much fun to play. Set in a mini-golf course, players can run into the arcade, putting areas, and props to attack the enemy. There is plenty of cover and also terrain that is uneven giving a new and diverse set of challenges to players.
While the new maps are lots of fun, the main draw of the collection was the latest chapter in the Zombie mode where four aspiring actors are drawn into actual horror films by a demented Director.
The previous chapters have given us an 80s theme park, a 90s Summer Camp, and a 70s Disco Infused Martial Arts setting. This time out, Attack of the Radioactive things lets players play with and interact with Elvira in a 1950s Atomic Monster setting. The mode starts in Black and White before moving to color and even allows for a red tint Chroma mode.
Of course waves of Zombies and other terrors await and players must run and fight to survive.
This has been another winning collection for Infinite Warfare. While it does not offer anything radically new or different, it does offer plenty of fun and will increase your enjoyment of the game.
I am looking forward to seeing the final pack, around October ahead of the new Call of Duty: World War 2.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/13/call-duty-infinite-warfare-absolution-dlc/
Hades Miller (2 KP) rated Mulan (2020) in Movies
Dec 13, 2020
Acting (1 more)
Fight scenes
Plot (1 more)
Liu Yifei
More like...Meh-lan
I have to admit, I am one of those people who doesn't really get why they are remaking animated Disney movies and not just...animating them again. Live action is fine, but animation, especially American animation, is just much more expressive. Mulan falls victim to this problem. If they didn't try to follow the original somewhat, it wouldn't be true to the source material & if they didn't try something new, it would just be a rehash. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed quite a bit of this movie, but the finished product didn't really feel like it had a purpose.
My biggest issue is that every new idea they added never felt like it went anywhere. "Here's another woman who is a powerful fighter like Mulan...oh wait she let's gone." "Mulan has a sister! She adds nothing to the plot." Nothing new is ever followed through in an interesting way and just seems half-heartedly thrown in. This basically just leaves the rehashed parts of Mulan which, outside of more serious fight scenes...isn't all that interesting
Is it worth watching once? Sure. Is it something worth watching over and over again like the original Mulan, or heck, even the straight to DVD sequel? Well, that's obviously up to you, but I likely won't be watching this again anytime soon.
Also, replacing hard-work, dedication, and a good old fashioned dose of pig-headedness with chi is a lazy way to try and separate a remake from it's source.
My biggest issue is that every new idea they added never felt like it went anywhere. "Here's another woman who is a powerful fighter like Mulan...oh wait she let's gone." "Mulan has a sister! She adds nothing to the plot." Nothing new is ever followed through in an interesting way and just seems half-heartedly thrown in. This basically just leaves the rehashed parts of Mulan which, outside of more serious fight scenes...isn't all that interesting
Is it worth watching once? Sure. Is it something worth watching over and over again like the original Mulan, or heck, even the straight to DVD sequel? Well, that's obviously up to you, but I likely won't be watching this again anytime soon.
Also, replacing hard-work, dedication, and a good old fashioned dose of pig-headedness with chi is a lazy way to try and separate a remake from it's source.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...