Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated A Series of Unfortunate Events - Season 1 in TV
Jul 26, 2017
The latest adaptation of the thirteen books comprising ‘A Series of Unfortunate Events’ makes its way onto Netflix, the last being the 2004 film starring Jim Carrey. I haven’t read any of the books, or seen the movie. However my daughter has, and she loves them (the books, not so much the movie). So, we sat down together to watch season 1, which covers the first four books in the series, with two episodes devoted to each book.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Awesome
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018 (Updated May 18, 2018)
Some razor sharp lines of dialogue (2 more)
Clever direction
Extremely funny from start to finish
The Merc With A Mouth Is Back
Contains spoilers, click to show
Deadpool 2 is the kind of sequel that knows exactly what it is. It doesn't pretend to be anything original and it's main focus is getting a laugh out of it's audience over anything else. It succeeds greatly at this with the film being hilarious throughout and it comes very close to being as funny as it's predecessor, it just doesn't quite get there. I think that the main reason for this is because it chooses to focus more on a story than the last one did and through that, the humour loses some of the momentum that it builds up.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2019
Solid Film For a Solid Trilogy
In this third installment, Hiccup is trying to find a home for all the dragons the community keeps bringing in while Toothless come across a dragon that he can’t seem to stay away from.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
It wasn’t like I didn’t like the characters as I would probably score this category for the previous two films much higher. I think my biggest concern was the cohesiveness between the characters. It felt like everyone was off doing their own thing and there wasn’t much of a connection like there was in the past two films. Maybe I was missing something, but I didn’t feel the connection I was hoping to between Hiccup and his mom. Sure she had been missing from his life for the majority of his childhood, but I feel like an opportunity was missed here to bring them closer.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
This series has been known for its stunning visuals to date and the third installment doesn’t disappoint. There’s so much attention to detail, especially as it pertains to the dragons. There are a countless number of dragons, each with their own abilities, size, and strength. it’s cool watching them take flight in numbers through the clouds and over the ocean.
Conflict: 10
Those who are coming to be entertained won’t be disappointed with the amount of action in the movie. From its hot start and onwards, you can expect plenty of hand-to-hand combat, dragon battles, and narrow getaways. The way the air dynamics are used is something that has been perfected since the first movie and keeps getting better. The conflict was aided greatly by a solid villain with some pretty creepy dragons.
Genre: 8
It’s hard for the third movie in a trilogy to receive a perfect score from a genre standpoint. While this movie does bring some of its own flare to the animated genre, there is a bit of it that feels like more of the same. Not a bad thing, but I would be looking for a little bit more to score this higher.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
Never really a dull moment as the story is handled consistently and properly throughout. My nephew needed to go to the bathroom somewhere in the middle of the film and there was action happening even as I was walking him down and back up the stairs. The plot development is not overdone and cuts right back into conflict when necessary.
Plot: 10
No issues here. Basic and straightforward, but enough to build a story on. They found a way to bring the series to a fitting ending.
Resolution: 10
Very fitting and touching ending for this series. It was exactly what I could have hoped for and then some. The type of ending (a la Toy Story 3) that made me sorry to see the series go.
Overall: 92
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World gets off to a decent start then does nothing but build momentum throughout. While it didn’t wow me with originality, it most certainly entertained me and that, to me, is largely what a good movie is all about. You and your kids wlll love it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
It wasn’t like I didn’t like the characters as I would probably score this category for the previous two films much higher. I think my biggest concern was the cohesiveness between the characters. It felt like everyone was off doing their own thing and there wasn’t much of a connection like there was in the past two films. Maybe I was missing something, but I didn’t feel the connection I was hoping to between Hiccup and his mom. Sure she had been missing from his life for the majority of his childhood, but I feel like an opportunity was missed here to bring them closer.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
This series has been known for its stunning visuals to date and the third installment doesn’t disappoint. There’s so much attention to detail, especially as it pertains to the dragons. There are a countless number of dragons, each with their own abilities, size, and strength. it’s cool watching them take flight in numbers through the clouds and over the ocean.
Conflict: 10
Those who are coming to be entertained won’t be disappointed with the amount of action in the movie. From its hot start and onwards, you can expect plenty of hand-to-hand combat, dragon battles, and narrow getaways. The way the air dynamics are used is something that has been perfected since the first movie and keeps getting better. The conflict was aided greatly by a solid villain with some pretty creepy dragons.
Genre: 8
It’s hard for the third movie in a trilogy to receive a perfect score from a genre standpoint. While this movie does bring some of its own flare to the animated genre, there is a bit of it that feels like more of the same. Not a bad thing, but I would be looking for a little bit more to score this higher.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
Never really a dull moment as the story is handled consistently and properly throughout. My nephew needed to go to the bathroom somewhere in the middle of the film and there was action happening even as I was walking him down and back up the stairs. The plot development is not overdone and cuts right back into conflict when necessary.
Plot: 10
No issues here. Basic and straightforward, but enough to build a story on. They found a way to bring the series to a fitting ending.
Resolution: 10
Very fitting and touching ending for this series. It was exactly what I could have hoped for and then some. The type of ending (a la Toy Story 3) that made me sorry to see the series go.
Overall: 92
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World gets off to a decent start then does nothing but build momentum throughout. While it didn’t wow me with originality, it most certainly entertained me and that, to me, is largely what a good movie is all about. You and your kids wlll love it.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated McLintock! (1963) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Visuals but Nothing Else
A cattle baron’s wife returns after a two-year separation wanting a divorce.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Marvel touch
The first thing I’m going to tell you about Spider-Man: Homecoming is that it has been gloriously undersold in its uninspiring trailers and promotional posters. In fact, most of the marketing materials shown made it look like this would be Iron Man 4 ft. Peter Parker. Thankfully that’s not the case.
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Welcome back, chaps
Kingsman: The Secret Service was one of the surprise hits of 2014. Marketed poorly by an unassuming set of trailers, the end result was a film as big a surprise as Guardians of the Galaxy was.
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Turning the beloved Ghost in the Shell manga franchise into a Hollywood film that’ll please picky Western audiences was always going to be a tough job for director Rupert Sanders (Snow White & the Huntsman).
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/