Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Point Break (1991) in Movies
Jan 17, 2018
Not Bad
My buddy who recommended Point Break asked for my thoughts almost immediately after I watched it. In a word: Fun. No, it's not going to blow your mind or give you chills, but it's a great film to watch if you're just trying to have a good time. It's like Fast and the Furious before Fast and the Furious became Fast and the Furious. Oh yeah, and with surfer dudes.
Point Break can be a bit over the top at times. One scene in particular involving a chase scene where someone literally threw a dog at Keanu Reeves left me scratching my head and chuckling, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be laughing at that point. The plot holes threw me off just as much. Spoiler Alert In the Form of a Question: After Johnny Utah's cover is blown, why the hell is he still hanging out with the bankrobbers?
After a slow start, I managed to find myself engaged in what was unfolding. Keanu Reeves got off to a slow start as well in his role as Johnny Utah, but found his way midway through. It was almost like this was the film where he learned how to act, but director Kathryn Bigelow didn't notice until they were well past the point of reshoots. It doesn't kill the movie, not by a longshot, especially considering its setting.
The ending was extremely ambiguous and, ten years ago, probably would have ruined the entire film for me. Now, it left me asking myself, "What does this mean exactly?" My answer in a sec...
For those of you like me that are new to the film, Point Break is the story of a detective trying to take down a gang of surfers that have become notorious on the bank-robbing circuit as the Ex-Presidents. The film has some fun action sequences, including a house raid midway through that I really enjoyed. I also thought Bigelow captured some powerful shots when it came to expressing the love and power of the ocean. I would love to see this film shot in IMAX today. And I said this film, not the god-awful remake. My favorite shot takes place at a gas station. Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) is burning a car (destroying evidence) to the ground using a gas pump and a lighter. For some reason, it reminded me of the one scene I enjoyed in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice where the courtroom explodes and just Superman is left among the flames. Scenes like this, no matter how good or bad a film is, stay etched in your memory for a long time.
So what were my thoughts on the ending? I feel like the waves got the better of Utah and he succumbed to their call. He got a taste of a life that was more easygoing and peaceful. Less rules and restrictions. Ultimately, it was enough for him to throw everything else (badge included) away. And yes, I think he does end up staying with Tyler (Lori Petty).
Glad I saw this film. I give it a 77.
Point Break can be a bit over the top at times. One scene in particular involving a chase scene where someone literally threw a dog at Keanu Reeves left me scratching my head and chuckling, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be laughing at that point. The plot holes threw me off just as much. Spoiler Alert In the Form of a Question: After Johnny Utah's cover is blown, why the hell is he still hanging out with the bankrobbers?
After a slow start, I managed to find myself engaged in what was unfolding. Keanu Reeves got off to a slow start as well in his role as Johnny Utah, but found his way midway through. It was almost like this was the film where he learned how to act, but director Kathryn Bigelow didn't notice until they were well past the point of reshoots. It doesn't kill the movie, not by a longshot, especially considering its setting.
The ending was extremely ambiguous and, ten years ago, probably would have ruined the entire film for me. Now, it left me asking myself, "What does this mean exactly?" My answer in a sec...
For those of you like me that are new to the film, Point Break is the story of a detective trying to take down a gang of surfers that have become notorious on the bank-robbing circuit as the Ex-Presidents. The film has some fun action sequences, including a house raid midway through that I really enjoyed. I also thought Bigelow captured some powerful shots when it came to expressing the love and power of the ocean. I would love to see this film shot in IMAX today. And I said this film, not the god-awful remake. My favorite shot takes place at a gas station. Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) is burning a car (destroying evidence) to the ground using a gas pump and a lighter. For some reason, it reminded me of the one scene I enjoyed in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice where the courtroom explodes and just Superman is left among the flames. Scenes like this, no matter how good or bad a film is, stay etched in your memory for a long time.
So what were my thoughts on the ending? I feel like the waves got the better of Utah and he succumbed to their call. He got a taste of a life that was more easygoing and peaceful. Less rules and restrictions. Ultimately, it was enough for him to throw everything else (badge included) away. And yes, I think he does end up staying with Tyler (Lori Petty).
Glad I saw this film. I give it a 77.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Predictably Gruesome, But Entertaining
Child's Play is a 2019 slasher/horror movie directed by Lars Klevberg and written by Tyler Burton Smith. It was produced by Orion Pictures, KatzSmith Productions, and BRON Creative and distributed by United Artists Releasing. The film stars Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman, Brian Tyree Henry, and Mark Hamill.
A revolutionary line of high-tech dolls, designed to be life-long companions to their owners, called Buddi, is launched by the Kaslan Corporation. Buddi dolls learn from their surroundings and act accordingly by connecting and operating other Kaslan products making it a success with children world wide. Before committing suicide after being fired at a Buddi assembly plant in Vietnam, an employee disables all of the doll's safety protocols on the doll he is assembling. In Chicago, Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza), a retail clerk, encourages her son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman), to make new friends as she prepares for his upcoming birthday. She blackmails her boss to procure a Buddi doll as an early birthday gift but once Andy activates it, the doll begins to display violent tendencies.
This movie was pretty good, and that goes for remakes/reboots. I think everyone has seen a bad Chucky movie and this is not one. I really didn't like the redesign or new look of the Chucky doll but it grew on me as the movie progressed. Also I guess I'm just so used to his voice being different, that I also didn't think Mark Hamill's voice fit either, until the movie progressed further. I agree with certain critics that complained about the inconsistent tone, and how it lacked the principal's perverse originality. It definitely didn't have the me vibe of the original but I like how it made it, its own thing. But I think this was a very successful remake. The acting from Gabriel Bateman was really good and I wound up really liking Mark Hamill's performance as well. He actually made me feel sorry for the doll. I give this movie a 7/10. And I say you should definitely check it out, especially if you are a fan of the Child's Play movies.
A revolutionary line of high-tech dolls, designed to be life-long companions to their owners, called Buddi, is launched by the Kaslan Corporation. Buddi dolls learn from their surroundings and act accordingly by connecting and operating other Kaslan products making it a success with children world wide. Before committing suicide after being fired at a Buddi assembly plant in Vietnam, an employee disables all of the doll's safety protocols on the doll he is assembling. In Chicago, Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza), a retail clerk, encourages her son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman), to make new friends as she prepares for his upcoming birthday. She blackmails her boss to procure a Buddi doll as an early birthday gift but once Andy activates it, the doll begins to display violent tendencies.
This movie was pretty good, and that goes for remakes/reboots. I think everyone has seen a bad Chucky movie and this is not one. I really didn't like the redesign or new look of the Chucky doll but it grew on me as the movie progressed. Also I guess I'm just so used to his voice being different, that I also didn't think Mark Hamill's voice fit either, until the movie progressed further. I agree with certain critics that complained about the inconsistent tone, and how it lacked the principal's perverse originality. It definitely didn't have the me vibe of the original but I like how it made it, its own thing. But I think this was a very successful remake. The acting from Gabriel Bateman was really good and I wound up really liking Mark Hamill's performance as well. He actually made me feel sorry for the doll. I give this movie a 7/10. And I say you should definitely check it out, especially if you are a fan of the Child's Play movies.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Groot Expectations.
James Gunn is back writing and directing the sequel to his surprise 2014 summer hit. And it might be a fresh mix tape slammed into the Walkman, but it’s much of the same again. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
I wanted to like it.
Ignoring every entry other than Carpenter's original, 2018's Halloween attempts to reboot the Franchise in anew direction.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.
JT (287 KP) rated The Purge (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Ethan Hawke has been here once before, and when you look deep into the mechanics of The Purge it almost mirrors the remake of Assault on Precinct 13. Director James DeMonaco who wrote the script for the latter has taken the premise of that film and given it a more personal feel, something which we could resonate with.
The year is 2022, Ethan Hawke plays James Sandin who’s made his wealth by selling security systems that help protect people against the yearly purge. The purge is a twelve hour long free for all in which the government has allowed all crime to be legal, with the intention that people will get it out of their system.
As a result crime has dropped and unemployment is at an all time low so something must be working? Of course not everyone takes part and those who choose not to, stay behind the confines of their locked down house waiting for the mayhem to pass.
This particular night for the Sandin’s runs like any other normal purge. They sit down to eat, discuss their day and then wait for the alarm to sound which begins the carnage. When Sandin’s young son lets in a stranger looking to take shelter from a group of mask wearing savages events take a turn for the worse.
Lead by the smiling Rhys Wakefield who should take credit from his performance and one so disturbing that it could be compared to Michael Pitt in Funny Games. The gang are desperate to get their hands on the stranger the Sandin’s are harbouring and so give them an ultimatum, “send him out or we’re coming in”.
And so a decision must be made, do they turn themselves into the people on the outside who have no remorse when it comes to killing or do they stand and fight? The Purge is confused as it is disjoined and the script is weak leaving the tension to do the talking which is filled with horror cliches left, right and centre.
From tight shots of darkened corridors to things lurking in the shadows out of sight it rarely delivers a unique treat. The cast is not particularly strong, Wakefield aside. Hawke moves through the gears but offers nothing that we haven’t already seen before. Leaving the majority of the dramatic turns to his on screen wife, Lena Headey .
Despite the short run time, the film is practically over before it has started and it even tries to save itself with a twist ending which you could see coming a mile off.
The year is 2022, Ethan Hawke plays James Sandin who’s made his wealth by selling security systems that help protect people against the yearly purge. The purge is a twelve hour long free for all in which the government has allowed all crime to be legal, with the intention that people will get it out of their system.
As a result crime has dropped and unemployment is at an all time low so something must be working? Of course not everyone takes part and those who choose not to, stay behind the confines of their locked down house waiting for the mayhem to pass.
This particular night for the Sandin’s runs like any other normal purge. They sit down to eat, discuss their day and then wait for the alarm to sound which begins the carnage. When Sandin’s young son lets in a stranger looking to take shelter from a group of mask wearing savages events take a turn for the worse.
Lead by the smiling Rhys Wakefield who should take credit from his performance and one so disturbing that it could be compared to Michael Pitt in Funny Games. The gang are desperate to get their hands on the stranger the Sandin’s are harbouring and so give them an ultimatum, “send him out or we’re coming in”.
And so a decision must be made, do they turn themselves into the people on the outside who have no remorse when it comes to killing or do they stand and fight? The Purge is confused as it is disjoined and the script is weak leaving the tension to do the talking which is filled with horror cliches left, right and centre.
From tight shots of darkened corridors to things lurking in the shadows out of sight it rarely delivers a unique treat. The cast is not particularly strong, Wakefield aside. Hawke moves through the gears but offers nothing that we haven’t already seen before. Leaving the majority of the dramatic turns to his on screen wife, Lena Headey .
Despite the short run time, the film is practically over before it has started and it even tries to save itself with a twist ending which you could see coming a mile off.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
Right off the bat, this latest remake of the classic H.G. Wells story shows us just how suspenseful it can be. It’s the middle of the night and a wide-awake Cecilia (Elizabeth Moss) quietly climbs out of bed so as not to disturb her sleeping partner Adrian (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). It quickly becomes apparent that she has been waiting and planning for this moment to leave him for some time now, and she is absolutely terrified of waking him up. She creeps through their spacious modern glass home, gathering some of her belongings and occasionally checking a mobile feed of the CCTV camera that she has re-positioned in order to see Adrian asleep in bed. Already the tension is unbearable, and we’re only a few minutes into the movie!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Final Fantasy VII Remake in Video Games
Jul 4, 2020
Beautiful gameplay
I have to hold my hands up and say that I've never played the original. I started on FF8 as a teenager and never quite got around to backtracking to 7, so I'm fortunate in a way that I could play this game with no preconceived ideas.
This is by far the most beautiful game I've ever played. The graphics are stunning, to the point where you can barely tell the difference between film style cut scenes and standard gameplay. Everything from the scenery to the characters looks amazing. The story is your typical convoluted yet endearing Final Fantasy plot with a lot of dialogue, some of it entirely unnecessary (but nothing more than you'd expect with a FF game).
The gameplay itself is good but unusual. It's a lot more linear than you'd expect with little options to run around in an open world like you would usually in an FF game. But I didn't mind this so much because it meant at least you didn't have to run around for hours across an entire world to complete side quests. The most divisive aspect of the gameplay is by far the battle mode. In the first opening battle I hated it, but gradually I got used to it - it's just so different from the normal FF gameplay. It isn't without it's flaws though, the worst one is due to the ability for enemies to attack you whenever, there is a rather frustrating feature where if you use your ATB to choose an action and get attacked right after, you lose the action you were about to take. Rather annoying. The gameplay on the motorbike too is interesting and different, but also becomes a little tedious and annoying towards the end.
I'm also in two minds about how this is only a remake of the first few hours of the original game. It gives off a rather unfinished vibe, and kind of feels like how you felt getting to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring. Whilst I'm intrigued to see how the story ends, I hope the gameplay changes a little as more of the same for another 40+ hours (x however many parts are planned) is a bit much. I also think its crazy how you can complete the main story with the majority of side quests done, yet you've only achieved 51%. I really haven't got the willpower to be a completions any more!
Despite my moans above, these are only really minor niggles and overall this is a stunning game that I really enjoyed playing. Definitely deserves the award for the most beautiful game I've ever played.
This is by far the most beautiful game I've ever played. The graphics are stunning, to the point where you can barely tell the difference between film style cut scenes and standard gameplay. Everything from the scenery to the characters looks amazing. The story is your typical convoluted yet endearing Final Fantasy plot with a lot of dialogue, some of it entirely unnecessary (but nothing more than you'd expect with a FF game).
The gameplay itself is good but unusual. It's a lot more linear than you'd expect with little options to run around in an open world like you would usually in an FF game. But I didn't mind this so much because it meant at least you didn't have to run around for hours across an entire world to complete side quests. The most divisive aspect of the gameplay is by far the battle mode. In the first opening battle I hated it, but gradually I got used to it - it's just so different from the normal FF gameplay. It isn't without it's flaws though, the worst one is due to the ability for enemies to attack you whenever, there is a rather frustrating feature where if you use your ATB to choose an action and get attacked right after, you lose the action you were about to take. Rather annoying. The gameplay on the motorbike too is interesting and different, but also becomes a little tedious and annoying towards the end.
I'm also in two minds about how this is only a remake of the first few hours of the original game. It gives off a rather unfinished vibe, and kind of feels like how you felt getting to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring. Whilst I'm intrigued to see how the story ends, I hope the gameplay changes a little as more of the same for another 40+ hours (x however many parts are planned) is a bit much. I also think its crazy how you can complete the main story with the majority of side quests done, yet you've only achieved 51%. I really haven't got the willpower to be a completions any more!
Despite my moans above, these are only really minor niggles and overall this is a stunning game that I really enjoyed playing. Definitely deserves the award for the most beautiful game I've ever played.
Mattia Gagliardi (14 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 4, 2019
Will Smith does a good job (1 more)
It's watchable
It pales in comparison with the animated version (4 more)
Jafar is dull and monotone
It was like watching a stage play rather than a movie
The new song is forgettable
The CGI is not that good
Quite useless but not bad
The original Aladdin was the first movie I watched in theater (or at least the one that I have memory). It was magical, mysterious and hilarious.
This one is just ok. In all honesty it kind of represent my thought with all these live action Disney movie remakes: what's the point? I mean I know they will bring lots of money to them but for the viewer there is nothing special.
The point of a remake for me is to bring an old product to a new generation, adding new elements while still maintaining the spirit. If it is just a carbon copy with little to new changes and overall nothing to add to the conversation to me they fail.
This new Aladdin is basically the same movie with worse characters and dull moments. I actually liked Will Smith as the Genie. I was expecting to cringe at most of his scene but in all honesty he does really a good job. He is different from Robin Williams for obvious reason but he manage to give his own spin and it works for what it is, so much so that I was eager to see more of him.
The worst is definitely Jafar. I don't know if it's a casting mistake but he was so monotone, dull, boring. The original have different ranges of emotions, being low key in some point to then goes over the top and flamboyant. The new Jafar instead is just dull.
It is not an awful movie and it is still watchable, probably you might even enjoy it. However the animated version has so much energy! It's vibrant, colorful, funny and in all honesty it still perfectly holds up! If you are curious to see the same movie with worst character then feel free to see it, otherwise just stick to the original.
This one is just ok. In all honesty it kind of represent my thought with all these live action Disney movie remakes: what's the point? I mean I know they will bring lots of money to them but for the viewer there is nothing special.
The point of a remake for me is to bring an old product to a new generation, adding new elements while still maintaining the spirit. If it is just a carbon copy with little to new changes and overall nothing to add to the conversation to me they fail.
This new Aladdin is basically the same movie with worse characters and dull moments. I actually liked Will Smith as the Genie. I was expecting to cringe at most of his scene but in all honesty he does really a good job. He is different from Robin Williams for obvious reason but he manage to give his own spin and it works for what it is, so much so that I was eager to see more of him.
The worst is definitely Jafar. I don't know if it's a casting mistake but he was so monotone, dull, boring. The original have different ranges of emotions, being low key in some point to then goes over the top and flamboyant. The new Jafar instead is just dull.
It is not an awful movie and it is still watchable, probably you might even enjoy it. However the animated version has so much energy! It's vibrant, colorful, funny and in all honesty it still perfectly holds up! If you are curious to see the same movie with worst character then feel free to see it, otherwise just stick to the original.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Geekerella (Once Upon a Con #1) in Books
Nov 1, 2018
My review can also be found on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com
When the typical Cinderella story meets a geeky girl, a comic con and an actor instead of a prince, you get Geekerella. A story unlike any other Cinderella like stories, full with wittiness, geekiness and style.
We have Elle, who is our Cinderella. Her father passed away and left her with her stepmom and her two stepsisters. Elle is also a vivid lover of Starfield, sci-fi series similar to Star Trek and Star Wars. She is also a blogger, where she writes all things Starfield.
On the other side, we have Darien, who is an actor and just got the main character role for the new remake of Starfield. While he deeply loves Starfield, he is not allowed to show those emotions and let everyone knows he is a fan, because it will ruin his reputation. And that is the sole reason why fans don’t like him – he is just another guy that goes for the money and ruins their favourite fan fiction (we have all been there though, haven’t we?).
When fate somehow connects Elle and Darien together, under unknown circumstances they start texting to each other, without revealing who they really are. And that is when everything changes.
A story about love and friendship, but most importantly – a story that teaches you to “Look to the stars. Aim. Ignite.” A story that reminds you to keep believing in who you are and why you are doing what you love. This is an amazing reminder to all of you – to be the people you want to be, because once you are comfortable with who you are and what you love to do – nothing can stop you in being great! And most importantly – HAPPY!
While there were bits and pieces that I couldn’t resist but to cringe on, such as the falling in love through texting, or not being able to say no to your step sisters, or being afraid to tell your fans that you are a fan, while they keep accusing you that you don’t care. (How could this ruin a reputation? It could only make it better)…
While there were things that bothered me, this story was still a great revolution to the Cinderella retelling. No other story has shown a girl to fight for what she loves as strongly as this, without the help of magic or a pumpkin – even though her best friend Sage was really the fairy in this situation.
Thank you to NetGalley and Quirk Books, for providing me with an ARC copy of the book.
If you haven’t read it already, please do! It is worth reading it, as it has a powerful message inside of it. I recommend it to all of you out there!
When the typical Cinderella story meets a geeky girl, a comic con and an actor instead of a prince, you get Geekerella. A story unlike any other Cinderella like stories, full with wittiness, geekiness and style.
We have Elle, who is our Cinderella. Her father passed away and left her with her stepmom and her two stepsisters. Elle is also a vivid lover of Starfield, sci-fi series similar to Star Trek and Star Wars. She is also a blogger, where she writes all things Starfield.
On the other side, we have Darien, who is an actor and just got the main character role for the new remake of Starfield. While he deeply loves Starfield, he is not allowed to show those emotions and let everyone knows he is a fan, because it will ruin his reputation. And that is the sole reason why fans don’t like him – he is just another guy that goes for the money and ruins their favourite fan fiction (we have all been there though, haven’t we?).
When fate somehow connects Elle and Darien together, under unknown circumstances they start texting to each other, without revealing who they really are. And that is when everything changes.
A story about love and friendship, but most importantly – a story that teaches you to “Look to the stars. Aim. Ignite.” A story that reminds you to keep believing in who you are and why you are doing what you love. This is an amazing reminder to all of you – to be the people you want to be, because once you are comfortable with who you are and what you love to do – nothing can stop you in being great! And most importantly – HAPPY!
While there were bits and pieces that I couldn’t resist but to cringe on, such as the falling in love through texting, or not being able to say no to your step sisters, or being afraid to tell your fans that you are a fan, while they keep accusing you that you don’t care. (How could this ruin a reputation? It could only make it better)…
While there were things that bothered me, this story was still a great revolution to the Cinderella retelling. No other story has shown a girl to fight for what she loves as strongly as this, without the help of magic or a pumpkin – even though her best friend Sage was really the fairy in this situation.
Thank you to NetGalley and Quirk Books, for providing me with an ARC copy of the book.
If you haven’t read it already, please do! It is worth reading it, as it has a powerful message inside of it. I recommend it to all of you out there!