Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
VAG_Abbo (4 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Great CGI work as always (3 more)
Little bits of Autobot and Cybertronian history sprinkled in
Lots of humour
Anthony Hopkins (watch it and you will understand)
Story was good yet a bit convoluted (2 more)
Lack of Dinobot screen time
Optimus not a big feature in this one
Better than expected
Contains spoilers, click to show
After seeing this film get slated by "professional" reviewers my hopes weren't very high for this instalment of a franchise that I personally enjoy. I was a pleasant surprise by how enjoyable this film was and maybe the number of laughs this film produces helps with that. It's nice to see that this film has visited the history of Cybertron and its race, but at the same time, it isn't over-explaining things and visiting the past too much. Anthony Hopkins has yet again given a great performance in this role and Mark Wahlberg gives a good show as well. For me personally, I think the trailers are a little deceiving as Optimus doesn't feature a great deal in this film. To be honest I think that there isn't enough screen time for any of the transformers as this one seems to be more about the humans, and considering the movie is called Transformers I feel that this is a bit of a letdown. Also, there was no explanation as to how Bumblebee gets his voice back and why it disappears as quick as it shows up. Yes, it's good that Optimus snaps out of the mind control (or is it bad coding in the ECU? LOL) at the sound of his old friend's real voice, but seriously how easy did that happen? If that's all it took then why didn't Bee just talk to him at the start instead of trading blows with each other and risking dying. Yes, maybe it is to get the point across that Bee will do anything for Optimus, but they are in a war they are losing so why let your strongest ally be fighting for the other side for so long? And what about Grimlock and Slag?? Very small bit parts for the Dinobots AND they changed Slags name to Slug!
Elli H Burton (1288 KP) rated The Silence of the Lambs (1991) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
The acting is 100% (2 more)
The story is fantastic
The way it is shot is genuinely awesome.
Have the lambs stopped screaming?
Okay so this is one of my favourite films because it just ticks every box.
Acting - Anthony Hopkins won an oscar for best actor because of this film. He is excellent, he is so creepy, elegant, scary, inviting, chilling, intriguing and he just oozes the sophistication, intelligence and depth of the character. He delivers his performance in this with a real passion. He is also so limited with what he can do physically (usually locked up) but he owns the set when the cameras are rolling.
Jodie Foster - I haven't seen her in anything else which I am actually embarrassed about because I loved her in this. No surprise, she won an oscar for best actress in this film. I genuinely feel like (towards the end mainly, as she has said in an interview that Anthony Hopkins did actually frighten her) she was terrified for her life. She could have been in the situation irl and i wouldn't be shocked. The character could have been played so many ways but Jodie played it perfectly. A clever, naive, strong, determined woman.
All other supporting actors were fantastic, such as Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill (my goodness he is so creepy he makes your skin crawl) and Scott Glenn as Jack Crawford (definitely feel the underlying tones of an unsavory character).
It is shot in such a way you dont see often, the talking to the camera shots, showing you things in Bills house like the pictures are all such subtle things but make it even more chilling. They also don't shy away with language(a word is said in this film atleast twice and it's so rare to hear on film) which sometimes, as not very nice this word is, the situation calls for it in this unnerving thriller, gross words and scenes need to be real to feel uneasy which you do in this.
Hats off to the wonderful Thomas Harris for writing such a gripping, interesting story that we were fortunate enough to see made to this magnificent film.
Acting - Anthony Hopkins won an oscar for best actor because of this film. He is excellent, he is so creepy, elegant, scary, inviting, chilling, intriguing and he just oozes the sophistication, intelligence and depth of the character. He delivers his performance in this with a real passion. He is also so limited with what he can do physically (usually locked up) but he owns the set when the cameras are rolling.
Jodie Foster - I haven't seen her in anything else which I am actually embarrassed about because I loved her in this. No surprise, she won an oscar for best actress in this film. I genuinely feel like (towards the end mainly, as she has said in an interview that Anthony Hopkins did actually frighten her) she was terrified for her life. She could have been in the situation irl and i wouldn't be shocked. The character could have been played so many ways but Jodie played it perfectly. A clever, naive, strong, determined woman.
All other supporting actors were fantastic, such as Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill (my goodness he is so creepy he makes your skin crawl) and Scott Glenn as Jack Crawford (definitely feel the underlying tones of an unsavory character).
It is shot in such a way you dont see often, the talking to the camera shots, showing you things in Bills house like the pictures are all such subtle things but make it even more chilling. They also don't shy away with language(a word is said in this film atleast twice and it's so rare to hear on film) which sometimes, as not very nice this word is, the situation calls for it in this unnerving thriller, gross words and scenes need to be real to feel uneasy which you do in this.
Hats off to the wonderful Thomas Harris for writing such a gripping, interesting story that we were fortunate enough to see made to this magnificent film.
David McK (3222 KP) rated The Mask of Zorro (1998) in Movies
Aug 15, 2020
Late 90's action comedy movie that acts as a sort of sequel to the old Zorro movies of old; with 'that mysterious masked man dressed all in black' who is here played by two different actors: by Sir Anthony Hopkins (the elder Zorro), and by a pre Puss In Boots Antonio Banderas (lets face it, Puss In Boots pretty much is a feline Zorro ...) as his younger protege.
It's also slightly surprising that this got a PG rating, with a strong vein of revenge running throughout it (the elder Zorro's quest to avenge the death of his wife, and to get his revenge on the man who stole his daughter and raised her as his own) alongside his younger protege's quest for revenge on the soldier who killed his brother.
Taking in horse chases, stunts, lots of swordplay, romance and even El Dorado, this is a genuinely enjoyable throwback to the less serious, less po faced movies of old than seems to be the current trend. (It's also better than the sequel)
It's also slightly surprising that this got a PG rating, with a strong vein of revenge running throughout it (the elder Zorro's quest to avenge the death of his wife, and to get his revenge on the man who stole his daughter and raised her as his own) alongside his younger protege's quest for revenge on the soldier who killed his brother.
Taking in horse chases, stunts, lots of swordplay, romance and even El Dorado, this is a genuinely enjoyable throwback to the less serious, less po faced movies of old than seems to be the current trend. (It's also better than the sequel)
JT (287 KP) rated The Wolfman (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As what we would describe as the classic monster horror, this remake of the 1941 black and white picture in some way does itself and the original some justice.
Back then horror was starting to carve itself out to a market of film goers who really didn’t have much of an idea as to how film could and would change their lives. The likes of Dracula and Frankenstein had also achieved great historic status.
The plot of the story stays true, man is bitten, man becomes werewolf, all hell breaks loose and it is the efforts of a love interest that tries in vein to break the curse. Something which not even the gypsies could achieve.
Special effects wise its impressive, Del Toro went through make up hell in order to gain the look, some three hours to apply and one to remove so his dedication must be applauded. As to whether he was the right choice for the part is another question, in some parts, in human form he loodke out of place with his foreign slightly merged American accent.
The original film ultimately was basic, a drama that based itself around a werewolf, there was no gore and hardly any blood. So of course it was only fitting that this film should contain both, and vast quantities of flying limbs and spouting red stuff. Did it need it? It surely must have only been there too satisfy an age where any lack of these effects would seem a disappointment.
The supporting cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline and the beautiful Emily Blunt as Gwen all do a wonderful job adding their talents to the narrative. Hopkins especially was his usual dark, sinister and composed self.
There are some truly scary scenes, and some fantastic shots of a Gothic London but the film tends to drift off in places. Overall its a worthwhile watch but doesn’t do enough to really make it one of standouts of 2010.
Back then horror was starting to carve itself out to a market of film goers who really didn’t have much of an idea as to how film could and would change their lives. The likes of Dracula and Frankenstein had also achieved great historic status.
The plot of the story stays true, man is bitten, man becomes werewolf, all hell breaks loose and it is the efforts of a love interest that tries in vein to break the curse. Something which not even the gypsies could achieve.
Special effects wise its impressive, Del Toro went through make up hell in order to gain the look, some three hours to apply and one to remove so his dedication must be applauded. As to whether he was the right choice for the part is another question, in some parts, in human form he loodke out of place with his foreign slightly merged American accent.
The original film ultimately was basic, a drama that based itself around a werewolf, there was no gore and hardly any blood. So of course it was only fitting that this film should contain both, and vast quantities of flying limbs and spouting red stuff. Did it need it? It surely must have only been there too satisfy an age where any lack of these effects would seem a disappointment.
The supporting cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline and the beautiful Emily Blunt as Gwen all do a wonderful job adding their talents to the narrative. Hopkins especially was his usual dark, sinister and composed self.
There are some truly scary scenes, and some fantastic shots of a Gothic London but the film tends to drift off in places. Overall its a worthwhile watch but doesn’t do enough to really make it one of standouts of 2010.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019
Stays true to the book
This is by far the best adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula novel and aside from the hilarious Dracula: Dead and Loving It, there has never been a decent Dracula film since. The fact that it stays true to the novel is the best thing about this, there’s very little difference between this and the book and I’m so grateful about this. The effects are very old school and in parts a little bit cheesy and very dated watching it back now, but I think that’s part of the charm. It was made in the early 90s after all.
Gary Oldman does a fantastic performance and Anthony Hopkins too is wonderful as Van Helsing, and it’s these two that really make this film as good as it is. The rest of the cast range from good (Richard E Grant), unremarkable (Cary Elwes), to downright awful. And yes, I am talking about Keanu Reeves. I know he was a big star when this was made, but he really is a terrible actor. And he’s even worse when he’s trying to put on a horrendous English accent. I wish they’d have found a decent actor to play Harker, if they had I would’ve scored this a little higher!
Gary Oldman does a fantastic performance and Anthony Hopkins too is wonderful as Van Helsing, and it’s these two that really make this film as good as it is. The rest of the cast range from good (Richard E Grant), unremarkable (Cary Elwes), to downright awful. And yes, I am talking about Keanu Reeves. I know he was a big star when this was made, but he really is a terrible actor. And he’s even worse when he’s trying to put on a horrendous English accent. I wish they’d have found a decent actor to play Harker, if they had I would’ve scored this a little higher!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Westworld - Season 2 in TV
Jul 5, 2018
A Step Down
I have seen a bunch of articles online talking about how bad Westworld Season 2 is and how this show has went off of a cliff amongst many other over-exaggerations.
Westworld Season 2 is in absolutely no way a bad series of television. Sure, it isn't as good as the first season, but what you need to remember is that Season 1 of Westworld is one of the best series of TV ever broadcast.
In my opinion, Season 2 was never going to be as good as it's predecessor and that's okay. It's still intriguing, exciting and well made and without spoiling too much, I thought that the way this series ended was pretty bold and rather refreshing.
The first half of the season has it's ups and down and (SPOILERS from the end of Season 1,) the presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins is sorely missed. However, there are moments of brilliance in every episode of this series, it's just unfortunate that they are sometimes surrounded by convoluted padding.
Overall, yeah it's not as good as series 1, but you know what? I still felt like it was a pretty great season of television and I am looking forward to what this show has to offer in the future.
Westworld Season 2 is in absolutely no way a bad series of television. Sure, it isn't as good as the first season, but what you need to remember is that Season 1 of Westworld is one of the best series of TV ever broadcast.
In my opinion, Season 2 was never going to be as good as it's predecessor and that's okay. It's still intriguing, exciting and well made and without spoiling too much, I thought that the way this series ended was pretty bold and rather refreshing.
The first half of the season has it's ups and down and (SPOILERS from the end of Season 1,) the presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins is sorely missed. However, there are moments of brilliance in every episode of this series, it's just unfortunate that they are sometimes surrounded by convoluted padding.
Overall, yeah it's not as good as series 1, but you know what? I still felt like it was a pretty great season of television and I am looking forward to what this show has to offer in the future.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Amistad (1997) in Movies
Aug 13, 2020
Give Us Us Free
Slaves are put on trial when they start a mutiny on the ship bringing them over to America. Although a little long in the tooth, Amistad is a memorable movie that gives you something to root for.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldn’t have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so it’s no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. It’s riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. It’s a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldn’t have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so it’s no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. It’s riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. It’s a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) in Movies
Oct 7, 2018
Another Coppola classic!
Coppola's take on the classic Dracula story is to use the book as the source! So many of the other adaptations, including the 1931 classic, changed or combined characters, rather than stay true to the source material.
So many of his decisions were great when making the film including firing his original visual effects team and hiring his son, Roman Coppola to take a more "traditional" route when setting up the film's look through "old school" techniques instead of the modern day approach the original team wanted. The result was very unique, almost "cheapish" looking, but the way the filmmaker wanted it to look.
There has been much written over the years about Keanu Reeves' role in the film and how he felt out of place with the rest of the remarkable cast. In retrospect, he may have been miscast, but I have grown to enjoy his performance over years. The performances of Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins (fresh off his cannibalistic Oscar win) certainly carry the film. Oldman almost makes the character of Dracula a sympathetic one. You almost want to root for him to be successful instead of damning him back to hell as the master vampire.
Overall, one of my top 3 vampire flicks of all time and a consistent rewatch. Just purchased on 4K which made the look and fell, colors and darkness of the film as fresh as ever. Highly recommended.
So many of his decisions were great when making the film including firing his original visual effects team and hiring his son, Roman Coppola to take a more "traditional" route when setting up the film's look through "old school" techniques instead of the modern day approach the original team wanted. The result was very unique, almost "cheapish" looking, but the way the filmmaker wanted it to look.
There has been much written over the years about Keanu Reeves' role in the film and how he felt out of place with the rest of the remarkable cast. In retrospect, he may have been miscast, but I have grown to enjoy his performance over years. The performances of Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins (fresh off his cannibalistic Oscar win) certainly carry the film. Oldman almost makes the character of Dracula a sympathetic one. You almost want to root for him to be successful instead of damning him back to hell as the master vampire.
Overall, one of my top 3 vampire flicks of all time and a consistent rewatch. Just purchased on 4K which made the look and fell, colors and darkness of the film as fresh as ever. Highly recommended.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Mar 5, 2021
I've got a lot a love for the first Thor movie, but like many others, the second one is probably my least favourite of the whole franchise. So, when one of the mightiest Avengers threatens to become stale, what is the solution? Taika fucking Waititi is the solution.
One of my favourite working directors helming an MCU film is exciting indeed, and manages to deliver a film that injects new life into the Thor series, manages to fit in with other chapters of the franchise without feeling too alien, but still has liberal splashings of Waititi's trademark wit throughout.
The comedy in this entry is thick and fast, but everything lands just right. It's fair to say that it's taken a leaf out the Guardians of the Galaxy playbook, but manages to come across smoother and feel more refined in it's humour than Vol. 2.
Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo and Idris Elba are back and as good as ever with MCU newcomers Cate Blanchett, carving a memorable figure as this movies big bad Hela (who I really hope we see again at somepoint), Tessa Thompson as the badass Valkyrie, a wonderful Jeff Goldblum as secondary villain Grandmaster (another that I hope we see again), and Karl Urban as The Executioner. It's a well put together cast.
It's packed full of comic shit too, with references to Man Thing, Beta Ray Bill, and Bi Beast, a tie in appearance from Doctor Strange, the first appearance of Surtur, and Hulk rampaging through Asgard. It has relentlessly entertaining set pieces and an 80s synth style soundtrack that tops everything wonderfully.
Not much to complain about here - easily the best of the Thor trilogy and a solid entry into the wider MCU.
One of my favourite working directors helming an MCU film is exciting indeed, and manages to deliver a film that injects new life into the Thor series, manages to fit in with other chapters of the franchise without feeling too alien, but still has liberal splashings of Waititi's trademark wit throughout.
The comedy in this entry is thick and fast, but everything lands just right. It's fair to say that it's taken a leaf out the Guardians of the Galaxy playbook, but manages to come across smoother and feel more refined in it's humour than Vol. 2.
Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo and Idris Elba are back and as good as ever with MCU newcomers Cate Blanchett, carving a memorable figure as this movies big bad Hela (who I really hope we see again at somepoint), Tessa Thompson as the badass Valkyrie, a wonderful Jeff Goldblum as secondary villain Grandmaster (another that I hope we see again), and Karl Urban as The Executioner. It's a well put together cast.
It's packed full of comic shit too, with references to Man Thing, Beta Ray Bill, and Bi Beast, a tie in appearance from Doctor Strange, the first appearance of Surtur, and Hulk rampaging through Asgard. It has relentlessly entertaining set pieces and an 80s synth style soundtrack that tops everything wonderfully.
Not much to complain about here - easily the best of the Thor trilogy and a solid entry into the wider MCU.