Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Never entertaining, frequently repugnant
Director Francis Lawrence and Hollywood sweetheart Jennifer Lawrence (they are no relation, I’ve checked) aren’t a new combination when it comes to film-making.
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Cinematic Redbull
Up until a week ago, I was really looking forward to this film. Mad Max as a series has a criminally underestimated impact on our pop culture psyche thanks to its unique aesthetic. Everyone now knows exactly what they want to do in the event of the apocalypse; strap dustbin lids and S&M gear to our bodies.
Then I remembered that other recent reboot of a beloved 80’s sci-fi film, 2014’s Robocop. Specifically, I remembered that it was absolutely awful, a broken train-wreck of a movie that doesn’t understand and full on resents the original film, and drained all the personality out of a film bursting with it. 2012’s Total Recall shared similar problems, so the question came; would this modern reboot of an 80’s genre classic be the first of its kind to match the quality of the original?
The answer is no. It is far, far better.
The original Mad Max films each had the budget of a school nativity play and relied entirely on the scrapyard aesthetic and charismatic villains rather than action. Fury Road, on the other hand, is the cinematic equivalent of Red Bull; fast paced, frenetic and wild. The action sequences are almost constant, only broken up when the audience’s hearts are about to burst, accompanied by one of the most energetic and brilliant soundtracks I’ve ever heard. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker it would be too much to handle, but Miller makes sure to frame and edit each scene in a way that allows the audience to always follow the action.
Visually, the film is much more in line with Alejandro Jodorowsky’s failed Dune adaptation than anything else, with its deformed mutants, impractical clothes and grungy mechanics. Every image on screen is madder than the last; the audience will probably ask “Why does that guy have a flamethrower guitar?” or “Why is there a fat dude in a business suit with his nipples exposed?” and the film just says “Because you wanted to see it and didn’t know you did.” And it is totally right. Like Big Game, the landscapes are achingly beautiful too, turning a barren desert into a sea of colours.
The plot is utter gibberish; there is absolutely no reason that any series of events would lead to the world looking the way it does and the characters looking and acting the way they do. Most films would be ashamed of this and try to handwave it away or explain it; Fury Road, however, takes the smarter option, and full on embraces the insanity. Characters spout lines like “I have seen the three gates” and “You will ride with silver and chrome” without irony, and it all just works, sweeping the audience up into a world where logic is superfluous as long as what you’re saying is cool.
This wouldn’t work if the acting wasn’t on point, but every single actor is completely game for the madcap lunacy that is the
script. Everyone sings their lines, which might be nonsense but just sound so good. The only weak spot is Tom Hardy as Max himself, who tries to be a calming anchor to contrast everyone else but instead seems like he came out of a different, much more boring film. In fact, Max seems here only so the film can be called Mad Max, because really it is Charlize Theron’s movie; Imperator Furiosa is the true main character and Theron easily gives the most nuanced performance.
Upon seeing this film, I genuinely had to go for a jog to get all of the energy out of me. This film is mad glory from beginning to end, a fireworks show for the eyes and ears. One of the best action films of the year in an already good year for the genre. Certainly a much better reboot than Robocop. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to make a suit of armour out of washing machine parts and ball gags.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/19/cinematic-red-bull-mad-max-fury-road-review/
Then I remembered that other recent reboot of a beloved 80’s sci-fi film, 2014’s Robocop. Specifically, I remembered that it was absolutely awful, a broken train-wreck of a movie that doesn’t understand and full on resents the original film, and drained all the personality out of a film bursting with it. 2012’s Total Recall shared similar problems, so the question came; would this modern reboot of an 80’s genre classic be the first of its kind to match the quality of the original?
The answer is no. It is far, far better.
The original Mad Max films each had the budget of a school nativity play and relied entirely on the scrapyard aesthetic and charismatic villains rather than action. Fury Road, on the other hand, is the cinematic equivalent of Red Bull; fast paced, frenetic and wild. The action sequences are almost constant, only broken up when the audience’s hearts are about to burst, accompanied by one of the most energetic and brilliant soundtracks I’ve ever heard. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker it would be too much to handle, but Miller makes sure to frame and edit each scene in a way that allows the audience to always follow the action.
Visually, the film is much more in line with Alejandro Jodorowsky’s failed Dune adaptation than anything else, with its deformed mutants, impractical clothes and grungy mechanics. Every image on screen is madder than the last; the audience will probably ask “Why does that guy have a flamethrower guitar?” or “Why is there a fat dude in a business suit with his nipples exposed?” and the film just says “Because you wanted to see it and didn’t know you did.” And it is totally right. Like Big Game, the landscapes are achingly beautiful too, turning a barren desert into a sea of colours.
The plot is utter gibberish; there is absolutely no reason that any series of events would lead to the world looking the way it does and the characters looking and acting the way they do. Most films would be ashamed of this and try to handwave it away or explain it; Fury Road, however, takes the smarter option, and full on embraces the insanity. Characters spout lines like “I have seen the three gates” and “You will ride with silver and chrome” without irony, and it all just works, sweeping the audience up into a world where logic is superfluous as long as what you’re saying is cool.
This wouldn’t work if the acting wasn’t on point, but every single actor is completely game for the madcap lunacy that is the
script. Everyone sings their lines, which might be nonsense but just sound so good. The only weak spot is Tom Hardy as Max himself, who tries to be a calming anchor to contrast everyone else but instead seems like he came out of a different, much more boring film. In fact, Max seems here only so the film can be called Mad Max, because really it is Charlize Theron’s movie; Imperator Furiosa is the true main character and Theron easily gives the most nuanced performance.
Upon seeing this film, I genuinely had to go for a jog to get all of the energy out of me. This film is mad glory from beginning to end, a fireworks show for the eyes and ears. One of the best action films of the year in an already good year for the genre. Certainly a much better reboot than Robocop. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to make a suit of armour out of washing machine parts and ball gags.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/19/cinematic-red-bull-mad-max-fury-road-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here
It’s been 22 years since Joe Johnston thrilled cinemagoers with a little film called Jumanji. Starring the late, great Robin Williams, it has amassed a huge following over the years and has become nearly as loved as its leading star.
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Resistance: Avalon in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Do you appreciate your friends and your relationships with them? If so, please read no further. Do you want to dissolve your friendships and cause your family members to wonder what went wrong with you and never trust you again? Play The Resistance: Avalon with them.
The Resistance: Avalon (which we always just refer to as simply Avalon) is a game of hidden roles played over several rounds where the “good guys” from King Arthur’s court are pitted against the “bad guys” in Mordred’s thrall. The number of players at the table determines the number of players to be assigned to the good and bad guys squads and the required goals for victory for each team.
To begin, role cards are divvied up and players secretly find out which team they are on for the game. Blue background cards are good guys, red are bad guys. ALERT! Yes, already. I cannot tell you how many times games have been voided because a player was not quite sure what team they were on, so make sure your players know what’s up before continuing. From here a narrator player reads the script in the rulebook to give instructions to players with their eyes closed (a la Mafia or Werewolf). This allows different members of each team to know certain information about their own team or even the opposite team. Players are then instructed to open their eyes simultaneously and thus begins the game of facades.
A player is chosen at random to be the quest giver for now. This person then assigns other players to go on a quest. The “quest” is just a generic quest where it will either succeed or fail. Once the quest giver has made their choices, everyone at the table has a chance to vote to approve the quest team or deny the quest team. Simple majority vote wins. If the team is approved, the quest happens. If the team is denied, the next player in the circle becomes the quest giver and must create a new team of players to go questing.
Once approved, the quest team players are each given two cards: Success and Fail. Secretly, under the table works best, the players make their choices. ALERT! All good guys MUST CHOOSE SUCCESS CARDS so the quest can succeed. Bad guys can choose either one. The questers then pass their cards to an uninvolved player who will then shuffle the cards without looking at them. Once completed, the cards are revealed and thus the success or failure of the quest. If all cards are Success, then the quest was a success and the good guys mark this on the main board. If even just one Fail card appears the quest fails and the bad guys mark it on the main board. This continues until either the good guys win or the bad guys claim victory!
Components. The box is small (akin to the Tiny Epic size boxes). I’m not sure if the game comes with an insert because I won mine from a BGG auction. The cards included in the game are fine, and I sleeved mine because they get held quite a bit. The other miscellaneous tokens are nice and do the job well. This is a game that is less reliant on components, and much more so on game play.
If my intro seemed dark a foreboding, it was completely intentional. Have I witnessed friendships dissolving as a result of this game? Ok not entirely, but there have been some pretty amazing head turns and surprise reveals coupled with slapping and yelling. Not me, mind you, but others. In any case, this game is definitely one to check out if you are a fan of hidden role games and if you want to add tons of tension to your game night. I honestly have no idea why this game (or its older sibling The Resistance if you are more into that theme) isn’t in every game collection. Yes, I know, there are now TONS of hidden role games out there. But this is my favorite of the lot. By far.
We at Purple Phoenix Games are split somehow, giving this one 18 / 24. Obviously it is because Josh is a minion of Mordred and wants our review to fail.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/the-resistance-avalon-review/
The Resistance: Avalon (which we always just refer to as simply Avalon) is a game of hidden roles played over several rounds where the “good guys” from King Arthur’s court are pitted against the “bad guys” in Mordred’s thrall. The number of players at the table determines the number of players to be assigned to the good and bad guys squads and the required goals for victory for each team.
To begin, role cards are divvied up and players secretly find out which team they are on for the game. Blue background cards are good guys, red are bad guys. ALERT! Yes, already. I cannot tell you how many times games have been voided because a player was not quite sure what team they were on, so make sure your players know what’s up before continuing. From here a narrator player reads the script in the rulebook to give instructions to players with their eyes closed (a la Mafia or Werewolf). This allows different members of each team to know certain information about their own team or even the opposite team. Players are then instructed to open their eyes simultaneously and thus begins the game of facades.
A player is chosen at random to be the quest giver for now. This person then assigns other players to go on a quest. The “quest” is just a generic quest where it will either succeed or fail. Once the quest giver has made their choices, everyone at the table has a chance to vote to approve the quest team or deny the quest team. Simple majority vote wins. If the team is approved, the quest happens. If the team is denied, the next player in the circle becomes the quest giver and must create a new team of players to go questing.
Once approved, the quest team players are each given two cards: Success and Fail. Secretly, under the table works best, the players make their choices. ALERT! All good guys MUST CHOOSE SUCCESS CARDS so the quest can succeed. Bad guys can choose either one. The questers then pass their cards to an uninvolved player who will then shuffle the cards without looking at them. Once completed, the cards are revealed and thus the success or failure of the quest. If all cards are Success, then the quest was a success and the good guys mark this on the main board. If even just one Fail card appears the quest fails and the bad guys mark it on the main board. This continues until either the good guys win or the bad guys claim victory!
Components. The box is small (akin to the Tiny Epic size boxes). I’m not sure if the game comes with an insert because I won mine from a BGG auction. The cards included in the game are fine, and I sleeved mine because they get held quite a bit. The other miscellaneous tokens are nice and do the job well. This is a game that is less reliant on components, and much more so on game play.
If my intro seemed dark a foreboding, it was completely intentional. Have I witnessed friendships dissolving as a result of this game? Ok not entirely, but there have been some pretty amazing head turns and surprise reveals coupled with slapping and yelling. Not me, mind you, but others. In any case, this game is definitely one to check out if you are a fan of hidden role games and if you want to add tons of tension to your game night. I honestly have no idea why this game (or its older sibling The Resistance if you are more into that theme) isn’t in every game collection. Yes, I know, there are now TONS of hidden role games out there. But this is my favorite of the lot. By far.
We at Purple Phoenix Games are split somehow, giving this one 18 / 24. Obviously it is because Josh is a minion of Mordred and wants our review to fail.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/the-resistance-avalon-review/
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Evidence (2013) in Movies
May 30, 2018
A good "found footage" film
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a film made in the style of "found footage". The whole film is made from the perspective of whoever is filming at the time. The style was made famous with The Blair Witch Project and perfected in Cloverfield. I saw the trailer for this and thought it could be good. After trying to track down the film I discovered it had just been released here. So I got hold of a copy and sat back.
The film is about a group of friends Ryan (Ryan McCoy), Brett (Brett Rosenberg), Abi (Abigail Richie) & Ashley (Ashley Bracken) who are out camping and making a documentary about the experience. They discover a strange creature and the trip quickly turns deadly. Soon they are on the run from strange creatures and anonymous military personnel intent on stopping the creatures.
You may have noticed in the above paragraph that the characters all have the same names as the actor playing them. This was either due to a very lazy writer, or as the writer was also Ryan McCoy one of the actors, an attempt to make the film feel more real and the friendships believable. I feel that the latter is the case as the group comes off as good friends. They interact with each other in a very realistic and genuine way. Especially the female stars. They manage to portray a wide range of emotions from playful happiness to annoyed and then terrified. The opening scenes are very well done. With most "found footage" films, the introduction to the characters and the plot are usually badly done, they are kind of a mess trying to get all the information out to the viewer. However this film is the exception to the rule. It's very well put together and the script and the pacing of the characters introductions are very good. The story starts of as a pretty standard you meet the characters, they go camping then the twist, they are not alone out there. The twist is where these type of films usually fail. But Evidence manages to succeed big time. You see a creature in the distance then during the night all hell lets loose. From this moment on the film is pure tension. I have not seen a film where for the whole last hour I was on edge. I was expecting something to happen at any moment. And it happens in so many different ways and at random times leaving you unable to let your guard down. Unlike many films in this genre, not even the camera operator is safe as the camera gets passed around for various reasons. The other great thing that I found was there was also a good reason to have the camera still on while they were running for their lives. Usually this is overlooked and we are meant to ignore that but here the reason is good and helps to make the film believable.
However with all the shocks and surprises, the film makers fail in trying to do too much. Towards the end the characters encounter many different types of creatures and I felt this was a little over the top. If they had kept to one or two different creatures it would have made a little more sense. As it was you are left very confused at the end with little or no answers as to what was going on. It worked with Cloverfield but here it missed the mark. Not by much and the film as a whole more than makes up for it.
There are a few plot holes but most can be explained away. However this is still a great addition to the "found film" genre. There have been many attempts to recreate these types of films and many fail. However people will continue to try and sometimes out of all the attempts you find something a little different, one that stands out from the rest. That one is called Evidence.
The film is about a group of friends Ryan (Ryan McCoy), Brett (Brett Rosenberg), Abi (Abigail Richie) & Ashley (Ashley Bracken) who are out camping and making a documentary about the experience. They discover a strange creature and the trip quickly turns deadly. Soon they are on the run from strange creatures and anonymous military personnel intent on stopping the creatures.
You may have noticed in the above paragraph that the characters all have the same names as the actor playing them. This was either due to a very lazy writer, or as the writer was also Ryan McCoy one of the actors, an attempt to make the film feel more real and the friendships believable. I feel that the latter is the case as the group comes off as good friends. They interact with each other in a very realistic and genuine way. Especially the female stars. They manage to portray a wide range of emotions from playful happiness to annoyed and then terrified. The opening scenes are very well done. With most "found footage" films, the introduction to the characters and the plot are usually badly done, they are kind of a mess trying to get all the information out to the viewer. However this film is the exception to the rule. It's very well put together and the script and the pacing of the characters introductions are very good. The story starts of as a pretty standard you meet the characters, they go camping then the twist, they are not alone out there. The twist is where these type of films usually fail. But Evidence manages to succeed big time. You see a creature in the distance then during the night all hell lets loose. From this moment on the film is pure tension. I have not seen a film where for the whole last hour I was on edge. I was expecting something to happen at any moment. And it happens in so many different ways and at random times leaving you unable to let your guard down. Unlike many films in this genre, not even the camera operator is safe as the camera gets passed around for various reasons. The other great thing that I found was there was also a good reason to have the camera still on while they were running for their lives. Usually this is overlooked and we are meant to ignore that but here the reason is good and helps to make the film believable.
However with all the shocks and surprises, the film makers fail in trying to do too much. Towards the end the characters encounter many different types of creatures and I felt this was a little over the top. If they had kept to one or two different creatures it would have made a little more sense. As it was you are left very confused at the end with little or no answers as to what was going on. It worked with Cloverfield but here it missed the mark. Not by much and the film as a whole more than makes up for it.
There are a few plot holes but most can be explained away. However this is still a great addition to the "found film" genre. There have been many attempts to recreate these types of films and many fail. However people will continue to try and sometimes out of all the attempts you find something a little different, one that stands out from the rest. That one is called Evidence.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Adapting Stephen King stories for the screen has long been a difficult problem for Hollywood. For every “Misery” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, there are many others such as “The Mangler”, “Cell”, “and Graveyard Shift” and many more where things did not go as planned.
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Disappointingly Average
I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series. The Swedish films are excellent and David Fincher’s US adaptation was a decent watch too. Lisbeth Salander is such an iconic and well-written character, so her return to the big screen was met with much anticipation. With a new cast and new story I was looking forward to seeing it, catching a Limitless preview screening a few days before its general UK release. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my relatively high expectations.
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 300: Rise of an Empire (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 300: Rise of an Empire starts by right where the previous one finished with Xerxes (Santoro) taking the head of Leonidas. Queen Gorgo (Headey) is leading the next onslaught on the Persians.
I think we go prequel with Themistokles (Stapleton) leading the Greek army back against the Persians before they can take any of the Greek cities. The battle leads to the death of King Darius (Naor) leads to Artemisia (Green) and Xerxes son of Darius go on the revenge mission with Xerxes entering into the world of the Gods becoming a God King.
Themistokles goes to Sparta to build a united Greece while Xerxes is waiting for word from the messenger sent. We learn of Artemisia is Greek by descent and is out for revenge on any Greek person she finds after they raped and murdered her whole family. Themistokles builds his navy army for a battle on the sea against the Persian fleet leading to epic battles on the ocean. What follows is a string of battles each one with the other trying to get the upper hand.
Suffering a defeat Themistokles uses his defeat and the Spartans defeat as fuel to unite Greece once and for all as they take the battle to a conclusion once and for all.
300: Rise of an Empire does play the idea of following another side of the battle really well, mixing between the prequel elements and sequel elements. The main problem is that the scenes of the battles come off very confusing which is the main reason for the story. It does show the new historical legends even though they are lesser known names. It really ends up feeling like a forced sequel that has come too late after the first one. I feel this focuses too much on its action sequences and the story falls into the background after a while. (5/10)
Actor Review
Sullivan Stapleton: Themistokles Greek warrior who leads the navy fleet into battles on the sea against the Persians after he kills their King Darrius. Sullivan does give a good performance and looks the part. (7/10)
themstokles
Eva Green: Artemisia leader of the Persian naval unit who also plays Xerxes to go into combat the way she wants to win the war. Eva gives a good performance and makes for a great villainous role. (7/10)
green
Rodrigo Santoro: Xerxes God King of Persia who is at battle with the Spartans and the Greeks. Rodrigo gives a solid performance and has to get praised for the look he ends up having after the makeup. (7/10)
erxes
Support Cast: 300: Rise of an Empire has a huge support cast that are all warriors in either side of the battle.
Director Review: Noam Murro – Noam does a solid job directing making the action look very good but doesn’t pull the story through as much as he should be. (6/10)
Action: 300: Rise of an Empire can’t be denied about how good the action is even if the naval moments come off confusing at times. (8/10)
War: 300: Rise of an Empire really is one of the war films that really do end up putting the fantasy into legend. (7/10)
Settings: 300: Rise of an Empire creates settings that look the part for the time of the battles. (7/10)
Special Effects: 300: Rise of an Empire has great effects at time but slowly start to feel over used. (7/10)
Suggestion: 300: Rise of an Empire is one to be watched if you enjoyed the first one but not the most interesting for the first time viewer. (Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle looks good.
Worst Part: A Horse on a boat, really?
Action Scene Of The Film: Final Battle.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for another sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $337 Million
Budget: $110 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Tagline: Seize your glory
Trivia: The original script featured King Leonidas from 300 (2006), but he was ultimately cut out. This was due to Gerard Butler, who turned down to reprise his role as Leonidas, since it “wasn’t really [his] thing”.
Overall: Sequel we didn’t really need
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/17/300-rise-of-an-empire-2014/
I think we go prequel with Themistokles (Stapleton) leading the Greek army back against the Persians before they can take any of the Greek cities. The battle leads to the death of King Darius (Naor) leads to Artemisia (Green) and Xerxes son of Darius go on the revenge mission with Xerxes entering into the world of the Gods becoming a God King.
Themistokles goes to Sparta to build a united Greece while Xerxes is waiting for word from the messenger sent. We learn of Artemisia is Greek by descent and is out for revenge on any Greek person she finds after they raped and murdered her whole family. Themistokles builds his navy army for a battle on the sea against the Persian fleet leading to epic battles on the ocean. What follows is a string of battles each one with the other trying to get the upper hand.
Suffering a defeat Themistokles uses his defeat and the Spartans defeat as fuel to unite Greece once and for all as they take the battle to a conclusion once and for all.
300: Rise of an Empire does play the idea of following another side of the battle really well, mixing between the prequel elements and sequel elements. The main problem is that the scenes of the battles come off very confusing which is the main reason for the story. It does show the new historical legends even though they are lesser known names. It really ends up feeling like a forced sequel that has come too late after the first one. I feel this focuses too much on its action sequences and the story falls into the background after a while. (5/10)
Actor Review
Sullivan Stapleton: Themistokles Greek warrior who leads the navy fleet into battles on the sea against the Persians after he kills their King Darrius. Sullivan does give a good performance and looks the part. (7/10)
themstokles
Eva Green: Artemisia leader of the Persian naval unit who also plays Xerxes to go into combat the way she wants to win the war. Eva gives a good performance and makes for a great villainous role. (7/10)
green
Rodrigo Santoro: Xerxes God King of Persia who is at battle with the Spartans and the Greeks. Rodrigo gives a solid performance and has to get praised for the look he ends up having after the makeup. (7/10)
erxes
Support Cast: 300: Rise of an Empire has a huge support cast that are all warriors in either side of the battle.
Director Review: Noam Murro – Noam does a solid job directing making the action look very good but doesn’t pull the story through as much as he should be. (6/10)
Action: 300: Rise of an Empire can’t be denied about how good the action is even if the naval moments come off confusing at times. (8/10)
War: 300: Rise of an Empire really is one of the war films that really do end up putting the fantasy into legend. (7/10)
Settings: 300: Rise of an Empire creates settings that look the part for the time of the battles. (7/10)
Special Effects: 300: Rise of an Empire has great effects at time but slowly start to feel over used. (7/10)
Suggestion: 300: Rise of an Empire is one to be watched if you enjoyed the first one but not the most interesting for the first time viewer. (Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle looks good.
Worst Part: A Horse on a boat, really?
Action Scene Of The Film: Final Battle.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for another sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $337 Million
Budget: $110 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Tagline: Seize your glory
Trivia: The original script featured King Leonidas from 300 (2006), but he was ultimately cut out. This was due to Gerard Butler, who turned down to reprise his role as Leonidas, since it “wasn’t really [his] thing”.
Overall: Sequel we didn’t really need
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/17/300-rise-of-an-empire-2014/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Stephen King's A Good Marriage (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Good Marriage starts with the anniversary party of Darcy (Allen) and Bob Anderson (LaPaglia) with their grown up children Petra (Connolly) and Donnie (Stockman). Everything on the outside looks like it is going great for the couple and what could possibly be shocking about them? The couple seem to have a follower in Holt Ramsey (Lang) but why?
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/