Search
Search results
Colin Newman recommended The Amateur View by To Rococo Rot in Music (curated)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021 (Updated Oct 2, 2021)
The latest entry into the MCU is a definitely a ride, both in terms of quality and in what unfolds on screen. The things I disliked about Shang-Chi are very clear cut - it's pacing is all over the place, there's an unholy amount of exposition dumps, and the humourous moments didn't always land. I have nothing against Awkwafina, but her character here is a constant quip-machine, and takes up a hefty amount of screen time, whilst simultaneously feeling a little pointless when all is said and done.
However, the things I did like about Shang-Chi are also extremely clear cut. For a starter, I'm just generally stoked that the character himself has his own movie. We've come a long way since X-Men blew the superhero genre wide open back in 2000.
It has a great cast, including lead Simu Liu, as well as the likes of Tony Leung and Michelle Yeoh. The inner comic book nerd in me was beyond excited to see minor villains such as Razor Fist and Death Dealer on screen, and then of course (no spoilers!) a third act villain that is a true deep cut from the comics. Tony Leung's Wenwu aka The Mandarin strikes an imposing presence as the main big bad, and the subsequent theme of power and family gives the movie a beating, if tragic, heart.
Pretty much all of the fight scenes are great, and any flaws that I found were completely obliterated by the batshit insane final third, that honestly verges on live action anime at times.
The general tone of this movie feels like something new for the MCU. From street level fighting, to crazy fantasy style set pieces, to the exploration of Asian culture, Shang-Chi is a fresh new entry for the MCU, as the studio steps a little further out of its comfort zone. Please try to see it on the big screen if you can!
However, the things I did like about Shang-Chi are also extremely clear cut. For a starter, I'm just generally stoked that the character himself has his own movie. We've come a long way since X-Men blew the superhero genre wide open back in 2000.
It has a great cast, including lead Simu Liu, as well as the likes of Tony Leung and Michelle Yeoh. The inner comic book nerd in me was beyond excited to see minor villains such as Razor Fist and Death Dealer on screen, and then of course (no spoilers!) a third act villain that is a true deep cut from the comics. Tony Leung's Wenwu aka The Mandarin strikes an imposing presence as the main big bad, and the subsequent theme of power and family gives the movie a beating, if tragic, heart.
Pretty much all of the fight scenes are great, and any flaws that I found were completely obliterated by the batshit insane final third, that honestly verges on live action anime at times.
The general tone of this movie feels like something new for the MCU. From street level fighting, to crazy fantasy style set pieces, to the exploration of Asian culture, Shang-Chi is a fresh new entry for the MCU, as the studio steps a little further out of its comfort zone. Please try to see it on the big screen if you can!
Hazel (2934 KP) rated The Boy in the Attic (Wartime Holland Book 3) in Books
Aug 28, 2022
Firstly, I must point out that the description I was provided with (above) was not accurate to how the book played out - I'm not sure what happened there but regardless, it's still a really good story and although part of a series, it can most definitely be read as a standalone.
The Boy in the Attic is a story told from 2 timelines, 2 perspectives and 2 countries.
Ilse's story takes place in Holland during World War II. The Nazi's have put a halt to her studies to become a doctor and she is living with her parents. Food is scarce and it's a daily battle to find enough to keep them from starving to death. Ilse then receives a request to help out at a hospital and she moves to live with her friend and her parents but what she discovers and the choices she makes, puts all their lives in jeopardy.
Anna's story is based in the UK in the early 2000's. Her father has just past away and whilst sorting through his affairs, discovers he was adopted and his origins are in Holland. Anna sets out to find out more.
I found the dual timelines worked really well although I admit to being more emotionally attached to Ilse's story. Both characters are well developed and I found myself completely immersed in both their stories and desperate to find out how Ilse and Anna were connected.
I found Ilse's story captivating, Anna's not as much but they worked well together and I did feel connected and invested in both their stories to the end.
This is a story of heartbreak and tragedy but also one of discovery and survival and one I would recommend to those who enjoy historical fiction stories that are set in this period. This one uses the author's own family history to give a believable feel to this story.
Thanks go to Bookouture and NetGalley for enabling me to read The Boy in the Attic and share my views.
The Boy in the Attic is a story told from 2 timelines, 2 perspectives and 2 countries.
Ilse's story takes place in Holland during World War II. The Nazi's have put a halt to her studies to become a doctor and she is living with her parents. Food is scarce and it's a daily battle to find enough to keep them from starving to death. Ilse then receives a request to help out at a hospital and she moves to live with her friend and her parents but what she discovers and the choices she makes, puts all their lives in jeopardy.
Anna's story is based in the UK in the early 2000's. Her father has just past away and whilst sorting through his affairs, discovers he was adopted and his origins are in Holland. Anna sets out to find out more.
I found the dual timelines worked really well although I admit to being more emotionally attached to Ilse's story. Both characters are well developed and I found myself completely immersed in both their stories and desperate to find out how Ilse and Anna were connected.
I found Ilse's story captivating, Anna's not as much but they worked well together and I did feel connected and invested in both their stories to the end.
This is a story of heartbreak and tragedy but also one of discovery and survival and one I would recommend to those who enjoy historical fiction stories that are set in this period. This one uses the author's own family history to give a believable feel to this story.
Thanks go to Bookouture and NetGalley for enabling me to read The Boy in the Attic and share my views.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Door (Seventh Dimenson #1) in Books
Nov 12, 2019
Shale Snyder is a troubled teenager. Her father left her mother when she was little, she has alienated almost all of the other children around her and has problems at school. Following yet another incident she is suspended and feels totally cast adrift. At this point she finds a door and hears a voice calling her to enter...
There is quite a clever concept at the heart of this book; that the Holy Land at the time of Jesus is a sort of dimensional nexus where those who are called can travel and gain spiritual help for themselves as well as the other travellers. It is a fine blending of both science fiction and Christian concepts.
There is also much of The Pilgrim's Progress about this, with Shale's journey and the characters she meets. And although she is living near Nazareth and does encounter Jesus (and other people mentioned in the bible) the religious side is not forced but comes naturally from the narrative. There is also a fair smattering of The Wizard of Oz, as the dimensional copy of the Holy Land from 2000 years ago also contains versions of people that Shale knows from home.
The result is a book that shows how even a little faith by someone as lost as Shale can give her the will to turn her life around and make herself and those around her better people. It is a very positive message, though not gained without significant trials.
There are a couple of negatives. Sometimes the narrative thread can be a little confusing, a side-effect of the dimension-hopping aspect of the story. Also some of the characters appear to serve little purpose, but perhaps as this is the first of a series they will come into play in later books. There is also one comment from her friend Daniel (another traveller from modern-day Israel) that did concern me, I hope this is due to his personal experience rather than a theme of future books.
Overall this is an engrossing read, managing to deliver a positive Christian message without labouring the point and providing a good story arc for Shale to keep the reader invested in the story
There is quite a clever concept at the heart of this book; that the Holy Land at the time of Jesus is a sort of dimensional nexus where those who are called can travel and gain spiritual help for themselves as well as the other travellers. It is a fine blending of both science fiction and Christian concepts.
There is also much of The Pilgrim's Progress about this, with Shale's journey and the characters she meets. And although she is living near Nazareth and does encounter Jesus (and other people mentioned in the bible) the religious side is not forced but comes naturally from the narrative. There is also a fair smattering of The Wizard of Oz, as the dimensional copy of the Holy Land from 2000 years ago also contains versions of people that Shale knows from home.
The result is a book that shows how even a little faith by someone as lost as Shale can give her the will to turn her life around and make herself and those around her better people. It is a very positive message, though not gained without significant trials.
There are a couple of negatives. Sometimes the narrative thread can be a little confusing, a side-effect of the dimension-hopping aspect of the story. Also some of the characters appear to serve little purpose, but perhaps as this is the first of a series they will come into play in later books. There is also one comment from her friend Daniel (another traveller from modern-day Israel) that did concern me, I hope this is due to his personal experience rather than a theme of future books.
Overall this is an engrossing read, managing to deliver a positive Christian message without labouring the point and providing a good story arc for Shale to keep the reader invested in the story
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Shaft (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Shaft Gets The Shaft In This Newest Reboot/Update
Shaft is a 2019 action/comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kenya Barris. This film was produced by New Line Cinema and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. It stars Samuel L. Jackson, Jessie Usher, Regina Hall, Alexandra Shipp, and Richard Roundtree.
After a failed assassination attempt, Maya Babanikos (Regina Hall), his wife, leaves Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) and takes their son, John "JJ." Shaft Jr., to raise on her own. 25 years later, Karim (Avan Jogia), a childhood friend of "JJ"'s, dies of a heroin overdose. JJ who is a cyber security expert and FBI Agent concludes he must have been murdered. After being violently ejected by drug dealers when investigating who sold the heroin that killed his friend; he is left with no other recourse but turn to his father, Shaft, for help.
This movie was a lot different from how I remember the last one which came out in 2000. I remember that one being more serious and more thriller, where they were trying to catch the bad guy. This one seemed to make too light of the action but did deliver on the laughs occasionally. Also I don't remember the last film being as "adult" when it came to language or nudity either, but I like how the movie acknowledged the main characters dialogue when his son tries to talk like him. Jessie Usher was very funny as JJ but I personally felt that he was trying to act like Nick Canon, which if that's what they were going for, they could have got him instead. It's an ok movie if your looking for something funny with action and don't care about things like story telling, plot, and the characters walking around with "plot armor". All in all, this movie was good but nothing special, I would just wait for it to go to dollar movies, red box or Netflix instead of wasting money at the movies. Of course if you need your fix of Samuel L. Jackson, then you might want to give this movie a shot. I remember the last one being a lot better. I give this movie a 5/10.
After a failed assassination attempt, Maya Babanikos (Regina Hall), his wife, leaves Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) and takes their son, John "JJ." Shaft Jr., to raise on her own. 25 years later, Karim (Avan Jogia), a childhood friend of "JJ"'s, dies of a heroin overdose. JJ who is a cyber security expert and FBI Agent concludes he must have been murdered. After being violently ejected by drug dealers when investigating who sold the heroin that killed his friend; he is left with no other recourse but turn to his father, Shaft, for help.
This movie was a lot different from how I remember the last one which came out in 2000. I remember that one being more serious and more thriller, where they were trying to catch the bad guy. This one seemed to make too light of the action but did deliver on the laughs occasionally. Also I don't remember the last film being as "adult" when it came to language or nudity either, but I like how the movie acknowledged the main characters dialogue when his son tries to talk like him. Jessie Usher was very funny as JJ but I personally felt that he was trying to act like Nick Canon, which if that's what they were going for, they could have got him instead. It's an ok movie if your looking for something funny with action and don't care about things like story telling, plot, and the characters walking around with "plot armor". All in all, this movie was good but nothing special, I would just wait for it to go to dollar movies, red box or Netflix instead of wasting money at the movies. Of course if you need your fix of Samuel L. Jackson, then you might want to give this movie a shot. I remember the last one being a lot better. I give this movie a 5/10.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Krypton in TV
Jul 7, 2020
Krypton Is No Kryptonite, Despite No Supes
Shaft is a 2019 action/comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kenya Barris. This film was produced by New Line Cinema and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. It stars Samuel L. Jackson, Jessie Usher, Regina Hall, Alexandra Shipp, and Richard Roundtree.
After a failed assassination attempt, Maya Babanikos (Regina Hall), his wife, leaves Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) and takes their son, John "JJ." Shaft Jr., to raise on her own. 25 years later, Karim (Avan Jogia), a childhood friend of "JJ"'s, dies of a heroin overdose. JJ who is a cyber security expert and FBI Agent concludes he must have been murdered. After being violently ejected by drug dealers when investigating who sold the heroin that killed his friend; he is left with no other recourse but turn to his father, Shaft, for help.
This movie was a lot different from how I remember the last one which came out in 2000. I remember that one being more serious and more thriller, where they were trying to catch the bad guy. This one seemed to make too light of the action but did deliver on the laughs occasionally. Also I don't remember the last film being as "adult" when it came to language or nudity either, but I like how the movie acknowledged the main characters dialogue when his son tries to talk like him. Jessie Usher was very funny as JJ but I personally felt that he was trying to act like Nick Canon, which if that's what they were going for, they could have got him instead. It's an ok movie if your looking for something funny with action and don't care about things like story telling, plot, and the characters walking around with "plot armor". All in all, this movie was good but nothing special, I would just wait for it to go to dollar movies, red box or Netflix instead of wasting money at the movies. Of course if you need your fix of Samuel L. Jackson, then you might want to give this movie a shot. I remember the last one being a lot better. I give this movie a 5/10.
After a failed assassination attempt, Maya Babanikos (Regina Hall), his wife, leaves Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) and takes their son, John "JJ." Shaft Jr., to raise on her own. 25 years later, Karim (Avan Jogia), a childhood friend of "JJ"'s, dies of a heroin overdose. JJ who is a cyber security expert and FBI Agent concludes he must have been murdered. After being violently ejected by drug dealers when investigating who sold the heroin that killed his friend; he is left with no other recourse but turn to his father, Shaft, for help.
This movie was a lot different from how I remember the last one which came out in 2000. I remember that one being more serious and more thriller, where they were trying to catch the bad guy. This one seemed to make too light of the action but did deliver on the laughs occasionally. Also I don't remember the last film being as "adult" when it came to language or nudity either, but I like how the movie acknowledged the main characters dialogue when his son tries to talk like him. Jessie Usher was very funny as JJ but I personally felt that he was trying to act like Nick Canon, which if that's what they were going for, they could have got him instead. It's an ok movie if your looking for something funny with action and don't care about things like story telling, plot, and the characters walking around with "plot armor". All in all, this movie was good but nothing special, I would just wait for it to go to dollar movies, red box or Netflix instead of wasting money at the movies. Of course if you need your fix of Samuel L. Jackson, then you might want to give this movie a shot. I remember the last one being a lot better. I give this movie a 5/10.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Monster Hunter (2020) in Movies
Feb 24, 2021
Absolutely Disastrous
Monster Hunter is the 15th feature film directed by Paul WS Anderson and is based on a popular gaming franchise of the same name. This is not Anderson’s first attempt at a video game movie, as he is arguably best known for giving us the Resident Evil movie series and the 1995 version of Mortal Kombat.
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020
Ritchie back on form
It's about time Guy Ritchie went back to what he does best. After the terrible Aladdin and King Arthur over the past couple of years, and the ok but not great Man from UNCLE and Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie really needs something good. And whilst for me this didn't quite meet the high expectations set by Snatch and Lock, Stock, it's by far the best thing he's done since 2000's Snatch.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Riddick (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Vin Diesel hits the silver screen in the third installment of the Chronicles of Riddick series. As you would expect, Diesel delivers on a role crafted solely for him.
Pitch Black opened in 2000, heralding a unique story with a compelling main character. Riddick was unique for his planning skills and killer instincts, and he possessed eyes with a “shine job,” which allowed him to see effectively in the dark. He was a convict — a killer — but he possessed enough of a conscience to be endearing and for the audience to identify with him.
In the second film (Chronicles of Riddick), an entirely different storyline unfolded. It showed Riddick as a hero, taking control of the Necromonger horde.
The third and newest film opens to show Riddick broken and stranded on a desolate planet. We watch as he ponders how he got into his current situation. After a brief flashback to the events of the second movie, the film segues into the new story — which feels very reminiscent of the first. This time around, Riddick is up against bounty hunters.
The beginning third of the film pits Riddick against nature itself. Later, the bounty hunters arrive, and the game of cat and mouse goes into overdrive.
I found the transition from the second film to the third adequate, but unsatisfying.
The script, acting, action, and cinematography are all top notch. I was happy with the production value. It didn’t feel cheap or cheesy at all; the effects seemed believable.
I enjoyed the humor. I also appreciated the complexity of the Riddick character, something fans of the series have all come to love.
There were a few plot holes, and a couple of inconsistencies, but overall it’s a great film.
One of the greatest parts of the film is Katee Sackhoff (“Starbuck” of Battlestar Galactica fame), and her bare breast. (I’m a hetero dude — sue me!) The other gratuitous nudity (including one shot of a woman’s shaved groin area) was appropriate and served as great icing on the filmography cake.
My main criticism is that this movie had almost nothing to do with the previous films. There were two great tie-ins, but it never felt like a true continuation of the story line, not in any meaningful way. It was very unsatisfying in that respect However, as a stand-alone action film featuring Riddick, it delivers.
This movie is well worth seeing, but it will dissapoint those looking for strong continuity with the other parts of the franchise.
Pitch Black opened in 2000, heralding a unique story with a compelling main character. Riddick was unique for his planning skills and killer instincts, and he possessed eyes with a “shine job,” which allowed him to see effectively in the dark. He was a convict — a killer — but he possessed enough of a conscience to be endearing and for the audience to identify with him.
In the second film (Chronicles of Riddick), an entirely different storyline unfolded. It showed Riddick as a hero, taking control of the Necromonger horde.
The third and newest film opens to show Riddick broken and stranded on a desolate planet. We watch as he ponders how he got into his current situation. After a brief flashback to the events of the second movie, the film segues into the new story — which feels very reminiscent of the first. This time around, Riddick is up against bounty hunters.
The beginning third of the film pits Riddick against nature itself. Later, the bounty hunters arrive, and the game of cat and mouse goes into overdrive.
I found the transition from the second film to the third adequate, but unsatisfying.
The script, acting, action, and cinematography are all top notch. I was happy with the production value. It didn’t feel cheap or cheesy at all; the effects seemed believable.
I enjoyed the humor. I also appreciated the complexity of the Riddick character, something fans of the series have all come to love.
There were a few plot holes, and a couple of inconsistencies, but overall it’s a great film.
One of the greatest parts of the film is Katee Sackhoff (“Starbuck” of Battlestar Galactica fame), and her bare breast. (I’m a hetero dude — sue me!) The other gratuitous nudity (including one shot of a woman’s shaved groin area) was appropriate and served as great icing on the filmography cake.
My main criticism is that this movie had almost nothing to do with the previous films. There were two great tie-ins, but it never felt like a true continuation of the story line, not in any meaningful way. It was very unsatisfying in that respect However, as a stand-alone action film featuring Riddick, it delivers.
This movie is well worth seeing, but it will dissapoint those looking for strong continuity with the other parts of the franchise.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
And so to the latest incarnation in Spider-man Homecoming. After seeing Tom Holland in Civil War, well, let's just say that I was not convinced. Then the adverts where he's making the home movie of everything... yeah that began to grate a bit.
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!