Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Brightburn is a mostly solid 'superhero' horror that sets out what it means to do. The narrative plays out a bit like an issue of Marvel's What If? - in this case, what if an alien baby crashed to earth, much like Superman, but grew up to be a danger to mankind.
One of the main issues I had with Brightburn rears it head pretty early on - it doesn't spend a huge amount of time establishing 12 year old Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) before hurtling straight into his turn to evil. It's not the biggest deal I guess, the movie does enough to set up the main bulk of the plot, but I can't help but feel that the execution would have been more effective if the set up had been a bit more drawn out.
We're also introduced to Brandon's parents, the people who found him when he was a baby and raised him as their own, Tori and Kyle, played by Elizabeth Banks and David Denman. Both actors are great throughout, but their characters are a bit iffy. There's a lot silliness going on - Tori takes an abnormally long time to accept that Brandon in dangerous, even when loved ones are being murdered around her - she purposefully keeps information from Kyle about Brandon nearly stumbling across the spaceship he arrived in, even though that should really be something shared considering how Brandon is an alien and all that - at one point, Kyle tries to get one over on Brandon by shooting him in the head when he's not looking, despite clearly stating earlier on in the movie that Brandon has never even bled throughout his whole life...
It sounds like nitpicking, but it's just silliness that is very obviously included to easily advance the plot, and it's a little distracting.
The special effects used are mostly good, but they are purposely done quickly to avoid much room for scrutiny, however, there are some really great shots throughout Brightburn, especially in the third act. Brandon's costume design is suitably creepy, his mask looks almost Mothman-esque, and his glowing red eyes make him a genuinely sinister looking villain.
The violence in Brightburn really packs a punch as well... It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's creative, and brutal. The movie leans a little into jump scare territory, but just about toes the line, and provides a decent enough unsettling atmosphere to justify it.
On a final note, it always refreshing when a Hollywood film like this has the balls to end in the way it does. The movie sets up Brandon for defeat and failure, and it just doesn't happen. The bad guys win and that's that. The ending credits feature news reports showing Brandon in the following weeks wreaking havoc all over the place, and it sets up a sequel which I don't think will happen due to box office reasons. Which is a shame, because even though Brightburn has its flaws, it still kept me involved.
Worth checking out for superhero and horror fans alike.
One of the main issues I had with Brightburn rears it head pretty early on - it doesn't spend a huge amount of time establishing 12 year old Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) before hurtling straight into his turn to evil. It's not the biggest deal I guess, the movie does enough to set up the main bulk of the plot, but I can't help but feel that the execution would have been more effective if the set up had been a bit more drawn out.
We're also introduced to Brandon's parents, the people who found him when he was a baby and raised him as their own, Tori and Kyle, played by Elizabeth Banks and David Denman. Both actors are great throughout, but their characters are a bit iffy. There's a lot silliness going on - Tori takes an abnormally long time to accept that Brandon in dangerous, even when loved ones are being murdered around her - she purposefully keeps information from Kyle about Brandon nearly stumbling across the spaceship he arrived in, even though that should really be something shared considering how Brandon is an alien and all that - at one point, Kyle tries to get one over on Brandon by shooting him in the head when he's not looking, despite clearly stating earlier on in the movie that Brandon has never even bled throughout his whole life...
It sounds like nitpicking, but it's just silliness that is very obviously included to easily advance the plot, and it's a little distracting.
The special effects used are mostly good, but they are purposely done quickly to avoid much room for scrutiny, however, there are some really great shots throughout Brightburn, especially in the third act. Brandon's costume design is suitably creepy, his mask looks almost Mothman-esque, and his glowing red eyes make him a genuinely sinister looking villain.
The violence in Brightburn really packs a punch as well... It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's creative, and brutal. The movie leans a little into jump scare territory, but just about toes the line, and provides a decent enough unsettling atmosphere to justify it.
On a final note, it always refreshing when a Hollywood film like this has the balls to end in the way it does. The movie sets up Brandon for defeat and failure, and it just doesn't happen. The bad guys win and that's that. The ending credits feature news reports showing Brandon in the following weeks wreaking havoc all over the place, and it sets up a sequel which I don't think will happen due to box office reasons. Which is a shame, because even though Brightburn has its flaws, it still kept me involved.
Worth checking out for superhero and horror fans alike.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Mars Needs Moms (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Milo is your typical 9-year-old boy who doesn’t like doing chores, eating his vegetables or getting disciplined by his mother. But because his mother makes him do his chores and eat his vegetables and scolds him when he doesn’t, she’s made herself the prime target for Martians who need her great mothering skills. Apparently, Martians are “hatched” and raised by “nanny-bots” that are programmed with an Earthling mother’s caregiving and disciplinary abilities. Of course, not any Earthling mother will do. Bypassed are those who spoil their child or fail to care for their child’s safety and wellbeing. So when Milo is spied dutifully, albeit grudgingly, doing as he’s told by his mother, she becomes Mars’ candidate for abduction, because, as the movie title states, Mars needs moms.
On the night Milo’s mom is abducted, Milo (enacted by Seth Green, voiced by Seth Dusky) wakes up in time to witness her being loaded onto a spaceship and he quickly becomes a stowaway. On the red planet, he’s rescued by Gribbler, a chubby, fast-talking, tech-savvy human (voiced by Dan Fogler) who helps him devise a plan to save Milo’s mom, a recognizable Joan Cusack, in voice and, somewhat creepily, in CGI’d face. The two are up against an army of female Martians lead by The Supervisor (voiced by Mindy Sterling) a mean, old Martian. Think Frau Farbissina as a mean E.T. Luckily, Milo and Gribbler find an ally in a rebel Martian named Ki (voiced by Elisabeth Harnois). Milo has less than 6 hours to get to his mom before she’s programmed into the nanny-bots and destroyed by the process. Soon, it’s a race against time for Milo, Gribbler and Ki as they run around endless corridors, hurtle through chutes, tumble down trash mountains, splash into other-worldly caves and fall off cliffs.
Based on a children’s novel by cartoonist Berkeley Breathed, the film is produced by Robert Zemeckis and directed by Simon Wells in performance-capture 3D, a technique pioneered by Zemeckis in Polar Express and used again in A Christmas Carol. In performance-capture filming, actors are covered in sensors that capture their actions and expressions to animate their digital characters. During the end credits, a sampling of outtakes show the actors in their sensor suits physically acting out various scenes. I have to admit, the most entertaining part of the movie for me was watching Seth Green and Dan Fogler literally throw themselves into their characters.
Even with a run time of 88 minutes, kids around Milo’s age and younger may remain enthralled to the end simply from the countdown suspense. Older kids, maybe not. Yes, the high-point of the tale is Milo’s realization of how truly important his mom is to him. But even with all the running and tumbling around, the story takes a long, meandering walk to get to that point. While the technological achievements of 3D animation get more and more impressive, if the story doesn’t captivate or inspire, it’s practically a wasted effort, especially when watching in 2D would not take much away from the effects.
On the night Milo’s mom is abducted, Milo (enacted by Seth Green, voiced by Seth Dusky) wakes up in time to witness her being loaded onto a spaceship and he quickly becomes a stowaway. On the red planet, he’s rescued by Gribbler, a chubby, fast-talking, tech-savvy human (voiced by Dan Fogler) who helps him devise a plan to save Milo’s mom, a recognizable Joan Cusack, in voice and, somewhat creepily, in CGI’d face. The two are up against an army of female Martians lead by The Supervisor (voiced by Mindy Sterling) a mean, old Martian. Think Frau Farbissina as a mean E.T. Luckily, Milo and Gribbler find an ally in a rebel Martian named Ki (voiced by Elisabeth Harnois). Milo has less than 6 hours to get to his mom before she’s programmed into the nanny-bots and destroyed by the process. Soon, it’s a race against time for Milo, Gribbler and Ki as they run around endless corridors, hurtle through chutes, tumble down trash mountains, splash into other-worldly caves and fall off cliffs.
Based on a children’s novel by cartoonist Berkeley Breathed, the film is produced by Robert Zemeckis and directed by Simon Wells in performance-capture 3D, a technique pioneered by Zemeckis in Polar Express and used again in A Christmas Carol. In performance-capture filming, actors are covered in sensors that capture their actions and expressions to animate their digital characters. During the end credits, a sampling of outtakes show the actors in their sensor suits physically acting out various scenes. I have to admit, the most entertaining part of the movie for me was watching Seth Green and Dan Fogler literally throw themselves into their characters.
Even with a run time of 88 minutes, kids around Milo’s age and younger may remain enthralled to the end simply from the countdown suspense. Older kids, maybe not. Yes, the high-point of the tale is Milo’s realization of how truly important his mom is to him. But even with all the running and tumbling around, the story takes a long, meandering walk to get to that point. While the technological achievements of 3D animation get more and more impressive, if the story doesn’t captivate or inspire, it’s practically a wasted effort, especially when watching in 2D would not take much away from the effects.
Ganja Farm - Weed empire
Games
App
Run your own epic 420 ganja farm and cultivate different strains in this fun, weed farming game....
Lee (2222 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
May 26, 2018
Great cast (2 more)
Great action
Great story
Star Wars is good again!
I'm one of those people who hated The Last Jedi. I came out of it feeling frustrated and disappointed. After the film of two distinct halves that was Rogue One (first half awful, second half not so awful), The Last Jedi to me was just further proof that they'd managed to break Star Wars. And then, in among all of that, they go and announce another prequel to the original trilogy we all love. A story featuring the early life of our favourite rogue/smuggler, Han Solo. Played by some guy who didn't even look, or seemingly act, like the Han that Harrison Ford had introduced us to. A pretty mediocre teaser trailer, followed by drastic changes to the directing team so late in the day, seemed to seal it's fate. It looked like Star Wars was going to stay broken...
But surprisingly, and thankfully, in the past few weeks the tide appears to have turned. A fun, exciting new trailer, the seemingly perfect casting of Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian, followed by a lot of positive early reactions... could we finally be in for a real Star Wars treat? Could Star Wars ever be fixed?
We join young Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) on his home planet of Correllia, getting by as a thief in the dark streets and tunnels and already making enemies. He has dreams of something better than this though - making enough money to buy him and his true love Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke) a big spaceship so that they can escape Correllia and find a better life together.
It's a simple enough plot, and we know that along the way he needs to meet Chewie, cross paths with Lando Calrissian, and bag himself the coolest ship in the shape of the Millennium Falcon. We just need to have some of the finer details filled in for us...
Luckily for us, filling in the blanks is one hell of a blast! From evading a crime boss on Correllia, hooking up with the empire before joining forces with a gang of bandits led by Beckett (Woody Harrelson), we find ourselves being treated to a pretty steady stream of thrills and action. Solo and the bandits end up on a mission to steal a big consignment of fuel called coaxium, hired by another crime boss called Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany). Along the way they hook up with Lando, captain of the Millennium Falcon, who offers to take them on their mission. In exchange for 25% of the money they're going to make on the coaxium deal of course...
I initially had my doubts over Ehrenreich and his ability to step into the shoes of one of cinemas most iconic characters but he actually does a very good job of it. In fact, it's a pretty impressive cast all round, with everyone managing to get their own memorable moments. There's a likeable chemistry between them all which carries the movie extremely well, even throughout its less frantic moments.
I thoroughly enjoyed this, so much more than I thought I would. And all those tickbox moments are handled perfectly - meeting and befriending Chewie, meeting Lando, finding out just how Solo managed to pull off that 12 parsec Kessel run, finally getting his hands on the Falcon! loved it all. Yes, they managed to fix Star Wars!
But surprisingly, and thankfully, in the past few weeks the tide appears to have turned. A fun, exciting new trailer, the seemingly perfect casting of Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian, followed by a lot of positive early reactions... could we finally be in for a real Star Wars treat? Could Star Wars ever be fixed?
We join young Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) on his home planet of Correllia, getting by as a thief in the dark streets and tunnels and already making enemies. He has dreams of something better than this though - making enough money to buy him and his true love Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke) a big spaceship so that they can escape Correllia and find a better life together.
It's a simple enough plot, and we know that along the way he needs to meet Chewie, cross paths with Lando Calrissian, and bag himself the coolest ship in the shape of the Millennium Falcon. We just need to have some of the finer details filled in for us...
Luckily for us, filling in the blanks is one hell of a blast! From evading a crime boss on Correllia, hooking up with the empire before joining forces with a gang of bandits led by Beckett (Woody Harrelson), we find ourselves being treated to a pretty steady stream of thrills and action. Solo and the bandits end up on a mission to steal a big consignment of fuel called coaxium, hired by another crime boss called Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany). Along the way they hook up with Lando, captain of the Millennium Falcon, who offers to take them on their mission. In exchange for 25% of the money they're going to make on the coaxium deal of course...
I initially had my doubts over Ehrenreich and his ability to step into the shoes of one of cinemas most iconic characters but he actually does a very good job of it. In fact, it's a pretty impressive cast all round, with everyone managing to get their own memorable moments. There's a likeable chemistry between them all which carries the movie extremely well, even throughout its less frantic moments.
I thoroughly enjoyed this, so much more than I thought I would. And all those tickbox moments are handled perfectly - meeting and befriending Chewie, meeting Lando, finding out just how Solo managed to pull off that 12 parsec Kessel run, finally getting his hands on the Falcon! loved it all. Yes, they managed to fix Star Wars!
Mini Watch Games 20-in-1
Games
App
Enjoy 20 amazing games on your Apple Watch and iPhone for one low price. That's unbeatable value for...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I went into this expecting some good action and some decent graphics. I did not expect to find so much comedy. This was a real treat to watch.
There's just something about "seeing" The Predator when he's invisible that really hits the spot. It gets you on the edge of the seat and fills you with just the right sort of anxiety. Had someone tapped me on the shoulder during the first time that happened in the film I probably would have swung for them while wailing like a banshee.
Lots of actors that you'd recognise from other things and everyone has their own little quirk that works well together in the scenes. It didn't feel like any of the talent was underused, which can be an issue with people in bit parts.
Who knew that Predators had a sense of humour too?! I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a severed limb in such an ingenious way before.
One bit that I really enjoyed reminded me of Futurama. You win bonus nerdy points if you spot it too. It had me tittering away.
There are excellent characters. Genuinely can't think of any that I didn't like in some way. Rory is brilliant in this, great acting from Tremblay and he was blessed with some amazing lines. His grasp of reverse psychology had us all laughing. There's also a scene in the military facility where the Predator wakes up and I actually believed the way everyone reacted. So often it's a mass of crazed running in all directions or everyone is running for one door, but this one felt like a perfectly choreographed event. We see incredible friendships and camaraderie that really comes to the forefront in the conclusion of the film.
It seems a bit redundant to be saying this because you'd think people would know... but they don't seem to... Military weapon designers: tactical weapons that are made for covert ops and have LED lights on them are in fact not very tactical. Predators: If you just stopped playing with your prey you could have conquered the Earth years ago.
*exhales slowly* So this 3D thing... I really and truly hate space shots in 3D, especially the ones that are basically just black space and stars. Really difficult to look at. Thankfully that didn't last for too long and was replaced what was quite good effects of the spaceship jumping to Earth. There were also a few shots from the sniper perspective that worked well. The rest of the film I found that it went quite badly from fuzzy to sharp and I couldn't quite tell what was supposed to be the focus. I'd have said that was the screen's 3D rather than the film itself, but it still struck me as odd that it was going between the two. I will put it down to just a bad screening.
What should you do?
You should see this, probably in 2D rather than 3D. It's funny, full of action and just the right amount of nostalgia.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Part of me wants the translation device. Part of me wants the invisibility ball (but not afterwards). Part of me wants that tranq gun. The opinion will change depending on how my day goes.
There's just something about "seeing" The Predator when he's invisible that really hits the spot. It gets you on the edge of the seat and fills you with just the right sort of anxiety. Had someone tapped me on the shoulder during the first time that happened in the film I probably would have swung for them while wailing like a banshee.
Lots of actors that you'd recognise from other things and everyone has their own little quirk that works well together in the scenes. It didn't feel like any of the talent was underused, which can be an issue with people in bit parts.
Who knew that Predators had a sense of humour too?! I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a severed limb in such an ingenious way before.
One bit that I really enjoyed reminded me of Futurama. You win bonus nerdy points if you spot it too. It had me tittering away.
There are excellent characters. Genuinely can't think of any that I didn't like in some way. Rory is brilliant in this, great acting from Tremblay and he was blessed with some amazing lines. His grasp of reverse psychology had us all laughing. There's also a scene in the military facility where the Predator wakes up and I actually believed the way everyone reacted. So often it's a mass of crazed running in all directions or everyone is running for one door, but this one felt like a perfectly choreographed event. We see incredible friendships and camaraderie that really comes to the forefront in the conclusion of the film.
It seems a bit redundant to be saying this because you'd think people would know... but they don't seem to... Military weapon designers: tactical weapons that are made for covert ops and have LED lights on them are in fact not very tactical. Predators: If you just stopped playing with your prey you could have conquered the Earth years ago.
*exhales slowly* So this 3D thing... I really and truly hate space shots in 3D, especially the ones that are basically just black space and stars. Really difficult to look at. Thankfully that didn't last for too long and was replaced what was quite good effects of the spaceship jumping to Earth. There were also a few shots from the sniper perspective that worked well. The rest of the film I found that it went quite badly from fuzzy to sharp and I couldn't quite tell what was supposed to be the focus. I'd have said that was the screen's 3D rather than the film itself, but it still struck me as odd that it was going between the two. I will put it down to just a bad screening.
What should you do?
You should see this, probably in 2D rather than 3D. It's funny, full of action and just the right amount of nostalgia.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Part of me wants the translation device. Part of me wants the invisibility ball (but not afterwards). Part of me wants that tranq gun. The opinion will change depending on how my day goes.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Guilt trip.
“Passengers” is not a film that you can really talk about in much depth without straying into spoiler territory, so I will break my normal tradition of my reviews being entirely “Spoiler Free” and add a further discussion (but below the Fad Rating, so you are safe ‘til there).
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Bigger isn't always better
Ridley Scott’s Alien prequel Prometheus wasn’t as warmly received as the veteran director had hoped for upon its release in 2012. In pitching the film for the coveted 12A market, Scott lost the majority of what made his 1979 masterpiece, rated 18, such an epic adventure.
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
Kyera (8 KP) rated Day 21 (The Hundred, #2) in Books
Feb 1, 2018
This is going to be much shorter as I've already reviewed the first book (plus this isn't out yet). Also, fair warning there will be spoilers in this one as its difficult to talk about without giving away any plot points or the development of relationships. I will attempt to reveal as little as I can.
While I am not well versed in the side affects and speed of oxygen deprivation, I suspect the portrayal of it is utterly inaccurate. What I do know is that a person can experience deadly CO (carbon monoxide) levels in less than a day when locked in an airtight room. Obviously, these people are not in an airtight room, but their spaceship is leaking the only oxygen that they do have at an alarming rate. One could calculate the time, but as I do not know the number of people in Walden or Arcadia, nor do I know the size of those two areas of the ship.
There is a <a href="http://kimberlymoynahan.com/2012/04/friday-fiction-facts-trapped-in-an-airtight-room/">great article</a> for fiction writers that allows you to calculate the amount of time that your character would be able to survive in an airtight room. It also describes some of the effects that they would experience. While I do not expect the oxygen deprivation/carbon monoxide poisoning to be perfectly explained and accurate - I do expect there to be some degree of <i>believability</i>. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Immediately upon the sealing of the craft, the author makes the reader believe that the people are already being affected. What makes the situation worse is that people begin to panic, using up the precious oxygen they need to rid their bodies of the carbon monoxide. In case you weren't aware, you take in oxygen so that it will bond with the carbon monoxide and be expelled from your body as carbon dioxide. (Obviously this is a very simple explanation, but I'm just trying to get the general idea across.) As they lose the oxygen around them, more and more carbon monoxide builds up in their lungs. With the number of people on the ship, I expect that after a few hours and certainly after a day they will have (if not run out) be dangerously low on oxygen. Yet, later on two of the characters have spent a number of nights together and the lack of oxygen hasn't caused them to fall unconscious.
With the size and population being what it is, it seems unlikely that there would be oxygen left (as it's steadily leaking out.) And if there was any that there would still be enough to breathe relatively normally. This is what immediately made the pseudo-scientist in me question how much research was done. Honestly, it doesn't take much to make it marginally realistic.
The characters are not as well thought out as they should be. Although flaws are to be expected, contradicting actions/personality aspects just make the reader confused. As obsessed as one character is with his sister, her well being, and at times her location - he seems to quickly thrust her aside when the new girl gives him attention. Just as before, the relationships are like roller coasters. One act tears them apart, then in the next moment all is well. Such an emotionally tiresome existence.
The first book had shadowy allusions to prostitution, a case of teen pregnancy, and the most emotionally indecisive characters that I have ever had the privilege to read about. This book has Stockholm Syndrome, inaccurate science, and trigger happy humans. As with the other book, it is enjoyable enough as a silly, simple read. Don't expect it to be more than that or you will be disappointed.
While I am not well versed in the side affects and speed of oxygen deprivation, I suspect the portrayal of it is utterly inaccurate. What I do know is that a person can experience deadly CO (carbon monoxide) levels in less than a day when locked in an airtight room. Obviously, these people are not in an airtight room, but their spaceship is leaking the only oxygen that they do have at an alarming rate. One could calculate the time, but as I do not know the number of people in Walden or Arcadia, nor do I know the size of those two areas of the ship.
There is a <a href="http://kimberlymoynahan.com/2012/04/friday-fiction-facts-trapped-in-an-airtight-room/">great article</a> for fiction writers that allows you to calculate the amount of time that your character would be able to survive in an airtight room. It also describes some of the effects that they would experience. While I do not expect the oxygen deprivation/carbon monoxide poisoning to be perfectly explained and accurate - I do expect there to be some degree of <i>believability</i>. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Immediately upon the sealing of the craft, the author makes the reader believe that the people are already being affected. What makes the situation worse is that people begin to panic, using up the precious oxygen they need to rid their bodies of the carbon monoxide. In case you weren't aware, you take in oxygen so that it will bond with the carbon monoxide and be expelled from your body as carbon dioxide. (Obviously this is a very simple explanation, but I'm just trying to get the general idea across.) As they lose the oxygen around them, more and more carbon monoxide builds up in their lungs. With the number of people on the ship, I expect that after a few hours and certainly after a day they will have (if not run out) be dangerously low on oxygen. Yet, later on two of the characters have spent a number of nights together and the lack of oxygen hasn't caused them to fall unconscious.
With the size and population being what it is, it seems unlikely that there would be oxygen left (as it's steadily leaking out.) And if there was any that there would still be enough to breathe relatively normally. This is what immediately made the pseudo-scientist in me question how much research was done. Honestly, it doesn't take much to make it marginally realistic.
The characters are not as well thought out as they should be. Although flaws are to be expected, contradicting actions/personality aspects just make the reader confused. As obsessed as one character is with his sister, her well being, and at times her location - he seems to quickly thrust her aside when the new girl gives him attention. Just as before, the relationships are like roller coasters. One act tears them apart, then in the next moment all is well. Such an emotionally tiresome existence.
The first book had shadowy allusions to prostitution, a case of teen pregnancy, and the most emotionally indecisive characters that I have ever had the privilege to read about. This book has Stockholm Syndrome, inaccurate science, and trigger happy humans. As with the other book, it is enjoyable enough as a silly, simple read. Don't expect it to be more than that or you will be disappointed.