Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Slightly Disappointed
So, here we are. At last. After a couple of great movies, a really poor third movie and a disastrous reboot/sequel, it was beginning to look as though one of our all time favourite superheroes was never going to get another movie to do him justice. And then, in what was already a hero packed, action roller-coaster of a movie, Spider-Man finally returned home to Marvel in spectacular fashion during Captain America: Civil War. A fantastic portrayal of Peter Parker and an even better Spider-Man, it was enough to leave us wanting more and enough to get us pretty excited when standalone movie Homecoming was announced soon after.
Ok, so I’ve been trying to think about how I feel after watching it, and it’s a tough one. This is a Spider-Man movie by Marvel that feels closer to how a Spider-Man movie should be than any of the previous movies before it. And Tom Holland is just a perfect Peter Parker. But, I kind of felt disappointed by it. It didn’t thrill me as much as other Marvel movies, and certainly not as much as Civil War did. When Spider-Man shows up in Civil War, he’s an enthusiastic teen with a lot to learn, but he still manages to pull off some pretty jaw dropping action. In Homecoming it just feels like the momentum has been lost – too much awkward teen, not enough action hero. The awe and thrill of swooping through the New York skyline that we got in the first Spider-Man movie, there’s nothing like that here. I wonder if, for me anyway, it’s some kind of superhero fatigue. But then I didn’t feel that way about Wonder Woman recently, so I’m just not sure. I just can’t quite put my finger on it. I feel ashamed of myself for not liking it as much as I was expecting!
Most of the big action pieces, such as the Staten Island ferry scene, have already been shown pretty much on their entirety during the trailer. And the climax, involving Spidey and Vulture on a plane, is fairly difficult to follow, as it’s set in the dark with the plane veering out of control. Probably the most impressive sequence is on the Washington monument, a traditional lift-about-to-fall scenario. Spidey is struggling to get used to his upgraded suit, he’s nervous about being so high up (and so are we, this scene is very well done) and he’s unsure of what to do best to save the day. It’s a tense scene, perfectly handled and we really feel for Peter Parker.
There’s plenty of humour and heart throughout and a good supporting cast. Michael Keaton is impressive and suitably menacing as The Vulture and Robert Downey Jr is… well, his usual self. I just hope that as part of the next Avengers movie and beyond, I feel a bit more impressed next time than I did after this.
Ok, so I’ve been trying to think about how I feel after watching it, and it’s a tough one. This is a Spider-Man movie by Marvel that feels closer to how a Spider-Man movie should be than any of the previous movies before it. And Tom Holland is just a perfect Peter Parker. But, I kind of felt disappointed by it. It didn’t thrill me as much as other Marvel movies, and certainly not as much as Civil War did. When Spider-Man shows up in Civil War, he’s an enthusiastic teen with a lot to learn, but he still manages to pull off some pretty jaw dropping action. In Homecoming it just feels like the momentum has been lost – too much awkward teen, not enough action hero. The awe and thrill of swooping through the New York skyline that we got in the first Spider-Man movie, there’s nothing like that here. I wonder if, for me anyway, it’s some kind of superhero fatigue. But then I didn’t feel that way about Wonder Woman recently, so I’m just not sure. I just can’t quite put my finger on it. I feel ashamed of myself for not liking it as much as I was expecting!
Most of the big action pieces, such as the Staten Island ferry scene, have already been shown pretty much on their entirety during the trailer. And the climax, involving Spidey and Vulture on a plane, is fairly difficult to follow, as it’s set in the dark with the plane veering out of control. Probably the most impressive sequence is on the Washington monument, a traditional lift-about-to-fall scenario. Spidey is struggling to get used to his upgraded suit, he’s nervous about being so high up (and so are we, this scene is very well done) and he’s unsure of what to do best to save the day. It’s a tense scene, perfectly handled and we really feel for Peter Parker.
There’s plenty of humour and heart throughout and a good supporting cast. Michael Keaton is impressive and suitably menacing as The Vulture and Robert Downey Jr is… well, his usual self. I just hope that as part of the next Avengers movie and beyond, I feel a bit more impressed next time than I did after this.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Blair Witch (2016) in Movies
Aug 14, 2017
Yeah, I preferred this to the original...
The original Blair Witch movie came out in 1999 (wow, where has the time gone?!) in the good old days when you could get hold of a US DVD import in the UK before a movie was even released on UK cinema screens. I remember The Blair Witch Project being released in the UK on Halloween, the same day that the US DVD was delivered to my house! I excitedly sat down to watch it that evening with my family while everyone else had to go out in the cold rainy weather to watch it at the cinema, and I remember at the end of the movie we all kind of looked at each other as if to say “is that it…?!” All the hype, all the usual crap about it being absolutely terrifying and the scariest movie ever made and it was just a bunch of people getting spooked in the woods! To be fair, it wasn’t that bad, but it just wasn’t as scary or as fantastic as we’d been led to believe. The movie spawned a forgettable sequel and since then, despite being done to death, far superior found footage movies have come along and done it all a hell of a lot better. Then, out of the blue in July last year, a movie which had been previously marketed as ‘The Woods’ was revealed to actually be ‘Blair Witch’. The trailer looked OK, not great but interesting enough. But, once again we’re being subjected to all the usual marketing crap about it being terrifying and the scariest thing you’ve ever seen… blah, blah, blah…
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
James Donahue is the brother of Heather, who was one of the central characters in the first film. We join him 22 years after the original, as he prepares to lead a new bunch of characters into the Burkittsville woods. They meet up with a couple of young locals, who offer to be their guide, and off they head, into the woods where their video footage will later be discovered. This time round, the array of cameras capturing the footage has vastly improved. As well as the standard handhelds, we’ve got ear piece cams, drone cams, night cams. All offering new and interesting ways to capture the action.
Things mostly follow a similar path to the original – strange noises, weird stuff happening with time, thinking you’re heading in one direction when you’re going around in circles, juddery camera movements where it’s difficult to tell what the hell is going on. But… you do actually see things this time, the noises that you hear are terrifying, the characters are far more interesting and believable than those in the original. And the final act when we find ourselves back in the house from the first movie is seriously the stuff of nightmares.
Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, both have an excellent recent track record (see You’re Next and The Guest) and their influence on this movie has taken this story to another level. This is a far superior movie to the original and yes, it is truly terrifying.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated London Has Fallen (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A disgusting attempt at film making
Executives down at Millennium Films must have been rubbing their hands together after the surprise success of their 2013 blockbuster, Olympus Has Fallen. After amassing a respectable $160million against a relatively small budget, a sequel was greenlit as soon as it rolled out of cinemas.
Fast-forward three years and its successor, London Has Fallen, starts off a busy Spring for the film industry. With much of the original cast reprising their roles, can lightning strike again? Or is this a shameless cash in?
Gerard Butler returns as secret agent Mike Banning, with Butler also in a producing role, assigned to protect President Benjamin Asher, Aaron Eckhart also reprising his role, in London as the pair attend the funeral of the British Prime Minister. Naturally, things taken a turn for the worse and both President Asher and Banning are caught in a deadly terrorist attack on the city.
The plot is downright ridiculous with Butler looking almost Terminator-like as he dispatches hundreds of vicious terrorists on the streets of London. Even the President gets in on the action, instead of you know, fleeing for safety like the leader of one of the biggest nations on Earth would do.
With the current climate, London Has Fallen is downright woeful, playing on our fears of urban terrorism like no film before it and after the shocking attacks in Paris last year, and for those still haunted by the memories of 7/7, it is in incredibly poor taste.
The dialogue and numerous plot holes only add salt to the wounds. If this was a serious drama, looking at the appalling ripples terrorism has across the world, then the central premise could be forgiven somewhat, but it isn’t and the uses of comedy throughout are truly dreadful, not once hitting the mark.
Elsewhere, the special effects are some of the worst ever put to film. A helicopter escape across London is laughable and the use of grainy stock footage is far too obvious. It’s clear that director Babak Najafi couldn’t film certain scenes on his tiny budget, instead deciding that dated archive footage was a reasonable substitute – it isn’t.
But by far the worst part of London Has Fallen is how it wastes its talented cast. Morgan Freeman, who stars as Vice President Allan Trumble, is leagues above the standard of this atrocity, and somehow manages to provide a sense of class throughout.
The cinematography is awful, especially towards the film’s sickly sweet finale, and many in the unsuspecting audience said it looked like a third-person video game as Gerard Butler somersaults his way around a poorly-lit construction site.
Overall, London Has Fallen is an appalling excuse for a film. As well as wasting a great cast, it continuously wields one of the world’s greatest fears like a child who’s found his dad’s gun, and for me, that is unforgivable. It may cram a lot of things into 99 minutes, but not a single one is done with any passion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/06/a-disgusting-attempt-at-film-making-london-has-fallen-review/
Fast-forward three years and its successor, London Has Fallen, starts off a busy Spring for the film industry. With much of the original cast reprising their roles, can lightning strike again? Or is this a shameless cash in?
Gerard Butler returns as secret agent Mike Banning, with Butler also in a producing role, assigned to protect President Benjamin Asher, Aaron Eckhart also reprising his role, in London as the pair attend the funeral of the British Prime Minister. Naturally, things taken a turn for the worse and both President Asher and Banning are caught in a deadly terrorist attack on the city.
The plot is downright ridiculous with Butler looking almost Terminator-like as he dispatches hundreds of vicious terrorists on the streets of London. Even the President gets in on the action, instead of you know, fleeing for safety like the leader of one of the biggest nations on Earth would do.
With the current climate, London Has Fallen is downright woeful, playing on our fears of urban terrorism like no film before it and after the shocking attacks in Paris last year, and for those still haunted by the memories of 7/7, it is in incredibly poor taste.
The dialogue and numerous plot holes only add salt to the wounds. If this was a serious drama, looking at the appalling ripples terrorism has across the world, then the central premise could be forgiven somewhat, but it isn’t and the uses of comedy throughout are truly dreadful, not once hitting the mark.
Elsewhere, the special effects are some of the worst ever put to film. A helicopter escape across London is laughable and the use of grainy stock footage is far too obvious. It’s clear that director Babak Najafi couldn’t film certain scenes on his tiny budget, instead deciding that dated archive footage was a reasonable substitute – it isn’t.
But by far the worst part of London Has Fallen is how it wastes its talented cast. Morgan Freeman, who stars as Vice President Allan Trumble, is leagues above the standard of this atrocity, and somehow manages to provide a sense of class throughout.
The cinematography is awful, especially towards the film’s sickly sweet finale, and many in the unsuspecting audience said it looked like a third-person video game as Gerard Butler somersaults his way around a poorly-lit construction site.
Overall, London Has Fallen is an appalling excuse for a film. As well as wasting a great cast, it continuously wields one of the world’s greatest fears like a child who’s found his dad’s gun, and for me, that is unforgivable. It may cram a lot of things into 99 minutes, but not a single one is done with any passion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/06/a-disgusting-attempt-at-film-making-london-has-fallen-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Vast Improvement
The Young Adult genre has, for the last few years, been dominated by Jennifer Lawrence and her imposing Katniss Everdeen, and as fans prepare for the conclusion of Mockingjay in November, they can whet their appetites for the conclusion of another YA trilogy.
The Maze Runner was a decent, albeit muddled attempt at getting the coveted young adult audience interested in another series and its sequel, The Scorch Trials promises more of the mind-blowing storytelling of its predecessor, but is it a success?
The plot of Scorch Trials takes place immediately after the events of the previous instalment as a group of teenagers battle against the sinister W.C.K.D, an organisation intent on finding a cure for a virus that has ravished Earth.
Amongst them is leader Thomas (Teen Wolf’s Dylan O’Brien), the Katniss Everdeen of this particular series, Theresa (Skins’ Kaya Scodelario) and Newt (Love Actually’s Thomas Brodie-Sangster). There are numerous other characters in the group but they aren’t fleshed out enough to make an impact on screen.
Unfortunately, character development is a serious problem throughout, with only a handful of the large cast having enough of a backstory to make the memorable. O’Brien is particularly likeable as the confused Thomas and his more reserved persona is a pleasant change to the majority of lead characters in the genre.
Of the adult cast, Aidan Gillen does a sterling effort as the mysterious Janson and Giancarlo Esposito is perhaps the best character in the entire film with his portrayal of Jorge – a bargain hunter and ally of the group.
A much larger budget has done wonders for the series’ set-pieces. This is a particularly striking movie with numerous heart-racing action sequences filmed with a mixture of stunning CGI and breath-taking practical effects, a desert thunderstorm is beautifully filmed and a particular highlight.
The desolate landscapes and ruined cities give the film more than a whiff of Mad Max and I Am Legend with the latter being very similar.
These pulse-raising scenes do not do Scorch Trials’ dialogue any good however. The characters don’t get much to say apart from “Run” and “Look out” and the series lacks the powerful communication that The Hunger Games has become known for.
Nevertheless, those coming to the series without reading the books will find much to enjoy here as the plot is impossible to guess – there’s simply no way of knowing what is going to happen from one moment to the next.
It’s worth noting that this is a very dark film with a tone unlike anything else seen in the genre. The 12A certification given to it seems a little too lenient and in parts The Scorch Trials is deeply unnerving.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials is, on the whole, a fantastically enjoyable romp in spite of its excessive length and flat characters. It’s not quite up to the standards of The Hunger Games series but surpasses its Divergent franchise counterparts by some margin and is well worth a trip to the cinema.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/13/a-vast-improvement-maze-runner-the-scorch-trials-review/
The Maze Runner was a decent, albeit muddled attempt at getting the coveted young adult audience interested in another series and its sequel, The Scorch Trials promises more of the mind-blowing storytelling of its predecessor, but is it a success?
The plot of Scorch Trials takes place immediately after the events of the previous instalment as a group of teenagers battle against the sinister W.C.K.D, an organisation intent on finding a cure for a virus that has ravished Earth.
Amongst them is leader Thomas (Teen Wolf’s Dylan O’Brien), the Katniss Everdeen of this particular series, Theresa (Skins’ Kaya Scodelario) and Newt (Love Actually’s Thomas Brodie-Sangster). There are numerous other characters in the group but they aren’t fleshed out enough to make an impact on screen.
Unfortunately, character development is a serious problem throughout, with only a handful of the large cast having enough of a backstory to make the memorable. O’Brien is particularly likeable as the confused Thomas and his more reserved persona is a pleasant change to the majority of lead characters in the genre.
Of the adult cast, Aidan Gillen does a sterling effort as the mysterious Janson and Giancarlo Esposito is perhaps the best character in the entire film with his portrayal of Jorge – a bargain hunter and ally of the group.
A much larger budget has done wonders for the series’ set-pieces. This is a particularly striking movie with numerous heart-racing action sequences filmed with a mixture of stunning CGI and breath-taking practical effects, a desert thunderstorm is beautifully filmed and a particular highlight.
The desolate landscapes and ruined cities give the film more than a whiff of Mad Max and I Am Legend with the latter being very similar.
These pulse-raising scenes do not do Scorch Trials’ dialogue any good however. The characters don’t get much to say apart from “Run” and “Look out” and the series lacks the powerful communication that The Hunger Games has become known for.
Nevertheless, those coming to the series without reading the books will find much to enjoy here as the plot is impossible to guess – there’s simply no way of knowing what is going to happen from one moment to the next.
It’s worth noting that this is a very dark film with a tone unlike anything else seen in the genre. The 12A certification given to it seems a little too lenient and in parts The Scorch Trials is deeply unnerving.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials is, on the whole, a fantastically enjoyable romp in spite of its excessive length and flat characters. It’s not quite up to the standards of The Hunger Games series but surpasses its Divergent franchise counterparts by some margin and is well worth a trip to the cinema.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/13/a-vast-improvement-maze-runner-the-scorch-trials-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Despicable Me 3 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A disjointed third outing
They’re back. After the ridiculous success of Minions in 2015, Universal pressed ahead with a sequel to their other ridiculously successful animated franchise, Despicable Me.
The first two films were a delightful, if uneven adventure with everybody’s favourite yellow tic-tacs getting their standalone movie that grossed over $1billion. I know, I can’t believe it either.
Now, supervillain turned doting dad Gru is back for another round of animated mayhem. But is this third outing as enjoyable as its predecessors? Or are we starting to feel franchise fatigue?
The mischievous yet hopelessly adorable Minions hope that boss Gru (Steve Carell) will return to a life of crime after the Anti-Villain League fires him. Instead, he travels to Freedonia to meet his long-lost twin brother for the very first time. The siblings soon find themselves in a bickering alliance to take down supervillain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker), a child star from the 1980s who seeks revenge against the people who ended his career.
Universal have, rightly or wrongly, not messed with the formula that made the first two films such smash hits. That means you get the same uniquely animated world and characters with a reasonably engaging story that doesn’t ask too much of its audience. There is one difference however, the Minions. After the success of their own film, their presence here is notably jacked up – they’re given their own side quest and that is where we run into some problems.
The sacrifice made to accommodate this extra plot is a disjointed film that switches quite jarringly between each particular story point. One minute we’re tracking unicorns with Agnes, Margot and Edith, the next we’re joining the Minions and five minutes later we’re watching Gru strut his stuff against Balthazar Bratt.
Kids will love it, there’s no doubt about it and it’s sure to bring in the big bucks for Universal, but children’s films have become so much more than just bright colours, fart jokes and fragmented story points. Take 2015’s Inside Out for example or How to Train Your Dragon 2, the very pinnacle of animation.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Despicable Me 3, the voice cast are all on point, Kristen Wiig is a joy as Lucy, and the animation is slick and colourful, but the bar has been set extraordinarily high.
Nevertheless, Trey Parker’s turn as villain Balthazar Bratt is great fun and he’s a brilliant antagonist throughout. See Marvel, it can be done.
There are moments of excellence here. Mature themes about growing up creep in to genuinely sweet moments, but they’re few and far between as the film steamrolls into a fun if generic final act.
Overall, there’s no doubt that Despicable Me 3 is going to be one of the biggest hits of the year. Packed with lovely animation, a great retro soundtrack, Minions and wonderful voice acting, it’s got all the ingredients for success; I just wish it had the guts to change the formula a little.
Cue the Minion memes in 3, 2, 1…
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/01/despicable-me-3-review/
The first two films were a delightful, if uneven adventure with everybody’s favourite yellow tic-tacs getting their standalone movie that grossed over $1billion. I know, I can’t believe it either.
Now, supervillain turned doting dad Gru is back for another round of animated mayhem. But is this third outing as enjoyable as its predecessors? Or are we starting to feel franchise fatigue?
The mischievous yet hopelessly adorable Minions hope that boss Gru (Steve Carell) will return to a life of crime after the Anti-Villain League fires him. Instead, he travels to Freedonia to meet his long-lost twin brother for the very first time. The siblings soon find themselves in a bickering alliance to take down supervillain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker), a child star from the 1980s who seeks revenge against the people who ended his career.
Universal have, rightly or wrongly, not messed with the formula that made the first two films such smash hits. That means you get the same uniquely animated world and characters with a reasonably engaging story that doesn’t ask too much of its audience. There is one difference however, the Minions. After the success of their own film, their presence here is notably jacked up – they’re given their own side quest and that is where we run into some problems.
The sacrifice made to accommodate this extra plot is a disjointed film that switches quite jarringly between each particular story point. One minute we’re tracking unicorns with Agnes, Margot and Edith, the next we’re joining the Minions and five minutes later we’re watching Gru strut his stuff against Balthazar Bratt.
Kids will love it, there’s no doubt about it and it’s sure to bring in the big bucks for Universal, but children’s films have become so much more than just bright colours, fart jokes and fragmented story points. Take 2015’s Inside Out for example or How to Train Your Dragon 2, the very pinnacle of animation.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Despicable Me 3, the voice cast are all on point, Kristen Wiig is a joy as Lucy, and the animation is slick and colourful, but the bar has been set extraordinarily high.
Nevertheless, Trey Parker’s turn as villain Balthazar Bratt is great fun and he’s a brilliant antagonist throughout. See Marvel, it can be done.
There are moments of excellence here. Mature themes about growing up creep in to genuinely sweet moments, but they’re few and far between as the film steamrolls into a fun if generic final act.
Overall, there’s no doubt that Despicable Me 3 is going to be one of the biggest hits of the year. Packed with lovely animation, a great retro soundtrack, Minions and wonderful voice acting, it’s got all the ingredients for success; I just wish it had the guts to change the formula a little.
Cue the Minion memes in 3, 2, 1…
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/01/despicable-me-3-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Minions (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bright, smart and hilarious
They’re everywhere! Minions have become a worldwide phenomenon since their unveiling in 2010’s smash-hit Despicable Me and for their return in its sequel.
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Masterpiece
J.A. Bayona is one of the most exciting rising stars behind the camera lens. His knack for creating superbly shot, engaging films like The Orphanage and The Impossible has meant many in Hollywood have been keeping an intrigued eye on him.
His hard work paid off last year when it was announced he would be taking over directorial duties on the as yet unnamed Jurassic World sequel. In the meantime, Bayona has been busy working on A Monster Calls, based on the book of the same name by Patrick Ness, but does it continue the director’s brilliant work?
12-year-old Conor (Lewis MacDougall), dealing with his mother’s (Felicity Jones) illness, a less-than-sympathetic grandmother (Sigourney Weaver), and bullying classmates, finds a most unlikely ally when a Monster (Liam Neeson) appears at his bedroom window. Ancient, wild, and relentless, the Monster guides Conor on a journey of courage, faith, and truth through three dramatic tales.
The first thing to say is that the film is visually stunning with detail seeping from every frame. Every shot is breath-taking in its own way and the tall tales in which Liam Neeson’s booming voice narrate are beautiful. Bayona yet again demonstrates his flair for cinematography, but this time his creativeness is set free in Conor’s imagination, where he literally paints pictures with superb animations.
Acting wise, A Monster Calls is sublime. With talent like Liam Neeson, Sigourney Weaver and Felicity Jones making up the bulk of the cast, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’d be easy for newcomer Lewis MacDougall to get lost in the fray, but he doesn’t. His performance throughout the film is exceptional and the chemistry he shares with on-screen mum Felicity is entirely believable, making his plight all the more heart-breaking.
But the real winners here are the special effects. Liam Neeson’s gravelly tone lends itself perfectly to creating ‘the Monster’ in all its woody glory. The incredible CGI used to bring him to life is some of the best I’ve ever seen, all the more remarkable given the film’s relatively modest $43million budget. The effects are better than those in some blockbusters costing three times this.
Then there’s the plot. Essentially a coming of age story as one young man tries desperately to hang on to his youth and escape the tragedies of life; A Monster Calls is one of the most heartfelt and emotionally resonant films in the genre. It is a testament to author and screenwriter Patrick Ness that his novel’s gut-wrenching themes are carried across perfectly to the silver screen; that is by no means an easy thing to accomplish.
Overall, A Monster Calls is a mesmerising 115 minutes that stays with you long after the end credits roll. Everything from the acting to the direction is spot on, with the story being relatable to every single one of us. This time last year I was sat in the cinema watching Daddy’s Home; what a difference 12 months makes.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/07/a-masterpiece-a-monster-calls-review/
His hard work paid off last year when it was announced he would be taking over directorial duties on the as yet unnamed Jurassic World sequel. In the meantime, Bayona has been busy working on A Monster Calls, based on the book of the same name by Patrick Ness, but does it continue the director’s brilliant work?
12-year-old Conor (Lewis MacDougall), dealing with his mother’s (Felicity Jones) illness, a less-than-sympathetic grandmother (Sigourney Weaver), and bullying classmates, finds a most unlikely ally when a Monster (Liam Neeson) appears at his bedroom window. Ancient, wild, and relentless, the Monster guides Conor on a journey of courage, faith, and truth through three dramatic tales.
The first thing to say is that the film is visually stunning with detail seeping from every frame. Every shot is breath-taking in its own way and the tall tales in which Liam Neeson’s booming voice narrate are beautiful. Bayona yet again demonstrates his flair for cinematography, but this time his creativeness is set free in Conor’s imagination, where he literally paints pictures with superb animations.
Acting wise, A Monster Calls is sublime. With talent like Liam Neeson, Sigourney Weaver and Felicity Jones making up the bulk of the cast, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’d be easy for newcomer Lewis MacDougall to get lost in the fray, but he doesn’t. His performance throughout the film is exceptional and the chemistry he shares with on-screen mum Felicity is entirely believable, making his plight all the more heart-breaking.
But the real winners here are the special effects. Liam Neeson’s gravelly tone lends itself perfectly to creating ‘the Monster’ in all its woody glory. The incredible CGI used to bring him to life is some of the best I’ve ever seen, all the more remarkable given the film’s relatively modest $43million budget. The effects are better than those in some blockbusters costing three times this.
Then there’s the plot. Essentially a coming of age story as one young man tries desperately to hang on to his youth and escape the tragedies of life; A Monster Calls is one of the most heartfelt and emotionally resonant films in the genre. It is a testament to author and screenwriter Patrick Ness that his novel’s gut-wrenching themes are carried across perfectly to the silver screen; that is by no means an easy thing to accomplish.
Overall, A Monster Calls is a mesmerising 115 minutes that stays with you long after the end credits roll. Everything from the acting to the direction is spot on, with the story being relatable to every single one of us. This time last year I was sat in the cinema watching Daddy’s Home; what a difference 12 months makes.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/07/a-masterpiece-a-monster-calls-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zoolander 2 (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Fashion Faux pas
It pains me to say it, but Ben Stiller hasn’t really been relevant for quite some time. His last film, the final movie in the Night at the Museum franchise struggled with critics and audiences alike.
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Purge: Election Year (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Deathly Dull
The Purge series has set itself as one of the front-runners in modern horror. The first film, starring Ethan Hawke, was a huge success, bringing with it one of the best stories seen in the genre for decades.
Its successor, Anarchy, was warmly received – namely for its greater focus on the night of crime itself, rather than the plight of one family. Naturally, another sequel was always going to be on the cards and Election Year continues the franchise. But does it continue the positive trend?
With only one returning cast member, Frank Grillo’s brooding Leo Barnes, The Purge: Election Year goes for a more political approach than its horror-rooted predecessors and director James DeMonaco was brave in altering the formula. He gets through it – but only by the skin of his teeth.
As a young girl, Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) survived the annual night of lawlessness that took the lives of her family members. As a presidential candidate, Roan is determined to end the yearly tradition of blood lust once and for all. When her opponents hatch a deadly scheme, the senator finds herself trapped on the streets of Washington, D.C., just as the latest Purge gets underway. Now, it’s up to Leo Barnes (Frank Grillo), her head of security, to keep her alive during the next 12 hours of mayhem.
The first major stumbling block Election Year faces is its lack of originality. Yes, the basic formula goes for a more political tone but the story itself is a near carbon copy of its predecessor. It’s unfortunate that once again, despite the plight of fans, the production studio continues to overlook the most fascinating part of the Purge, its inception.
Once again we are forced to sit through the hack and slash killings, only this time the acting isn’t as good and the majority of scares are signposted from the off. The ones that aren’t; well they’re in the trailer. It’s such a shame that a series with such promise has resorted to rehashing the same “tricks” to sell tickets.
The cast gel together well but the acting is below par and the dialogue is at times, dreadful with the same three expletives doing the rounds from character to character. Frank Grillo is underused with Elizabeth Mitchell’s preachy politician mistakenly put in the foreground. By far the most interesting person throughout the course of the film is Mykelti Williamson’s deli owner Joe, but he is lumbered with shockingly bad catchphrases.
The cinematography is very plain and the city setting isn’t utilised well at all. Washington should’ve been an exceptional place to helm a film about a night of legalised murder, but instead the audience is confined to its dimly-lit backstreets and alleys.
Overall, The Purge: Election Year is a step in the wrong direction for a series that showed such promise. Creating a film that, despite its intriguing political intentions, is exactly the same as its predecessor is sheer laziness and I don’t like to use this word when reviewing films, but it’s just completely and utterly boring.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/26/deathly-dull-the-purge-election-year-review/
Its successor, Anarchy, was warmly received – namely for its greater focus on the night of crime itself, rather than the plight of one family. Naturally, another sequel was always going to be on the cards and Election Year continues the franchise. But does it continue the positive trend?
With only one returning cast member, Frank Grillo’s brooding Leo Barnes, The Purge: Election Year goes for a more political approach than its horror-rooted predecessors and director James DeMonaco was brave in altering the formula. He gets through it – but only by the skin of his teeth.
As a young girl, Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) survived the annual night of lawlessness that took the lives of her family members. As a presidential candidate, Roan is determined to end the yearly tradition of blood lust once and for all. When her opponents hatch a deadly scheme, the senator finds herself trapped on the streets of Washington, D.C., just as the latest Purge gets underway. Now, it’s up to Leo Barnes (Frank Grillo), her head of security, to keep her alive during the next 12 hours of mayhem.
The first major stumbling block Election Year faces is its lack of originality. Yes, the basic formula goes for a more political tone but the story itself is a near carbon copy of its predecessor. It’s unfortunate that once again, despite the plight of fans, the production studio continues to overlook the most fascinating part of the Purge, its inception.
Once again we are forced to sit through the hack and slash killings, only this time the acting isn’t as good and the majority of scares are signposted from the off. The ones that aren’t; well they’re in the trailer. It’s such a shame that a series with such promise has resorted to rehashing the same “tricks” to sell tickets.
The cast gel together well but the acting is below par and the dialogue is at times, dreadful with the same three expletives doing the rounds from character to character. Frank Grillo is underused with Elizabeth Mitchell’s preachy politician mistakenly put in the foreground. By far the most interesting person throughout the course of the film is Mykelti Williamson’s deli owner Joe, but he is lumbered with shockingly bad catchphrases.
The cinematography is very plain and the city setting isn’t utilised well at all. Washington should’ve been an exceptional place to helm a film about a night of legalised murder, but instead the audience is confined to its dimly-lit backstreets and alleys.
Overall, The Purge: Election Year is a step in the wrong direction for a series that showed such promise. Creating a film that, despite its intriguing political intentions, is exactly the same as its predecessor is sheer laziness and I don’t like to use this word when reviewing films, but it’s just completely and utterly boring.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/26/deathly-dull-the-purge-election-year-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Hemsworth and Chastain Disappoint
Snow White & the Huntsman was a film that garnered much more attention than it deserved, purely because of the goings on behind the scenes between Twilight starlet, Kristen Stewart and director Rupert Sanders. The film itself was a hollow take on the classic fairy-tale that lacked the magic and sparkle of Disney’s wonderful animation.
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/