Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A Valentine's weekend wonder
It’s hard to believe that one of Marvel’s hottest properties – Deadpool, has taken this long to get to the silver screen. Of course, we can always cast our minds back to 2009’s disastrous X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But for goodness sake, let’s not.
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Yet another missfire
It’s hard to remember such a lacklustre summer blockbuster season. From unnecessary sequels to underwhelming novel adaptations, it’s been one disappointment after another.
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Brilliant
Director Matthew Vaughn has brought some visually striking films to the big screen in his fairly short career, from the brilliant Layer Cake, to the movie which many credit as saving the X-Men franchise, First Class, he certainly knows his way around a camera.
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Giver (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Striking visual translation
Over the last decade, cinema-going audiences have had the treat of numerous adaptations of popular young adult novels. Some of them have been particularly great – the Harry Potter series the highlight – whilst others have been less than stellar – Twilight, I’m looking at you.
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zoolander 2 (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Fashion Faux pas
It pains me to say it, but Ben Stiller hasn’t really been relevant for quite some time. His last film, the final movie in the Night at the Museum franchise struggled with critics and audiences alike.
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Furious 7 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A Guilty Pleasure
Everyone needs a guilty pleasure and since 2001, audiences from across the globe have flocked to see The Fast & Furious franchise in all its over-the-top glory.
However, filming on the latest instalment, Fast & Furious 7, was delayed after the tragic death of lead actor Paul Walker, so does his untimely passing hurt the resulting movie?
Fast 7 continues after the events of Tokyo Drift and features the usual loveable rogues returning in their respective roles, including a beefed up part for Jason Statham who made a cameo in the sixth film.
Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Lucas Black and Ludacris all reprise their characters as they do battle against Statham’s villain, Deckard Shaw, who fans will remember is the brother of Owen Shaw from Fast 6.
The premise remains as simple as in previous instalments but continues the series’ trend for over-the-top action pieces that border on the ridiculous. Despite this, Fast 7 is the most watchable of the entire franchise with stunning locations, brilliant practical effects and surprising emotional heft.
James Wan directs what looks like a tourist information film for LA, Abu Dhabi and Tokyo but manages to keep the story flowing throughout the slightly overlong 137 minute running time. The fast cars and beautiful women are thrown at the audience thick and fast and the brakes aren’t applied until ten minutes before the end credits roll.
Thankfully, this is exactly what the series has become known for and the gorgeous settings are brilliantly juxtaposed with action-packed sequences including the much marketed mountain plane drop in Azerbaijan that is an absolute wonder to behold despite its use in the film’s trailers.
Vin Diesel’s Dom is what has grounded the series over the last 14 years but here it is Paul Walker’s Brian O’Conner that we find the most intriguing and it’s really no surprise. Ever since his death, fans were worried how tasteful the film would be, but there is no need to worry.
Despite the action, the fights and the sunshine, Fast 7 manages to provide a rollercoaster of emotion as the cameras linger on Walker’s face or put him at the forefront of each scene. As the final 10 minutes approach it’s clear that the movie is going to end on a deeply gut-wrenching tribute to him and there were a few tears in the cinema.
Nevertheless, it’s obvious a film that focuses on supercars isn’t going to have much of a plot but director James Wan, who comes to the franchise for the first time, should be commended for fashioning a half-coherent story despite going into the production with numerous delays and seven films in.
Overall, Fast 7 is a great slice of popcorn entertainment and should definitely rank high up as one of the better films in the series. However, the tragic circumstances surrounding its production make it so much more.
Yes it won’t be winning any awards for originality or acting prowess, but its emotional resonance means it’s worth a watch for fans of the series and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/05/a-guilty-pleasure-fast-furious-7-review/
However, filming on the latest instalment, Fast & Furious 7, was delayed after the tragic death of lead actor Paul Walker, so does his untimely passing hurt the resulting movie?
Fast 7 continues after the events of Tokyo Drift and features the usual loveable rogues returning in their respective roles, including a beefed up part for Jason Statham who made a cameo in the sixth film.
Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Lucas Black and Ludacris all reprise their characters as they do battle against Statham’s villain, Deckard Shaw, who fans will remember is the brother of Owen Shaw from Fast 6.
The premise remains as simple as in previous instalments but continues the series’ trend for over-the-top action pieces that border on the ridiculous. Despite this, Fast 7 is the most watchable of the entire franchise with stunning locations, brilliant practical effects and surprising emotional heft.
James Wan directs what looks like a tourist information film for LA, Abu Dhabi and Tokyo but manages to keep the story flowing throughout the slightly overlong 137 minute running time. The fast cars and beautiful women are thrown at the audience thick and fast and the brakes aren’t applied until ten minutes before the end credits roll.
Thankfully, this is exactly what the series has become known for and the gorgeous settings are brilliantly juxtaposed with action-packed sequences including the much marketed mountain plane drop in Azerbaijan that is an absolute wonder to behold despite its use in the film’s trailers.
Vin Diesel’s Dom is what has grounded the series over the last 14 years but here it is Paul Walker’s Brian O’Conner that we find the most intriguing and it’s really no surprise. Ever since his death, fans were worried how tasteful the film would be, but there is no need to worry.
Despite the action, the fights and the sunshine, Fast 7 manages to provide a rollercoaster of emotion as the cameras linger on Walker’s face or put him at the forefront of each scene. As the final 10 minutes approach it’s clear that the movie is going to end on a deeply gut-wrenching tribute to him and there were a few tears in the cinema.
Nevertheless, it’s obvious a film that focuses on supercars isn’t going to have much of a plot but director James Wan, who comes to the franchise for the first time, should be commended for fashioning a half-coherent story despite going into the production with numerous delays and seven films in.
Overall, Fast 7 is a great slice of popcorn entertainment and should definitely rank high up as one of the better films in the series. However, the tragic circumstances surrounding its production make it so much more.
Yes it won’t be winning any awards for originality or acting prowess, but its emotional resonance means it’s worth a watch for fans of the series and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/05/a-guilty-pleasure-fast-furious-7-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The News: A User's Manual in Books
Aug 5, 2018
I believe this book has the wrong title. Let me explain.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Oct 24, 2018 (Updated Oct 24, 2018)
Good ensemble cast (2 more)
Cool set design and use of space
Nice cinematography
Enjoy Your Stay
In this day and age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to go into a movie without already knowing a bunch of information about it. Somehow Bad Times At The El Royale managed that. Even though I was a week late to seeing this movie, I was still able to go into it with very little knowledge about what was going to unfold. That in and of itself is an impressive feat in 2018.
I had a great time with this movie. I loved the cast here, Jeff Bridges and Jon Hamm are among my favourite actors working in Hollywood and I though that Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job playing the villain for a change. The rest of the cast were fantastic too, other than Dakota Johnson, who was pretty wooden, (as we have come to expect from her.) As an aside, Cynthia Erivo's voice completely blew me away, I know that she has done some Broadway shows in the past, but she sounded incredible in this and I liked the way that her singing was tied in with the plot.
Bad Times is written and directed by Drew Goddard, who was also behind Cabin In The Woods and there are some similarities here, if you swap the horror elements out for mystery. I have also seen multiple reviews compare this to a Tarantino movie. There are obviously similarities in the structure that this film uses and the out-of-chronological-order structure that a Tarantino movie tends to follow, but I'd argue that Bad Times has it's own distinct and unique style.
I also thought that the cinematography was very effective throughout the film. The opening scene was very well shot, as was the scene when Hemsworth's character was introduced. The score also worked well with the plot and the dialogue and script were well written too.
The main negative that affected my enjoyment of the movie, were the decisions made regarding the pacing. The movie is split up so that we see things happen out of sequence or they are seen more than once from a different perspective. We are introduced to each new character and then we are given their backstory via a flashback. The main issue with this structure is that the flashbacks break the momentum of the events happening in the current story. Without spoiling too much, towards the end of the movie, everything comes to a head and an intense fight/shootout breaks out. Then, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers decide to slam on the brakes and give us another arbitrary flashback. It totally broke the immersion and intensity of the shootout sequence for me.
Overall, I had a good time watching Bad Times. I had no expectations going in as I didn't know much about the movie other than what had been shown in the trailers and I enjoyed witnessing what the movie had to offer. If you are looking for an exciting, suspenseful thriller, then you could definitely do worse than spending a stay at The El Royale.
I had a great time with this movie. I loved the cast here, Jeff Bridges and Jon Hamm are among my favourite actors working in Hollywood and I though that Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job playing the villain for a change. The rest of the cast were fantastic too, other than Dakota Johnson, who was pretty wooden, (as we have come to expect from her.) As an aside, Cynthia Erivo's voice completely blew me away, I know that she has done some Broadway shows in the past, but she sounded incredible in this and I liked the way that her singing was tied in with the plot.
Bad Times is written and directed by Drew Goddard, who was also behind Cabin In The Woods and there are some similarities here, if you swap the horror elements out for mystery. I have also seen multiple reviews compare this to a Tarantino movie. There are obviously similarities in the structure that this film uses and the out-of-chronological-order structure that a Tarantino movie tends to follow, but I'd argue that Bad Times has it's own distinct and unique style.
I also thought that the cinematography was very effective throughout the film. The opening scene was very well shot, as was the scene when Hemsworth's character was introduced. The score also worked well with the plot and the dialogue and script were well written too.
The main negative that affected my enjoyment of the movie, were the decisions made regarding the pacing. The movie is split up so that we see things happen out of sequence or they are seen more than once from a different perspective. We are introduced to each new character and then we are given their backstory via a flashback. The main issue with this structure is that the flashbacks break the momentum of the events happening in the current story. Without spoiling too much, towards the end of the movie, everything comes to a head and an intense fight/shootout breaks out. Then, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers decide to slam on the brakes and give us another arbitrary flashback. It totally broke the immersion and intensity of the shootout sequence for me.
Overall, I had a good time watching Bad Times. I had no expectations going in as I didn't know much about the movie other than what had been shown in the trailers and I enjoyed witnessing what the movie had to offer. If you are looking for an exciting, suspenseful thriller, then you could definitely do worse than spending a stay at The El Royale.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Big Hero 6 (2014) in Movies
Nov 5, 2018
Phenomenal
Big Hero 6 sits on top for me as probably the best under-the-radar film of all-time. No one talks about it or really brings it up. Anytime I mention its greatness, I get the typical response: “Well, yeah, I guess it was kind of awesome.” Not only is it one of the best under-the-radar films, but it’s the best film I have reviewed so far. Disagree all you want, but hear me out on my argument.
Set in the swanky, futuristic city of San Fransokyo, Big Hero 6 is the story of how young Hiro Hamada develops an unlikely friendship with his brother’s marshmallow-esque robot Baymax and they form an unlikely superhero team.
Acting: 10
Each voice actor does an excellent job capturing the essence of their character. Strong, emotional moments suck you into the film and keep you invested. As in most Disney films, there are no weaknesses from an acting standpoint. Damon Wayans Jr. was my personal favorite playing the role of Wasabi one of Hiro’s friends. He doesn’t dominate the scenes that he stars in, but definitely manages to make the most of his lines.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The animations are beautiful and crisp. The opening scene provides a breathtaking view of the city of San Fransokyo. Building lights pop against the night sky. Bay waters glimmer. Attention to detail is exquisite. There is one scene where Hiro and Baymax are falling through an open window in slow-motion. Bushes below rustle while glass flies past them. It only lasts for a couple of seconds, but it’s a testament to the solid work that went into the animation of this film.
The powers the team displayed added to the film’s visual prowess. I loved watching Fred breathe fire in his awful (and also hilarious) superhero costume. Their powers and team-ups made for some stunning battles against a unique villain.
Conflict: 10
I am amazed at the balance of story and action as a film typically has to sacrifice one over the other. Even during their earlier training phases, the action is both consistent and non-stop. It fills the entire landscape of the screen. From battles to car chases to harrowing escapes, Big Hero 6 establishes and maintains a high level of intensity.
Genre: 10
Not only does this film establish itself as one of the best animated films ever done, but it’s also one of the best superhero films ever made. The fact that it excels in both genres just speaks of the film’s overall greatness. I expected to like it, but I never expected to love it. Big Hero 6 is easily in the same class as The Incredibles.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
The ending is perfect. Sappy, yet believable. Great wrap-up of a great movie.
Overall: 100
A great family film with solid superhero action and a fun, meaningful story you can get behind. What more do you need? Loved this movie.
Set in the swanky, futuristic city of San Fransokyo, Big Hero 6 is the story of how young Hiro Hamada develops an unlikely friendship with his brother’s marshmallow-esque robot Baymax and they form an unlikely superhero team.
Acting: 10
Each voice actor does an excellent job capturing the essence of their character. Strong, emotional moments suck you into the film and keep you invested. As in most Disney films, there are no weaknesses from an acting standpoint. Damon Wayans Jr. was my personal favorite playing the role of Wasabi one of Hiro’s friends. He doesn’t dominate the scenes that he stars in, but definitely manages to make the most of his lines.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The animations are beautiful and crisp. The opening scene provides a breathtaking view of the city of San Fransokyo. Building lights pop against the night sky. Bay waters glimmer. Attention to detail is exquisite. There is one scene where Hiro and Baymax are falling through an open window in slow-motion. Bushes below rustle while glass flies past them. It only lasts for a couple of seconds, but it’s a testament to the solid work that went into the animation of this film.
The powers the team displayed added to the film’s visual prowess. I loved watching Fred breathe fire in his awful (and also hilarious) superhero costume. Their powers and team-ups made for some stunning battles against a unique villain.
Conflict: 10
I am amazed at the balance of story and action as a film typically has to sacrifice one over the other. Even during their earlier training phases, the action is both consistent and non-stop. It fills the entire landscape of the screen. From battles to car chases to harrowing escapes, Big Hero 6 establishes and maintains a high level of intensity.
Genre: 10
Not only does this film establish itself as one of the best animated films ever done, but it’s also one of the best superhero films ever made. The fact that it excels in both genres just speaks of the film’s overall greatness. I expected to like it, but I never expected to love it. Big Hero 6 is easily in the same class as The Incredibles.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
The ending is perfect. Sappy, yet believable. Great wrap-up of a great movie.
Overall: 100
A great family film with solid superhero action and a fun, meaningful story you can get behind. What more do you need? Loved this movie.