Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Good sci-fi, but a poor sequel
Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot in common with last year’s Jurassic World. They both are long-awaited sequels to fan-favourite blockbusters, bringing a new generation the same thrills and spills of their forbearers.
Unfortunately, it just so happens that they share the same pitfalls too. But is Independence Day: Resurgence a match for its 1996 predecessor? Or does it crash and burn?
Roland Emmerich returns to the director’s chair, bringing the same breadth of destruction he’s brought to all of his films. The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and White House Down all prove he’s the master of the apocalypse and Resurgence is no exception.
As the Fourth of July nears, satellite engineer David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) investigates a 3,000-mile-wide mother ship that’s approaching Earth. Fortunately, 20 years earlier, nations across the world started to use recovered extra-terrestrial technology to develop an immense defence program. When the alien invaders attack with unprecedented force, the U.S. president, teams of scientists and brave fighter pilots spring into action to save the planet from a seemingly invincible enemy.
Emmerich throws everything he can at the screen in a film just shy of two hours. The pace rarely lets up and it’s a rollercoaster ride to watch. Dozens of global landmarks are destroyed as our characters race to stop the new alien invasion.
Liam Hemsworth (The Hunger Games), Sela Ward (Gone Girl) and Jessie Usher make up the majority of the new cast with Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch providing a warm sense of nostalgia from the first film. There’s no return for Will Smith, with Jessie Usher playing his step-son and his character is conveniently written out.
Unfortunately, despite the talents of the new cast, the script doesn’t really give them anything to sink their teeth into and the overabundance of, admittedly breath-taking CGI, means there’s nothing there for them to react to – and it shows. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see Jeff Goldblum front and centre after nearly a decade of small film roles.
It’s just a shame that the script is wholly unoriginal. We saw most of it done in 1996, and frankly done better. Since then, there have been countless generic sci-fi flicks that have pushed the same simple premise on their audience and Resurgence suffers due to its timing more than anything else.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all good fun IF you’re a fan of the genre, and there are some nice references to the first film. The aliens themselves look fantastic and the cinematography is generally very impressive, especially during the aerial bound action sequences.
However, things unravel at the finale. With what is undoubtedly one of the most stupid endings ever put to film, it’s hard not to laugh in amazement as you ponder just what was said around the production table to end up with a final act as ill-advised as this.
Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot going for it. A likeable new and returning cast is bolstered by brilliant, if overused, CGI and a frantic pace. Unfortunately, it’s a victim of its timing and as such is a decent sci-fi flick, but a poor sequel to its fantastic predecessor.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/24/good-sci-fi-but-a-poor-sequel-independence-day-resurgence-review/
Unfortunately, it just so happens that they share the same pitfalls too. But is Independence Day: Resurgence a match for its 1996 predecessor? Or does it crash and burn?
Roland Emmerich returns to the director’s chair, bringing the same breadth of destruction he’s brought to all of his films. The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and White House Down all prove he’s the master of the apocalypse and Resurgence is no exception.
As the Fourth of July nears, satellite engineer David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) investigates a 3,000-mile-wide mother ship that’s approaching Earth. Fortunately, 20 years earlier, nations across the world started to use recovered extra-terrestrial technology to develop an immense defence program. When the alien invaders attack with unprecedented force, the U.S. president, teams of scientists and brave fighter pilots spring into action to save the planet from a seemingly invincible enemy.
Emmerich throws everything he can at the screen in a film just shy of two hours. The pace rarely lets up and it’s a rollercoaster ride to watch. Dozens of global landmarks are destroyed as our characters race to stop the new alien invasion.
Liam Hemsworth (The Hunger Games), Sela Ward (Gone Girl) and Jessie Usher make up the majority of the new cast with Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch providing a warm sense of nostalgia from the first film. There’s no return for Will Smith, with Jessie Usher playing his step-son and his character is conveniently written out.
Unfortunately, despite the talents of the new cast, the script doesn’t really give them anything to sink their teeth into and the overabundance of, admittedly breath-taking CGI, means there’s nothing there for them to react to – and it shows. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see Jeff Goldblum front and centre after nearly a decade of small film roles.
It’s just a shame that the script is wholly unoriginal. We saw most of it done in 1996, and frankly done better. Since then, there have been countless generic sci-fi flicks that have pushed the same simple premise on their audience and Resurgence suffers due to its timing more than anything else.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all good fun IF you’re a fan of the genre, and there are some nice references to the first film. The aliens themselves look fantastic and the cinematography is generally very impressive, especially during the aerial bound action sequences.
However, things unravel at the finale. With what is undoubtedly one of the most stupid endings ever put to film, it’s hard not to laugh in amazement as you ponder just what was said around the production table to end up with a final act as ill-advised as this.
Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot going for it. A likeable new and returning cast is bolstered by brilliant, if overused, CGI and a frantic pace. Unfortunately, it’s a victim of its timing and as such is a decent sci-fi flick, but a poor sequel to its fantastic predecessor.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/24/good-sci-fi-but-a-poor-sequel-independence-day-resurgence-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Titanic in the Sky
Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence are two of the world’s most bankable stars. What with Pratt helping to resurrect prehistoric franchises like Jurassic Park and Lawrence turning The Hunger Games series into one of the biggest ever, it seems they are the people Hollywood wants to work with, right here, right now.
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
No Big Bloomers?
Bridget Jones’s Diary is a classic example of the perfect British rom-com. Upon its release in 2001, yes 15 years ago, it catapulted Renée Zellweger into the public eye and made household names of its other stars.
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghostbusters (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I ain't afraid of no reboot
So it’s here. One of the most reviled films of the decade before it was even released; the Ghostbusters reboot has a tough job persuading fans of the original films and newcomers alike that it’s worth their time.
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
With director Paul Feig, stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth and the backing of the series’ previous stars, it’s certainly got a lot going for it, but does the finished product soar or deserve all those dislikes on YouTube? The most disliked film trailer in YouTube history.
Paranormal researcher Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) are trying to prove that ghosts exist in modern society. When strange apparitions appear in Manhattan, Gilbert and Yates turn to engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) for help. Also joining the team is Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), a lifelong New Yorker who knows the city inside and out. Armed with proton packs and plenty of attitude, the four women prepare for an epic battle as thousands of ghosts descend on Times Square.
To look at, Ghostbusters is absolutely stunning with breath-taking CGI coupled with sweeping shots of New York’s famous skyline. With the exception of The Jungle Book, there simply hasn’t been a film so far this year that has looked this good. The ghouls are rendered with brilliant special effects that culminate at the finale for a cracking female-led battle and Slimer even makes an appearance – what more could you ask for?
This is also a witty, occasionally hilarious and on the whole reasonably funny film that utilises Paul Feig’s knack at scriptwriting and the talents of its exceptional cast very well. Melissa McCarthy’s presence proves just what a team she and Feig are, with Chris Hemsworth providing some of the film’s best one-liners.
But the true surprise is in Kate McKinnon. Her wacky, over-the-top character has been tremendously well written and is a joy to watch on screen, especially in the film’s final act. Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig each make an impact with the former in particular being very funny indeed. The cameos are all present and correct too, with the majority of the previous film’s main cast returning in some small way.
There are a couple of flaws. When you think of Paul Feig then Bridesmaids will probably spring to mind. Then perhaps The Heat or Spy? All these films were given a 15 certification by the BBFC and they used that certificate to its full potential. Ghostbusters is given the much-maligned 12A rating meaning it’s not as immediately hilarious as those films.
That’s not to say it isn’t funny, in fact, part of the humour is derived from spotting references to its much-loved predecessors, but it doesn’t have you rolling about the aisles like Feig’s earlier works.
The story does occasionally suffer from the pressures of influence, with the original film’s footprint well and truly stamped throughout. Nevertheless, this isn’t a real drag and the taut 116 minute running time keeps things moving along nicely with the highlights being the group’s inception and interactions.
Ghostbusters fans; you can rest easy. This isn’t meant to step on the toes of its wonderful predecessors at all. What it has achieved however is to provide its audience, new generation or old, with cracking special effects, a decent, well-written script and some dry, subtle humour. It’s one of the best films of the year so far and no publicity is bad publicity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/12/i-aint-afraid-of-no-reboot-ghostbusters-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Small Admissions in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Kate Pearson is going through a rough time. She's been dumped by Robert, her incredibly handsome French boyfriend, and she turned down a spot in her grad school program, so instead of living a dream life in Paris, she's living on the couch, barely able to wash her own hair. Her friend Chloe feels responsible (Robert is her cousin, after all), her friend Vicki is just annoyed (Vicki has no patience for wallowing), and Kate's older sister Angela just wants to fix everything. She connects Kate to a lead for an interview at the admissions department at the Hudson Day School. Surprising everyone, Kate gets the job, and suddenly has to get her life together. There's no time for self-pity during admissions season, after all. Indeed, Kate finds herself drawn to her job, her new colleagues, and the various children she meets while at work. And while Kate's working non-stop, her friends are busy falling in love, feeling guilty about their role in Kate's earlier breakdown regarding Robert, and generally making a mess of things. Will Kate make her own mess at the new admissions gig as well, or is this the fresh chance she needed?
I am torn somewhat on my thoughts for this book. It starts off quite witty and drew me in immediately. It's told from a multitude of perspectives, including Kate's friends (Chloe and Vicki), her sister (Angela) and Kate, and Kate's new boss, Henry. It's also interspersed with tales of several children trying to get into private school, along with the perspectives of their parents. There's definitely some nuance and depth there, but sometimes it's A LOT. A lot of characters, a lot of jumping of back and forth. I won't lie: Kate's friends certainly annoyed me at times. The side show with them can be humorous, but often just irritating. I found myself wanting more Kate.
The problem with all the jumping around is that I didn't really get to know the characters as much as I wanted, which was a shame, because they were fascinating. Kate, Chloe, Angela, Henry -- they were intriguing and, when featured, seemed real, even if Angela was driving us crazy meddling into Kate's life, as was Chloe with her never-ending guilt over her supposed role in Kate's breakdown. Poeppel has done an excellent job of creating real, flawed characters, and I just wish they all received a little more face-time. The snippets from the kids (and parents) applying for school are great, too, but it's hard not to see them sometimes as a detraction from our main characters, especially a side plot with two fervent (and delusional) parents.
Still, don't think I didn't enjoy the book, because I did. There are some wise and wonderful moments and some instances where I found myself laughing out loud. Kate is endearing, and you cannot help but rooting for her character. This book is redeemed by her and her journey. She is an inspiration. Because of her and my various feelings for this novel, my final rating falls at 3.75 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 12/27/2016.
I am torn somewhat on my thoughts for this book. It starts off quite witty and drew me in immediately. It's told from a multitude of perspectives, including Kate's friends (Chloe and Vicki), her sister (Angela) and Kate, and Kate's new boss, Henry. It's also interspersed with tales of several children trying to get into private school, along with the perspectives of their parents. There's definitely some nuance and depth there, but sometimes it's A LOT. A lot of characters, a lot of jumping of back and forth. I won't lie: Kate's friends certainly annoyed me at times. The side show with them can be humorous, but often just irritating. I found myself wanting more Kate.
The problem with all the jumping around is that I didn't really get to know the characters as much as I wanted, which was a shame, because they were fascinating. Kate, Chloe, Angela, Henry -- they were intriguing and, when featured, seemed real, even if Angela was driving us crazy meddling into Kate's life, as was Chloe with her never-ending guilt over her supposed role in Kate's breakdown. Poeppel has done an excellent job of creating real, flawed characters, and I just wish they all received a little more face-time. The snippets from the kids (and parents) applying for school are great, too, but it's hard not to see them sometimes as a detraction from our main characters, especially a side plot with two fervent (and delusional) parents.
Still, don't think I didn't enjoy the book, because I did. There are some wise and wonderful moments and some instances where I found myself laughing out loud. Kate is endearing, and you cannot help but rooting for her character. This book is redeemed by her and her journey. She is an inspiration. Because of her and my various feelings for this novel, my final rating falls at 3.75 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 12/27/2016.
As a young teen, Charlotte was kidnapped, and spent over four horrible years as a prisoner of her kidnapper, locked in his attic. The only thing that kept Charlotte going through the violence was the thoughts of her family: her mom, dad, and twin sister, Alexa. She imagined Alexa fulfilling all the fantasies the girls wrote down in their dream book. Then, one day, Charlotte manages to escape. She's suddenly "free," but the life she returns to as a sixteen-year-old is nothing like she imagined. Her parents have split, her mother is an alcoholic, her father is using her disappearance for fame, and her sister has completely changed. Charlotte, meanwhile, is struggling with the return to normalcy and finds herself obsessed with the girl kidnapped before herself: a girl her keeper tortured her with to behave, using her death as a way to keep Charlotte in life. Will Charlotte ever be able to move on until she knows what happened to the girl before her?
This was an interesting and rather original novel. Where often you get a story leading up to a kidnapping, or a mystery trying to solve who kidnapped someone, in Kensie's tale, Charlotte's actual confinement takes up little of the story. She learns who her kidnapper is pretty quickly (he never revealed his name to her). Instead, the novel truly does focus on the aftermath of her kidnapping: how will Charlotte recover from this horrible trauma. And, indeed, how will her family recover as well? The novel hooks you very quickly, and I found myself then wondering how Kensie would sustain such an odd plot without the push of a kidnapping or whodunnit (although there is Charlotte's desire to find the girl before her, but we only have her word that she existed). But the novel is very nuanced and has a psychological depth to it. Initially, I was wary that Charlotte wasn't going to exhibit a lot of signs of a young girl who spent four years trapped and abused; she seemed to jump easily from twelve to sixteen. But as Kensie peels away the layers, we do see how much Charlotte is suffering, and how hard it is for her to adjust to life outside of the attic.
While the tale focuses on Charlotte, we also get to see how her disappearance affected her family, as well, which is an interesting technique, as many kidnapping stories don't always involve the family. The dynamic between Charlotte and her twin, for instance, is a complex one, and well-portrayed. Kensie also throws in several surprises along the way, plot-wise: in a novel where you wouldn't think there would be much to hide. These devices don't seem contrived, however, but fit in nicely with the flow of the story.
Overall, this was a nice change of pace from a typical kidnapping novel and well-written. I still think some of Charlotte's adjustment was a little too easy overall, but it didn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the novel. A strong 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 11/1/2016.
This was an interesting and rather original novel. Where often you get a story leading up to a kidnapping, or a mystery trying to solve who kidnapped someone, in Kensie's tale, Charlotte's actual confinement takes up little of the story. She learns who her kidnapper is pretty quickly (he never revealed his name to her). Instead, the novel truly does focus on the aftermath of her kidnapping: how will Charlotte recover from this horrible trauma. And, indeed, how will her family recover as well? The novel hooks you very quickly, and I found myself then wondering how Kensie would sustain such an odd plot without the push of a kidnapping or whodunnit (although there is Charlotte's desire to find the girl before her, but we only have her word that she existed). But the novel is very nuanced and has a psychological depth to it. Initially, I was wary that Charlotte wasn't going to exhibit a lot of signs of a young girl who spent four years trapped and abused; she seemed to jump easily from twelve to sixteen. But as Kensie peels away the layers, we do see how much Charlotte is suffering, and how hard it is for her to adjust to life outside of the attic.
While the tale focuses on Charlotte, we also get to see how her disappearance affected her family, as well, which is an interesting technique, as many kidnapping stories don't always involve the family. The dynamic between Charlotte and her twin, for instance, is a complex one, and well-portrayed. Kensie also throws in several surprises along the way, plot-wise: in a novel where you wouldn't think there would be much to hide. These devices don't seem contrived, however, but fit in nicely with the flow of the story.
Overall, this was a nice change of pace from a typical kidnapping novel and well-written. I still think some of Charlotte's adjustment was a little too easy overall, but it didn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the novel. A strong 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 11/1/2016.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Binding Song in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b>Trigger warning:</b> this book contains descriptions of rape
There are very few psychological thrillers/ horrors set in the prison environment, so when I read the synopsis for this book, I was really excited to read it. This book is one youll find yourself racing through, its so quick and exciting youll be determined to not put it down.
Elodie Harper was the 2016 winner of Stephen Kings short story competition, and this is her debut full length novel (not of the same story). Im surprised to find this one is a debut because its so well put together and feels like the writing of someone more prolific and comfortable writing 300 page novels. There is no fault with Harpers writing, that I could find. This book is creepy and moody in tone throughout and is certainly the kind of book you want to read with the lights on!
Our main character, Janet, is a hard headed woman in the prison industry, with a fiery temper, but also a softer side we get to see often throughout the story. Normally I find these sort of characters get a little annoying and either too big for their boots, or become too soppy, but Janet stayed as a great lead throughout the book. I did have one issue with her character, to do with her relationship, at the end of the novel, but I will talk about that in a spoiler section at the bottom.
As for the other side characters, I thought they were very well developed. My only issue was with Steven, who 1) felt a little unneeded for the plot, and 2) a bit unbelievable, but I still enjoyed his character nonetheless.
The plot is certainly different to others and I really enjoyed this uniqueness. While I had my ideas as to what we happening, I still was non-the-wiser until it all came to light, so its great to have a book thats given me a shock twist. Each chapter in this book ends on a small cliffhanger, its so hard to ever out it down because you just want to know where the story is going next.
<b>I'm going to hide this next paragraph as a spoiler, but it is extremely minor. It does not ruin the mystery, twist or plot in any way.</b>
<spoiler>My one big issue with the whole book was the resolution of Janet and Aruns relationship. The fact that she didnt even have to think over getting back together with him after he cheated on her made my blood boil. After her being this strong lead all the way through, it seemed such a shame for her to go back to a man who cheated on her after 1 day of being on a break all because she wanted to keep her job. It was an arrogant and selfish thing of him to have done and Im not happy that she forgave him for it so easily.</spoiler>
Overall, I really enjoyed this book all the way through, despite there being one or two choices I would have made differently towards the end. Im certainly going to keep my eye out for more of Harpers work in the future as shes already proved to be a great story teller and character builder.
There are very few psychological thrillers/ horrors set in the prison environment, so when I read the synopsis for this book, I was really excited to read it. This book is one youll find yourself racing through, its so quick and exciting youll be determined to not put it down.
Elodie Harper was the 2016 winner of Stephen Kings short story competition, and this is her debut full length novel (not of the same story). Im surprised to find this one is a debut because its so well put together and feels like the writing of someone more prolific and comfortable writing 300 page novels. There is no fault with Harpers writing, that I could find. This book is creepy and moody in tone throughout and is certainly the kind of book you want to read with the lights on!
Our main character, Janet, is a hard headed woman in the prison industry, with a fiery temper, but also a softer side we get to see often throughout the story. Normally I find these sort of characters get a little annoying and either too big for their boots, or become too soppy, but Janet stayed as a great lead throughout the book. I did have one issue with her character, to do with her relationship, at the end of the novel, but I will talk about that in a spoiler section at the bottom.
As for the other side characters, I thought they were very well developed. My only issue was with Steven, who 1) felt a little unneeded for the plot, and 2) a bit unbelievable, but I still enjoyed his character nonetheless.
The plot is certainly different to others and I really enjoyed this uniqueness. While I had my ideas as to what we happening, I still was non-the-wiser until it all came to light, so its great to have a book thats given me a shock twist. Each chapter in this book ends on a small cliffhanger, its so hard to ever out it down because you just want to know where the story is going next.
<b>I'm going to hide this next paragraph as a spoiler, but it is extremely minor. It does not ruin the mystery, twist or plot in any way.</b>
<spoiler>My one big issue with the whole book was the resolution of Janet and Aruns relationship. The fact that she didnt even have to think over getting back together with him after he cheated on her made my blood boil. After her being this strong lead all the way through, it seemed such a shame for her to go back to a man who cheated on her after 1 day of being on a break all because she wanted to keep her job. It was an arrogant and selfish thing of him to have done and Im not happy that she forgave him for it so easily.</spoiler>
Overall, I really enjoyed this book all the way through, despite there being one or two choices I would have made differently towards the end. Im certainly going to keep my eye out for more of Harpers work in the future as shes already proved to be a great story teller and character builder.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Picasso: The Colouring Book in Books
Dec 7, 2018
For a full review, including visual examples, please follow this link: https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/picasso-coloured-in/
...
<i>Pablo Picasso: To Colour In</i> was published in April 2016 with the intention of using the popular fad to educate readers/colouring book enthusiasts about the techniques and secrets of the great master. Each work included in the book has a brief paragraph explaining what it is (in case you cannot tell) and a few details about Picasso’s intentions or the events happening in his life at the time.
...
Naturally, it would be impossible to produce a book of all Picasso’s recorded works, but the editors of this particular colouring book have carefully selected examples that span the majority of his life, thus encompassing the different styles he experimented with.
The author of the text – presumably Frédérique Cassegrain, who also wrote the biography and information for each included artwork – gives helpful advice about how to colour in the outlined versions of Picasso’s paintings. The paper is thick enough to be suitable for paints, particular Gouache, which is water soluble and easily blended. Alternatively, coloured pencils may be used, preferably of artistic quality, which may be more suitable for those less confident in art and design. Another option, although not mentioned by the author, are felt-tip pens. Usually, these should be avoided due to ink bleeding through the page, however, the paper is single sided, so there is no chance of damaging the following colouring page in the book.
Purchasing Pablo Picasso: To Colour In and completing the book, provides not only hours of fun and relaxation, but an opportunity to discover and understand the artist. Unlike at a gallery where the brain may switch off, being able to go away and return to the book gives us time to absorb the information and concentrate more clearly on the details of each painting.
Opposite each colouring page is a copy of the original in full colour, meaning that, if one desired, one could replicate Picasso’s work as closely as possible. By doing, rather than just looking, we begin to understand the colour choices, piece together the geometric shapes to form an image and begin to understand the thought processes of the artist.
Interestingly, there are two paintings that stand out amongst all the others. These were produced during and after the First World War, a time when Picasso returned to a more classical style of artwork. These are The Pipes of Pan (1923) and The Bathers (1918). Both show a completely different side to Picasso and would not immediately be recognised as his own work. Despite not being entirely life-like, there are no elements of Cubism or Surrealism and the colour palette is altogether natural. Picasso has focused on shading and tone to create a realistic appearance, a contrast to the flattened portraits he is known for.
...
Pablo Picasso: To Colour In will appeal to artists, art historians and other creatives with its contrast of light relief and in-depth knowledge. The book is available online at retailers such as Amazon and The Book Depository from approximately £6. If Picasso is not your thing, there are other artists available in the series of colouring books, including Klimt, Hokusai (Japanese Art), Monet, Van Gogh, Caillebotte and Manet (Impressionists), and Paul Klee. Whatever your preference, prepare to learn whilst you are relaxing and having fun.
...
<i>Pablo Picasso: To Colour In</i> was published in April 2016 with the intention of using the popular fad to educate readers/colouring book enthusiasts about the techniques and secrets of the great master. Each work included in the book has a brief paragraph explaining what it is (in case you cannot tell) and a few details about Picasso’s intentions or the events happening in his life at the time.
...
Naturally, it would be impossible to produce a book of all Picasso’s recorded works, but the editors of this particular colouring book have carefully selected examples that span the majority of his life, thus encompassing the different styles he experimented with.
The author of the text – presumably Frédérique Cassegrain, who also wrote the biography and information for each included artwork – gives helpful advice about how to colour in the outlined versions of Picasso’s paintings. The paper is thick enough to be suitable for paints, particular Gouache, which is water soluble and easily blended. Alternatively, coloured pencils may be used, preferably of artistic quality, which may be more suitable for those less confident in art and design. Another option, although not mentioned by the author, are felt-tip pens. Usually, these should be avoided due to ink bleeding through the page, however, the paper is single sided, so there is no chance of damaging the following colouring page in the book.
Purchasing Pablo Picasso: To Colour In and completing the book, provides not only hours of fun and relaxation, but an opportunity to discover and understand the artist. Unlike at a gallery where the brain may switch off, being able to go away and return to the book gives us time to absorb the information and concentrate more clearly on the details of each painting.
Opposite each colouring page is a copy of the original in full colour, meaning that, if one desired, one could replicate Picasso’s work as closely as possible. By doing, rather than just looking, we begin to understand the colour choices, piece together the geometric shapes to form an image and begin to understand the thought processes of the artist.
Interestingly, there are two paintings that stand out amongst all the others. These were produced during and after the First World War, a time when Picasso returned to a more classical style of artwork. These are The Pipes of Pan (1923) and The Bathers (1918). Both show a completely different side to Picasso and would not immediately be recognised as his own work. Despite not being entirely life-like, there are no elements of Cubism or Surrealism and the colour palette is altogether natural. Picasso has focused on shading and tone to create a realistic appearance, a contrast to the flattened portraits he is known for.
...
Pablo Picasso: To Colour In will appeal to artists, art historians and other creatives with its contrast of light relief and in-depth knowledge. The book is available online at retailers such as Amazon and The Book Depository from approximately £6. If Picasso is not your thing, there are other artists available in the series of colouring books, including Klimt, Hokusai (Japanese Art), Monet, Van Gogh, Caillebotte and Manet (Impressionists), and Paul Klee. Whatever your preference, prepare to learn whilst you are relaxing and having fun.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2018
In a word - fun
By this time, either you are "in" on the Marvel Cinematic Universe or you are "out". If you are "out", there's not a whole lot that I (or any other reviewer) will be able to do to change your mind. Which is too bad, for the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a pretty fun ride. The folks at Marvel "have it down" and I can't remember the last time that I was disappointed by a Marvel movie.
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)