Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Ion Fury in Video Games
Aug 16, 2019
Back in the 90s before the days of High-Speed Internet, 3D Graphics Cards, and other gaming technologies that we take for granted was Duke Nukem 3D. The game was developed by Voidpoint, in association with 3D Realms and 1C Publishing on the Build Engine and became a big hit in large part to the action, character, and interactive features of the game which were fairly new at the time.
Other games such as Shadow Warrior and Blood followed which were powered by this technology but it soon became a thing of the past as games such as Quake set the new standards for graphics and online play and with the advent of 3D acceleration; pixelated graphics became a thing of the past.
What was once old is now new again as 3D Realms have returned with a new game called Ion Fury. While Duke and Shadow Warrior have spawned sequels and remakes using modern gaming features and graphics Ion Fury takes a step back by giving gamers the look, sound, and feel of a game from the 90s.
Playing as Shelly “Bombshell” Harrison; players must take on the evil Dr. Jadus Heskel and his army of Cyber-Cultists.
While the look of the game may be retro there are many features that were not possible back in the day such as auto saves, improved physics, headshots, and more; the game is a fast-paced and action-packed shooter that more than holds its own with any of the recent entries into the genre.
While I had played the preview mission about a year ago, the full game did take a bit of adjustment as some things simply do not play like a modern game would. There can be some clipping issues, and enemy A.I. can be erratic. But the awesome array of weapons from your Loverboy pistol to Shotguns, Machine Guns, Chain Guns, and Grenade Launchers are more than enough to cut enemies down to size. You will need this and more such as your Seeking Grenades and Mines as the game throws lots of enemies at you and as you progress they become more abundant, varied, and dangerous.
Ion Fury is filled with numerous secret areas and Pop Culture references from the lines your character says to all sorts of locales and situations that arise. There are also some clever call backs to earlier games as I noticed the Bloody Handprint from BLOOD, the Ying/Yang Symbol from Shadow Warrior, and Duke’s Atomic symbol at various times.
The game mixes indoor and outdoor locales well including an Academy, Subway, Mansion, and of course the secret lab filled with all sorts of evil experiments.
The game is also filled with several puzzles as well as a few very annoying times jumps that had me cursing at their difficulty on more than one occasion. There were also plenty of long levels where you had to find alternate ways into rooms to obtain Key Cards to unlock other areas and keep the action moving. There was a decent supply of health and Body Armor along the way and it never was unappreciated as enemies would either swarm or attack from hiding frequently.
As I played the game I moved past the nostalgia and became really focused on the story and the action. I was able to look past the older graphics and gameplay and remember just how fun this type of game was and how we would spend hours online playing games like this.
Sadly this is not an option in Ion Fury at the time as the game is missing a Multiplay segment. We had done an interview for the game over a year ago; and we were of the understanding that this would be a part of the final release but sadly it is not. I had hoped to relive some of classic Deathmatch games of old.
The game is affordable as it is set to sell at $19.99 and considering I have over 14 hours of gameplay to complete the game; it more than delivers and I did not even find all of the secret areas each level offers.
In the end if you are in the mood for some retro action; then Ion Fury is one that you will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/ion-fury/
Other games such as Shadow Warrior and Blood followed which were powered by this technology but it soon became a thing of the past as games such as Quake set the new standards for graphics and online play and with the advent of 3D acceleration; pixelated graphics became a thing of the past.
What was once old is now new again as 3D Realms have returned with a new game called Ion Fury. While Duke and Shadow Warrior have spawned sequels and remakes using modern gaming features and graphics Ion Fury takes a step back by giving gamers the look, sound, and feel of a game from the 90s.
Playing as Shelly “Bombshell” Harrison; players must take on the evil Dr. Jadus Heskel and his army of Cyber-Cultists.
While the look of the game may be retro there are many features that were not possible back in the day such as auto saves, improved physics, headshots, and more; the game is a fast-paced and action-packed shooter that more than holds its own with any of the recent entries into the genre.
While I had played the preview mission about a year ago, the full game did take a bit of adjustment as some things simply do not play like a modern game would. There can be some clipping issues, and enemy A.I. can be erratic. But the awesome array of weapons from your Loverboy pistol to Shotguns, Machine Guns, Chain Guns, and Grenade Launchers are more than enough to cut enemies down to size. You will need this and more such as your Seeking Grenades and Mines as the game throws lots of enemies at you and as you progress they become more abundant, varied, and dangerous.
Ion Fury is filled with numerous secret areas and Pop Culture references from the lines your character says to all sorts of locales and situations that arise. There are also some clever call backs to earlier games as I noticed the Bloody Handprint from BLOOD, the Ying/Yang Symbol from Shadow Warrior, and Duke’s Atomic symbol at various times.
The game mixes indoor and outdoor locales well including an Academy, Subway, Mansion, and of course the secret lab filled with all sorts of evil experiments.
The game is also filled with several puzzles as well as a few very annoying times jumps that had me cursing at their difficulty on more than one occasion. There were also plenty of long levels where you had to find alternate ways into rooms to obtain Key Cards to unlock other areas and keep the action moving. There was a decent supply of health and Body Armor along the way and it never was unappreciated as enemies would either swarm or attack from hiding frequently.
As I played the game I moved past the nostalgia and became really focused on the story and the action. I was able to look past the older graphics and gameplay and remember just how fun this type of game was and how we would spend hours online playing games like this.
Sadly this is not an option in Ion Fury at the time as the game is missing a Multiplay segment. We had done an interview for the game over a year ago; and we were of the understanding that this would be a part of the final release but sadly it is not. I had hoped to relive some of classic Deathmatch games of old.
The game is affordable as it is set to sell at $19.99 and considering I have over 14 hours of gameplay to complete the game; it more than delivers and I did not even find all of the secret areas each level offers.
In the end if you are in the mood for some retro action; then Ion Fury is one that you will not want to miss.
4 stars out of 5
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/ion-fury/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
John Rollins is a guy who's just trying to catch a break. He lives on a farm with his wife and two children, but his crops just won't grow. His cornfield is infested with crows and his water pump won't work. Stress and fatigue don't begin to describe what John is currently going through. He's a man of faith that's just trying to figure out how he can support his family with no income. He's pretty much lost all hope until he stumbles upon the scarecrow in his barn. After being convinced by his neighbor, he puts the scarecrow up in his cornfield. Besides, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. John wakes up to a field full of dead crows and his water pump begins working again. Everything looks to finally be turning in John's favor, but there's two sides to every coin. People that get in the way of John's crops or his family begin to turn up dead. What makes matters worse is that John finds possessions of the victims in his cornfield and he is the only person all the evidence points to. Once he realizes that the scarecrow is the root of his newfound problems and that he could wind up losing his family, John knows he has to get rid of it but he may already be too late...
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2019
A return to Room 237
***MINOR SPOILERS ONLY***
After the events which ruined his childhood at the Overlook Hotel, Dan Torrance has not had a profound life. He does drugs and has become addicted to alcohol. He decides to move to a small town where he tries to get his act together. He is still haunted by those events so long ago even seeing the ghost of long deceased Overlook cook Dick Hallorann who also possessed the ability to "shine". Dan always knew or assumed other in the world had the ability as well; however, had tried to lead a normal existence.
Meanwhile, a cult of soul swallowing degenerates emerges and preys on those who have the ability. Some not knowing their minor gifts are easy prey, but those who have remarkable abilities present more of a challenge. One of these such wunderkinds is 13 year old Abra Stone. Like Danny, she has had abilities all her life, her parents chose to ignore them, but now events are intensifying so profound she cannot ignore them. The cult leader, Rose The Hat, seeks out more victims for her flock to feed upon having an eventual confrontation with Abra.
***I don't want to say more so I don't ruin for anyone.***
I have decided when writing a review of a sequel of any kind, I will never refer to it as "unnecessary". I have read many recent critiques of movies like Zombieland: Double Tap or Maleficent: Mistress of Evil when this word is used and I don't agree with that as a criticism. People are only using that word if the sequel is a disappointment. Someone would never say The Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight were unnecessary because they were great films. Even mediocre sequels will get tagged with unnecessary and I guess I feel you should rate the film which was made on its own merits and not try to decide if it was worth making or not.
Much like the way 2010 tried to explain the monolith and the mystery from Kubrick's masterpiece and my favorite film of all time 2001: A Space Odyssey, Doctor Sleep explores and expands the "shining" universe and gives audiences another look into that world. I was reminded when watching for some reason the sequence in Ready Player One where the characters go back to the Overlook and interact with the unique setting and art direction the film possessed. The homages and settings in Doctor Sleep feel both modernized and a fond look back of what everyone loved from The Shining. I could tell writer/director Mike Flanagan loved this universe so intensely, he decided to adapt the Stephen King sequel novel and it is well done.
Most main characters from the original Shining film make an appearance here as well, most with smaller cameo type roles which I don't want to spoil here. The new characters of both Abra Stone and Rose The Hat are great additions and acting by Rebecca Ferguson (who is quickly becoming one of my faves) and young Kyliegh Curran really bring them to life. Other than the obvious Trainspotting, Ewan McGregor usually plays such happy and likable characters that it was interesting to see him in a darker light, especially at the beginning of the film.
The musical score felt much like The Shining at times (the best parts), but also foraged new ground and was truly haunting and beautiful throughout. The cinematography and art direction were beautiful when showing the dark forest and suburban landscapes as well as the recreation of some of the more familiar elements.
Doctor Sleep is the ceiling threshold of how good a sequel to a Kubrick classic iconic perfection piece of movie artwork onscreen. The feeling and fun of seeing new interpretations of classic characters was fine with me as the screenplay does them justice. Comparing it to The Shining is moot since Kubrick was the master and his films should be studied indefinitely by film students worldwide and Doctor Sleep is an admirable compliment to that.
I tried to find an instance where Kubrick made comment about the film 2010, but I could not other than he said he wished the director well with it. I would imagine he would have the same reaction here. I think he would feel his work stands on its own without need for further explanation or additional narrative, but that is not a criticism, just an observation.
After the events which ruined his childhood at the Overlook Hotel, Dan Torrance has not had a profound life. He does drugs and has become addicted to alcohol. He decides to move to a small town where he tries to get his act together. He is still haunted by those events so long ago even seeing the ghost of long deceased Overlook cook Dick Hallorann who also possessed the ability to "shine". Dan always knew or assumed other in the world had the ability as well; however, had tried to lead a normal existence.
Meanwhile, a cult of soul swallowing degenerates emerges and preys on those who have the ability. Some not knowing their minor gifts are easy prey, but those who have remarkable abilities present more of a challenge. One of these such wunderkinds is 13 year old Abra Stone. Like Danny, she has had abilities all her life, her parents chose to ignore them, but now events are intensifying so profound she cannot ignore them. The cult leader, Rose The Hat, seeks out more victims for her flock to feed upon having an eventual confrontation with Abra.
***I don't want to say more so I don't ruin for anyone.***
I have decided when writing a review of a sequel of any kind, I will never refer to it as "unnecessary". I have read many recent critiques of movies like Zombieland: Double Tap or Maleficent: Mistress of Evil when this word is used and I don't agree with that as a criticism. People are only using that word if the sequel is a disappointment. Someone would never say The Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight were unnecessary because they were great films. Even mediocre sequels will get tagged with unnecessary and I guess I feel you should rate the film which was made on its own merits and not try to decide if it was worth making or not.
Much like the way 2010 tried to explain the monolith and the mystery from Kubrick's masterpiece and my favorite film of all time 2001: A Space Odyssey, Doctor Sleep explores and expands the "shining" universe and gives audiences another look into that world. I was reminded when watching for some reason the sequence in Ready Player One where the characters go back to the Overlook and interact with the unique setting and art direction the film possessed. The homages and settings in Doctor Sleep feel both modernized and a fond look back of what everyone loved from The Shining. I could tell writer/director Mike Flanagan loved this universe so intensely, he decided to adapt the Stephen King sequel novel and it is well done.
Most main characters from the original Shining film make an appearance here as well, most with smaller cameo type roles which I don't want to spoil here. The new characters of both Abra Stone and Rose The Hat are great additions and acting by Rebecca Ferguson (who is quickly becoming one of my faves) and young Kyliegh Curran really bring them to life. Other than the obvious Trainspotting, Ewan McGregor usually plays such happy and likable characters that it was interesting to see him in a darker light, especially at the beginning of the film.
The musical score felt much like The Shining at times (the best parts), but also foraged new ground and was truly haunting and beautiful throughout. The cinematography and art direction were beautiful when showing the dark forest and suburban landscapes as well as the recreation of some of the more familiar elements.
Doctor Sleep is the ceiling threshold of how good a sequel to a Kubrick classic iconic perfection piece of movie artwork onscreen. The feeling and fun of seeing new interpretations of classic characters was fine with me as the screenplay does them justice. Comparing it to The Shining is moot since Kubrick was the master and his films should be studied indefinitely by film students worldwide and Doctor Sleep is an admirable compliment to that.
I tried to find an instance where Kubrick made comment about the film 2010, but I could not other than he said he wished the director well with it. I would imagine he would have the same reaction here. I think he would feel his work stands on its own without need for further explanation or additional narrative, but that is not a criticism, just an observation.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
It seems recently that the Disney vault has exploded with the release of several of their classic animated films being remade. Unfortunately, the classics that have inspired these remakes have been redone with mixed results. The original The Lion King was released back in 1994 and it’s hard to believe that I was a junior in college when I saw it. Since that time, we’ve seen various iterations of the classic story, a few direct to VCR sequels and the awe-inspiring Broadway stage production (which if you are a serious fan of the movie I encourage you to see). It seems odd to discuss the plot of a movie that I’m certain everyone reading this has seen at least once (or a dozen times over). To the uninformed however, The Lion King is about a young cub named Simba (JD McCrary as the young voice and Donald Glover as the adult) who suffers the tragic loss of his father Mufasa (James Earl Jones) at the paws of his evil uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Scar convinces Simba that he is responsible for his father’s death and that he must leave the pride and never return. With the help of his faithful friends Timon (Billy Eichner), the lovable warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), the ever wise Zazu (John Oliver) and his budding queen Nala (Beyoncé’) he learns that true courage comes from within and realizes he must face Scar if he is ever to bring peace back to the Pride Lands.
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Apr 9, 2018
Well, that was an experience. A Quiet Place is one heck of a ride that rarely eases up on the tension throughout. You know those moments in horror where you know that something bad isn’t just about to happen? The moments where you can breathe and relax for a minute? This really doesn’t have many of those- perhaps only about four of five. The rest of the time is spent fully in the middle of the horrors of this world and it’s an almost breathless experience.
We don’t really get much background to the characters or the situation that has unfolded on the planet when these creatures arrive. As such, it’s a disorientating experience to be dropped in almost in the middle of the story. That disorientation works to the movie’s effect though. We, the audience, are playing catch up and trying to piece together what is happening. That makes the first appearance of one of the creatures that much more frightening. As for the creatures, they’re a great design and whilst we don’t spend too much time with them, they’re wonderfully effective. These are the sort of creatures that I don’t want to be explained, I don’t want any backstory or sequels delving further into them; the mystery makes them far scarier.
And boy is this film scary. It’s not a typical horror movie that’s filled to the brim with jump scares (though it does have them). Instead, it’s a movie that uses its premise to make a terrible situation that much worse. Given that noise is what attracts these creatures (and they do attack within seconds of hearing something), it is to be expected that a lot of A Quiet Place would involve not making much noise. What I didn’t expect was for there to be almost none throughout the entire thing. Characters don’t really talk here and when they do it’s extremely rare. They all communicate via sign language that I assume they all learned due to having a deaf child in the family. If they do talk, it’s normally at such a whisper that subtitles are needed to let us know what they are saying. That makes the whole film so much more tense and suspenseful. When we do hear a noise, we know that something bad will most likely be descending on them in a matter of moments. I actually found myself scanning the rooms they were in, checking for things that could fall. One thing I noticed from having next to no dialogue was how much I was able to hear all the other sounds. Everything was heightened as a result and that only made the tension that much worse.
As great as all this is, it would be nothing if there wasn’t a great cast to anchor it. A Quiet Place definitely has that. All four leads are superb and they are pretty much the only human characters for the entire running time. Everyone needed to bring their A game and that they did. Krasinski and Blunt are both fantastic actors and this is some of their best work. The two obviously have a head start when it comes to having chemistry and the ease they have with one another makes the characters come across as real and genuine people. As for the kids, well there are two stars in the making here. Both of them are given some really serious material to work with and they absolutely pull it off. Nothing is oversold by anyone here. Every second of fear and terror is played perfectly and as such, I found myself sharing these emotions alongside each one of them.
A Quiet Place does have a few issues. It’s never clear what the ultimate plan is for the family, particularly with a baby on the way. What are they planning to do with it in the long term when it’s born? Babies are known for crying and not being quiet, so it was a little distracting to not have that addressed. There is also a moment to do with that pregnancy that felt extremely glossed over, but I’ll avoid specifying exactly what at the risk of spoilers. These are minor niggles though. This is a great movie that is a blast to watch. I do have a feeling that there are some that may find the ending to be a little frustrating, for me though, I thought it was perfect.
Oh, and as for John Krasinski who was on starring and directing duties, this is a great project for him that he comes out of brilliantly on both counts. This could be the film that throws him into A-list movie status and whether it’s in front or behind the camera, I’m eager to see what he does next.
We don’t really get much background to the characters or the situation that has unfolded on the planet when these creatures arrive. As such, it’s a disorientating experience to be dropped in almost in the middle of the story. That disorientation works to the movie’s effect though. We, the audience, are playing catch up and trying to piece together what is happening. That makes the first appearance of one of the creatures that much more frightening. As for the creatures, they’re a great design and whilst we don’t spend too much time with them, they’re wonderfully effective. These are the sort of creatures that I don’t want to be explained, I don’t want any backstory or sequels delving further into them; the mystery makes them far scarier.
And boy is this film scary. It’s not a typical horror movie that’s filled to the brim with jump scares (though it does have them). Instead, it’s a movie that uses its premise to make a terrible situation that much worse. Given that noise is what attracts these creatures (and they do attack within seconds of hearing something), it is to be expected that a lot of A Quiet Place would involve not making much noise. What I didn’t expect was for there to be almost none throughout the entire thing. Characters don’t really talk here and when they do it’s extremely rare. They all communicate via sign language that I assume they all learned due to having a deaf child in the family. If they do talk, it’s normally at such a whisper that subtitles are needed to let us know what they are saying. That makes the whole film so much more tense and suspenseful. When we do hear a noise, we know that something bad will most likely be descending on them in a matter of moments. I actually found myself scanning the rooms they were in, checking for things that could fall. One thing I noticed from having next to no dialogue was how much I was able to hear all the other sounds. Everything was heightened as a result and that only made the tension that much worse.
As great as all this is, it would be nothing if there wasn’t a great cast to anchor it. A Quiet Place definitely has that. All four leads are superb and they are pretty much the only human characters for the entire running time. Everyone needed to bring their A game and that they did. Krasinski and Blunt are both fantastic actors and this is some of their best work. The two obviously have a head start when it comes to having chemistry and the ease they have with one another makes the characters come across as real and genuine people. As for the kids, well there are two stars in the making here. Both of them are given some really serious material to work with and they absolutely pull it off. Nothing is oversold by anyone here. Every second of fear and terror is played perfectly and as such, I found myself sharing these emotions alongside each one of them.
A Quiet Place does have a few issues. It’s never clear what the ultimate plan is for the family, particularly with a baby on the way. What are they planning to do with it in the long term when it’s born? Babies are known for crying and not being quiet, so it was a little distracting to not have that addressed. There is also a moment to do with that pregnancy that felt extremely glossed over, but I’ll avoid specifying exactly what at the risk of spoilers. These are minor niggles though. This is a great movie that is a blast to watch. I do have a feeling that there are some that may find the ending to be a little frustrating, for me though, I thought it was perfect.
Oh, and as for John Krasinski who was on starring and directing duties, this is a great project for him that he comes out of brilliantly on both counts. This could be the film that throws him into A-list movie status and whether it’s in front or behind the camera, I’m eager to see what he does next.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Marvel just about manages to pull it off
With a touching tribute to the amazing Stan Lee, it’s clear from the outset that Captain Marvel isn’t going to be your ordinary MCU instalment, or so Marvel Studios would have us believe. The 21stfilm, yes, I can’t quite believe it either, in the long-standing Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain Marvel is the first superhero film from the studio to focus primarily on a single female lead.
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Jurassic Shark
Ah the shark attack movie. A genre that has over the years changed itself from impactful horror suspense thriller to cheesy, throwaway popcorn entertainment. Apart from when Steven Spielberg changed cinema forever with his 1975 masterpiece, Jaws, audiences have been given few treats in the decades that followed.
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Deep Blue Sea was a tasteful homage to its forbearer, but even that was riddled in cliché and was much more of a brain-numbing creature feature than Jaws was. And then came Sharknado and its raft of dreadfully titled sequels. Look back through cinema history and you’ll see that sharks are big business in Hollywood.
Now, as we enter the final stages of 2018, Jason Statham stars in perhaps the most preposterous shark movie yet, yes, even more preposterous than Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! But sometimes preposterous can be fun. Is that the case here?
A massive creature attacks a deep-sea submersible, leaving it disabled and trapping the crew at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. With time running out, rescue diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) must save the crew and the ocean itself from an unimaginable threat – a 75-foot-long prehistoric shark known as the Megalodon.
Jon Turteltaub, who directed delicacies like National Treasure and Cool Runnings takes to The Meg like, well a duck to water. It’s filled with tantalising action sequences and Jason Statham spouting marine biology jargon including a scene in which the Hollywood star is shirtless whilst spouting marine biology jargon. What more could you want?
Quite a bit as it happens. Despite a solid opening act that sets up the dark humour of the film nicely, The Meg is a bit of a bore. Populated by bland characters, uninspiring CGI and plot holes so big they’d make the Marianas trench blush. It’s all a bit of a mess to be honest.
The Meg is one of a new breed of Hollywood blockbusters that has been made to pander to the new Chinese audience and while this has worked well for other high-budget movies like Pacific Rim, it doesn’t work quite as well here. Li Bingbing stars as marine biologist Suyin Zhang and whilst she performs well in her native tongue, her English-spoken scenes are stilted and lack any depth of emotion whatsoever.
In fact, outside of Statham, the rest of the cast are complete non-entities. Rainn Wilson provides some comic relief as a financial investor, but it’s all very B-movie and clearly not in the way it was intended. You see, when you know you have a ridiculous premise, the best thing to do is run with it and create the most insanely bizarre film in existence. Unfortunately, The Meg takes itself far too seriously and this makes it feel much longer than its running time would suggest. They could’ve gotten away with calling it ‘Jason Statham Shark Movie’ as that’ pretty much the premise in a nutshell.
It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib
At a cost just shy of $200million, you’d expect to have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom levels of special effects. They actually cost around the same to produce. In truth, The Meg can’t hold a candle to its land-based prehistoric cousin. The CGI is passable at best and really dreadful at worst and this is a real shame. When the main selling point of your film is a 75-foot shark, you really need to get it spot on.
Besides a couple of cool shots, one of which is the featured image for this particular review (see the image at the top of the header banner), the cinematography is absolutely uninspired.
When you have a film that features so much ocean, there are a multitude of amazing things you could achieve with the shot choices. Unfortunately, none of them have been realised here.
Elsewhere, there is something a little more sinister afoot. Sharks already get a seriously bad reputation and this film does nothing to quash that. With many species now unfortunately endangered, films like The Meg could do more harm than good. It portrays all sharks as merciless killers – proficient and deadly. If it did want to be a serious shark attack flick, it should have relied less on goofy comedy and more on raising awareness for the creatures.
We’ve now had three ‘creature feature’ films thus far into 2018. Starting with Rampage earlier in the year, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in June and now The Meg, and whilst each of them brings something unique to the table, The Meg sinks to the bottom of the seafloor. It’s occasionally fun and could have been smashing fun, but in reality, it’s a bit of a damp squib. The Meg is a shark movie without any bite.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/11/the-meg-review-jurassic-shark/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Galaxy like you've never seen it before
Crafting sequels is never easy, but creating a fitting sequel to 2015’s biggest movie and one of the world’s biggest franchises is no easy feat. Not only do you have to make a film that moves the game on from The Force Awakens, but one that also meets the incredibly high expectations of fans across the globe.
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
Who took on this ridiculous job I hear you cry? Well Looper’s Rian Johnson takes over directorial duties from J.J. Abrams and the result is The Last Jedi. But is this a fitting sequel or a lacklustre affair?
Following on from the events of 2015’s The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) develops her newly discovered abilities with the guidance of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is unsettled by the strength of her powers. Meanwhile, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) prepares to do battle with not only the First Order, but Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) too.
The Last Jedi opens with a beautifully choreographed battle between good and evil as Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Issac), assisted by the adorable BB-8, tries to take on the evil First Order. This stunningly directed sequence sets up The Last Jedi perfectly – this is one hell of a good-looking film.
Practical effects are the order of the day here, something some other franchises seem to have forgotten about, and the movie is all the better for having them there. From large scale model ships to the more intricate fauna, The Last Jedi seeps with attention to detail – no stone has been left unturned in creating a living, breathing world. So, it’s all the more disappointing to be sucked out of the spectacle with some occasionally very shoddy CGI.
Apart from a couple of lapses that are geared more towards the film’s finale, The Last Jedi is probably the best-looking Star Wars film out there. From the blood-red lair of Supreme Leader Snoke to the salt-encrusted planet of the film’s gorgeous finale, every frame gives you something to look at. Rian Johnson carefully focusses the cameras on our main characters, using intense close-ups to bleed every single drop of emotion from them. Speaking of which, the entire cast is absolutely mesmerising.
Daisy Ridley deserves recognition for being utterly brilliant in this instalment. I had my reservations about her ability to cope with the toll this franchise would take on the actress but she has proved me wrong, and then some. John Boyega is excellent and Laura Dern’s addition to the galaxy is wonderful. The problem is the cast is just so huge, it’s impossible to mention everyone. Oh, Adam Driver’s performance really has to be seen to be believed and Kylo Ren is definitely moving up the ranks of the Star Wars villain hierarchy. His take on the character in The Last Jedi is exceptional.
If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song
Special mention must go however, to Carrie Fisher. Rian Johnson has stated that none of Fisher’s scenes were changed or moved after the actresses’ untimely death last year, but her time on screen really does take on new, and emotional, meaning here. Princess Leia is as much a Star Wars staple as Chewie, Luke or Han and the galaxy certainly won’t shine brighter without her presence. Nevertheless, this was a fitting tribute to the actress and a wonderful body of work to have her name attached to.
The script is like nothing Star Wars has ever seen before. Riddled with more twists and turns than spaghetti junction, it’s almost entirely unpredictable and that’s something you really don’t see come around very often. In any other franchise it would be exhausting, but here it’s exhilarating and incredibly well written.
At 152 minutes, The Last Jedi is a long film, the longest in the franchise in fact and there’s no getting away from that. The middle act in which some of our heroes traverse a vast casino planet are a little off pace and it does have a whiff of George Lucas’ less than stellar prequels about it, but the rest of the film moves at breakneck speed.
Overall, Rian Johnson has taken risks here and the majority of them pay off with fantastic results; Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a worthy sequel to an ever-growing brand and one that outdoes its predecessor by some margin. If The Force Awakens was J.J. Abrams love letter to the franchise, then The Last Jedi is the break-up song because while still feeling like a Star Wars movie in many ways, it’s so different it’ll have you picking your jaw up off the floor more than once. My only question is: why isn’t Rian Johnson directing Episode IX?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/14/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-the-galaxy-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Haunted (2013) in Movies
Jun 12, 2019
About As Scary As A Trip To Seaworld
Contains spoilers, click to show
Haunted, a film Directed by Steven M Smith is an unusual addition to anyone's 'film' collection, as instantly you question whether this is even a film to begin with, the content is very documentary based, opening with factual accounts and a history of an abandoned railway museum. All of the opening shots are filmed in documentary format and this continues throughout the film even when found footage elements are introduced.
A TV crew will film a paranormal investigation and obtain evidence that proves we are not alone. Something Evil awaits them! They will all discover the truth, that we are not alone.
The above quote is taken directly from the synopsis on the website, contestants are invited to visit a haunted railway as part of the show of which they are filming, they are all packed into a limousine and taken to the event. The whole scenes within the limo following the group around SHOULD of been filmed by a professional camera and a professional cinematographer but it looks as thou the entire film has been shot on someone's mobile phone.
Budget constraints aside, decent camera's should of been used to document the entire film from introduction to the actual paranormal investigations, rather than Sony handycam's that cost £120. The only time still camera's are used is to document an almost news style report at the start of the film and a few segments in between. Using handycams this instantly brings us into frustrating territory of moving shaky pictures, blurred images, and camera operators with shaky hands. Very poor quality recording even for a documentary style shooting as you're watching a black screen for the duration, has anyone ever heard of night vision? Next the acting, now the contestants themselves are not in on the game, they are not aware of what's going on or what they have signed up too, however Jon our 'medium' gives the game away at every opportunity. The strategically placed actor in the movie is Jon Paul Gates a supposed 'medium' who describes what he is feeling and how strong a presence is in a particular area. I personally would of caught on very easily to this poor display as not only was the acting questionable, but his descriptions of certain ghosts and characters were so detailed that it was obvious they had been memorised from a script or prior knowledge. There is one scene where the ghost is apparently on top of Jon as he is weighed to the ground, I found this scene hysterical, I was literally crying with laughter of how poor he not only acted it out but how a ghost was piggy backing a ride around the railway yard.
For the first 30 minutes of the movie, the group have arrived, walked around some railway tracks and picked up some weird force that only Jon can feel yet no one around the group has even felt or experienced anything out of this world. Now Most Haunted the popular paranormal TV show would of thrust the audience into some action by now but for the opening 30 minutes of Haunted, nothing of the sort has happened, as it stands the documentary as I refuse to call it a film has displayed more history about the railways than anything remotely paranormal. Maybe a title change would be for the best? I am neither scared, nor intrigued at this moment in time, quite frankly I'm hoping this heats up and soon.
I feel as thou if this film was cut shorter, much shorter, with a voice over documentary style about where each group is going and what they are doing it would be much more easier to watch. Cut the best bits in, jump scares, certain happenings, instead of mundane walking around a railway yard, because as it stands I could grab a camera, head off out tonight and shoot an identical piece of footage, its neither scary nor intriguing. It needs to have production value and Haunted is really suffering from a lack of it as a result.
There is one event throughout the whole movie which is the main talking point and then the film has the audacity to kill people off towards the end after a whole run time of nothingness, no build up, no real meaning or reason why. It was basically like watching the worst episode of Most Haunted to find one of your group dead on the floor at the end of it, planned, boring and drawn out far too long.
Shorten the run time, have a voice over, documentary coverage and film, DON'T kill anyone off at the end with some cheesy fake characters who no one now believes and have a genuine vigil, no pranks or set ups and this could of been a cool little paranormal programme.
Sadly none of the above happened. What a shame. A few sequels are in the works, shorten the duration, fix the countless problems and maybe, just maybe show some true paranormal / experiences and I guarantee it will be more of a success !
A TV crew will film a paranormal investigation and obtain evidence that proves we are not alone. Something Evil awaits them! They will all discover the truth, that we are not alone.
The above quote is taken directly from the synopsis on the website, contestants are invited to visit a haunted railway as part of the show of which they are filming, they are all packed into a limousine and taken to the event. The whole scenes within the limo following the group around SHOULD of been filmed by a professional camera and a professional cinematographer but it looks as thou the entire film has been shot on someone's mobile phone.
Budget constraints aside, decent camera's should of been used to document the entire film from introduction to the actual paranormal investigations, rather than Sony handycam's that cost £120. The only time still camera's are used is to document an almost news style report at the start of the film and a few segments in between. Using handycams this instantly brings us into frustrating territory of moving shaky pictures, blurred images, and camera operators with shaky hands. Very poor quality recording even for a documentary style shooting as you're watching a black screen for the duration, has anyone ever heard of night vision? Next the acting, now the contestants themselves are not in on the game, they are not aware of what's going on or what they have signed up too, however Jon our 'medium' gives the game away at every opportunity. The strategically placed actor in the movie is Jon Paul Gates a supposed 'medium' who describes what he is feeling and how strong a presence is in a particular area. I personally would of caught on very easily to this poor display as not only was the acting questionable, but his descriptions of certain ghosts and characters were so detailed that it was obvious they had been memorised from a script or prior knowledge. There is one scene where the ghost is apparently on top of Jon as he is weighed to the ground, I found this scene hysterical, I was literally crying with laughter of how poor he not only acted it out but how a ghost was piggy backing a ride around the railway yard.
For the first 30 minutes of the movie, the group have arrived, walked around some railway tracks and picked up some weird force that only Jon can feel yet no one around the group has even felt or experienced anything out of this world. Now Most Haunted the popular paranormal TV show would of thrust the audience into some action by now but for the opening 30 minutes of Haunted, nothing of the sort has happened, as it stands the documentary as I refuse to call it a film has displayed more history about the railways than anything remotely paranormal. Maybe a title change would be for the best? I am neither scared, nor intrigued at this moment in time, quite frankly I'm hoping this heats up and soon.
I feel as thou if this film was cut shorter, much shorter, with a voice over documentary style about where each group is going and what they are doing it would be much more easier to watch. Cut the best bits in, jump scares, certain happenings, instead of mundane walking around a railway yard, because as it stands I could grab a camera, head off out tonight and shoot an identical piece of footage, its neither scary nor intriguing. It needs to have production value and Haunted is really suffering from a lack of it as a result.
There is one event throughout the whole movie which is the main talking point and then the film has the audacity to kill people off towards the end after a whole run time of nothingness, no build up, no real meaning or reason why. It was basically like watching the worst episode of Most Haunted to find one of your group dead on the floor at the end of it, planned, boring and drawn out far too long.
Shorten the run time, have a voice over, documentary coverage and film, DON'T kill anyone off at the end with some cheesy fake characters who no one now believes and have a genuine vigil, no pranks or set ups and this could of been a cool little paranormal programme.
Sadly none of the above happened. What a shame. A few sequels are in the works, shorten the duration, fix the countless problems and maybe, just maybe show some true paranormal / experiences and I guarantee it will be more of a success !