Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Dec 7, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
Frozen II is a genuinely fantastic sequel that build on the original in every way.
It's feels more mature for a start. It's still a magical, kid friendly, animated adventure for sure, but the film manages to touch upon subjects such as death, loss, depression, how it's ok to feel angry, and all without veering too far away from a family feature.
The more mature tone comes with more mature animation - and it's really something. The animation is pretty much flawless. The contrasting colour pallets - the icy cold blues and white of Arendelle, to the autumnal greens and oranges of the forest - are all pleasing to look at.
I'm not one for musicals, and I wasn't keen on the songs from the original, but the music in Frozen II is way more tolerable. Well written, and sometimes epic, and that Lost in the Woods song is a banger - the fact that Weezer did a recording of it just earns the movie bonus points in my eyes.
The plot is easy to follow, whilst offering a twist here and there, but the overall message is once again, the importance of family, and the importance of writing wrongs from the last. Interestingly, there is no villain in Frozen II. The focus is purely on the good guys trying to make the world a better place for everyone. It's all rather wholesome.
The characters are all great in their own ways, and the creature designs are fantastic.
I have nothing bad to say about Frozen II. It's a damn solid sequel that easily surpasses the first film. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and listen to Weezer all night.
It's feels more mature for a start. It's still a magical, kid friendly, animated adventure for sure, but the film manages to touch upon subjects such as death, loss, depression, how it's ok to feel angry, and all without veering too far away from a family feature.
The more mature tone comes with more mature animation - and it's really something. The animation is pretty much flawless. The contrasting colour pallets - the icy cold blues and white of Arendelle, to the autumnal greens and oranges of the forest - are all pleasing to look at.
I'm not one for musicals, and I wasn't keen on the songs from the original, but the music in Frozen II is way more tolerable. Well written, and sometimes epic, and that Lost in the Woods song is a banger - the fact that Weezer did a recording of it just earns the movie bonus points in my eyes.
The plot is easy to follow, whilst offering a twist here and there, but the overall message is once again, the importance of family, and the importance of writing wrongs from the last. Interestingly, there is no villain in Frozen II. The focus is purely on the good guys trying to make the world a better place for everyone. It's all rather wholesome.
The characters are all great in their own ways, and the creature designs are fantastic.
I have nothing bad to say about Frozen II. It's a damn solid sequel that easily surpasses the first film. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and listen to Weezer all night.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Sharknado 2: The Second One (2014) in Movies
Jan 13, 2020 (Updated May 7, 2020)
Shitenado
One (sort of) positive thing that I will say about Sharknado 2 is that it's delightfully absurd. You will ask yourself frequently why on Earth you're still watching but will perhaps find that you can't look away.
The first Sharknado thought that it was so bad it was good, when in reality l, it is 100% shit. Sharknado 2 on the other hand, is only 99% shit. During the opening scene set on a plane, I found myself thinking 'I wonder what this would be like with a full Hollywood budget'... This was around the point that Tara Reid was hanging out of said plane, and attempted to gun down a shark flying though the air with a small handgun, before having her hand bitten off, and exclaiming that the shark knew who she was, and was purposefully targeting her. That's pretty much what were dealing with here.
The special effects are offensively awful. The 'money-shot' of the main character sawing a shark in half with a chainsaw whilst stood on top of a car is the only relatively decent use if CGI in the whole movie, and it's clear that most of the effects budget was spent on it. Pretty sure all the rest of effects are just cut and pasted from the first one.
There's also a weird rain filter applied to a lot of the film, to give the effect of stormy weather... But the characters are bone dry for the whole thing....
For what it's worth, Sharknado 2 partially achieves it's desire to be really really silly, which is a slight improvement on the tediousness of the first one - still rubbish though.
The first Sharknado thought that it was so bad it was good, when in reality l, it is 100% shit. Sharknado 2 on the other hand, is only 99% shit. During the opening scene set on a plane, I found myself thinking 'I wonder what this would be like with a full Hollywood budget'... This was around the point that Tara Reid was hanging out of said plane, and attempted to gun down a shark flying though the air with a small handgun, before having her hand bitten off, and exclaiming that the shark knew who she was, and was purposefully targeting her. That's pretty much what were dealing with here.
The special effects are offensively awful. The 'money-shot' of the main character sawing a shark in half with a chainsaw whilst stood on top of a car is the only relatively decent use if CGI in the whole movie, and it's clear that most of the effects budget was spent on it. Pretty sure all the rest of effects are just cut and pasted from the first one.
There's also a weird rain filter applied to a lot of the film, to give the effect of stormy weather... But the characters are bone dry for the whole thing....
For what it's worth, Sharknado 2 partially achieves it's desire to be really really silly, which is a slight improvement on the tediousness of the first one - still rubbish though.
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated 3022 (2019) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020
Low Budget but Fun
414. 3022. In space, no one can hear you scream. However, if you're desperate need of a smoke, this space station has plenty. The budget for this one must've come from tobacco, I'm telling ya! The premise is this: Four astronauts embark on a mission to the refueling station, Pangea, between Earth and mankind's first space colony on Europa. I would've thought we would've tried our first space colony a little closer to home, like the moon maybe, but sure halfway across the solar system works too. Their mission, from what I saw, nothing. I guess they refuel ships on their way back and forth. Oh and their mission is 10 years long. My guess is by the year 2190, not 3022 by the way, refueling stations in space probably won't need people on them at all, nevermind for a 10 year stretch. But whatev's it's just a movie. Five years into the mission however, something goes wrong, the little blip on the radar that signifies Earth, it just disappeared. What is 4 people to do on a space station after they just discovered they are now an endangered species? Go crazy of course! Whats one thing that spaceship disaster movies have in common, the onboard doctor goes bonkers, Angus Macfadyen fills the roll in this one while Omar Epps and Kate Walsh try to keep it together! It's a fun low budget sci fi flick. They keep the effects to a minimum, and sure there's a few bad edits, glasses on, glasses off. Other than that, I enjoyed it. Filmbufftim on FB!
George Lucas
Book
George Lucas by Brian Jay Jones is the first comprehensive telling of the story of the iconic...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Summer of 84 (2018) in Movies
Sep 26, 2020 (Updated Sep 26, 2020)
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have mixed feelings about Summer of 84, another 80s love letter following in the wake of the cataclysmic popularity of Stranger Things. Probably easier to break this one down into bullet points.
- The four main characters are pretty hit and miss. The actors are all fine, but some of the dialogue and pop culture references seem very forced. They provide the movie with some funny moments for sure, but their characters are fairly cliché and the chemistry goes through some flat moments.
- The story is pretty straightforward and decent, and provides an entertaining mystery, but some of the plot points are odd and a lot of the characters are just insufferably stupid.
- The ending is conflicting as well. Considering the majority of the film is quite comedic and seems intended towards a family audience, the ending is pretty bleak. My initial thoughts were "fair enough, quite ballsy" but now I can't decide whether it was in fact just plain mean spirited. Either way, it left a nasty taste in my mouth, and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
- A couple of positives - I really enjoyed the music score, and the cinematography. The film has a lovely aesthetic to it.
- Not sure how the babysitter character was supposed to be portrayed, but she seemed a bit too old for a love interest to the 15 year old protagonist. Made me feel uncomfortable...
Summer of 84 is an entertaining enough psuedo-slasher thriller, but it suffers from pacing issues amongst other things that stops it being as good is it could have been.
- The four main characters are pretty hit and miss. The actors are all fine, but some of the dialogue and pop culture references seem very forced. They provide the movie with some funny moments for sure, but their characters are fairly cliché and the chemistry goes through some flat moments.
- The story is pretty straightforward and decent, and provides an entertaining mystery, but some of the plot points are odd and a lot of the characters are just insufferably stupid.
- The ending is conflicting as well. Considering the majority of the film is quite comedic and seems intended towards a family audience, the ending is pretty bleak. My initial thoughts were "fair enough, quite ballsy" but now I can't decide whether it was in fact just plain mean spirited. Either way, it left a nasty taste in my mouth, and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
- A couple of positives - I really enjoyed the music score, and the cinematography. The film has a lovely aesthetic to it.
- Not sure how the babysitter character was supposed to be portrayed, but she seemed a bit too old for a love interest to the 15 year old protagonist. Made me feel uncomfortable...
Summer of 84 is an entertaining enough psuedo-slasher thriller, but it suffers from pacing issues amongst other things that stops it being as good is it could have been.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Dial M for Murder (1954) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
A mid-tier episode of "Law & Order" from the 50s that's as mildly rousing as it is boring in a nearly 1:1 ratio. Yes the writing is impressively airtight, and always leaves you looking for some sort of holes to no avail - one of those films where you play a fun little guessing game in your head every time a character says or does something. Could they have slipped up? Do the other characters know that? But here's my main problem with this: it's so DRY holy shit. Yes the story is rigorously optimized for this sort of deal, but that's all there is to chew on here - nothing else. The characters in this movie exist only to explain and inform each other about the story as it happens - outside of the first couple scenes there are no little moments of interpersonal interaction between characters that involves anything else besides telling people what just happened, no moments of humor outside of a bad gay joke and a couple telegraphed duds, no personality building beyond how they react in relation to - again - the singular crime narrative. That's virtually every single scene, so it quickly feels like you're just watching the same thing over and over again. This goes straight past staunchly formal and almost into rudimentary, but Grace Kelly and Ray Milland are wonderful enough to carry this very talky one-trick pony along with the sheer attention to detail of the plot. Still definitely fair but way too straightforward, I can't act like dozens of better ones have been done even if this did potentially pave the way for a lot of them.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Apr 9, 2019 (Updated Apr 9, 2019)
Good Fun
Being the big ol' geek that I am, I usually know the source material of the superhero movie I am going to see pretty well. Shazam is an exception to this, - other than the infamous Captain Marvel/Shazam copyright battle between Marvel and DC's lawyers over the years and the fact that he is a teenage boy who transforms into a grown man who looks like Superman with a similar power set, - I don't know much about the character. Watching Shazam, I was more so reminded of a Mark Millar comic called Superior, which bears multiple plot similarities to Shazam, to the point that I am surprised that DC have never attempted to sue Millar for blatant plagiarism.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Apr 26, 2019 (Updated Apr 29, 2019)
Epic Indeed
Hours after viewing Avengers: Endgame, it’s taken me awhile to really get to the meat of what I wanted to say. The movie is bananas and heavy, both in a good way. It’s kind of like eating a really delicious meal, thinking you want more before deciding, “No, I think I’ve had the perfect amount actually.” The movie isn’t perfect, but damn if it isn’t an amazing spectacle. After The Snap, the Avengers set out to fix what went wrong by whatever means they can muster.
Acting: 10
From Robert Downey Jr. to Paul Rudd, each of these actors/actresses manage to fit into their roles just right as if it was a part made just for them. One might say, “Well, they’ve played the roles for x amount of years. They should be good at it by now.” But it isn’t just their roles but the maturation of those roles that really make an impact. While one might think it easy just to play the same character repeatedly, we neglect to take into account the growth that characters do/should endure and how it affects the characters overall. Side note: I just love how much of a bad ass Brie Larson is and I can’t wait to see what Marvel has in store for her next.
Beginning: 10
Not only does the beginning have a strong emotional setup, it turns the entire film on its head. What you expected to happen is actually not happening at all. And furthermore…I LOVE IT!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Visuals are absolutely jaw-dropping in certain spots. The movie probably had some of the absolute best one-shots in film PERIOD. I can’t go into detail without giving anything away, but serious eye candy awaits, especially during the battles.
Conflict: 10
Whatever the film lacks in action more than makes up for things in Endgame’s grand finale. The battle reminded me of old kung fu films and Helm’s Deep all rolled into one. Outside of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I can’t remember a battle so epic in movies. If you don’t love it, you don’t love movies.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
My brain is running 100 miles an hour as I type this, thinking of all the different scenes and how everything tied so seamlessly together. Just masterful and wonderfully crafted. This movie will remain etched in your brain for a long time to come. Talk about setting a bar.
Pace: 10
With a three-hour runtime, this was honestly where I expected the film to trip up. Thing is, it doesn’t feel like three hours, not even in the slightest. I would’ve watched another hour if they had let me. There are so many stories to tell and so much going on that you’re at the end before you know it.
Plot: 10
I did have to put my thinking cap on in some spots, but all plot points tied in really nicely with no glaring holes I could see. It would be easy to make the storyline overly complex, but The Russo Brothers were firing on all cylinders with the execution of the story. It’s just complex enough to keep you engaged, but not to over-the-top where you lose interest.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Eleven years of these great superheroes leading up to this moment. Was Avengers: Endgame worth the wait? You better freakin’ believe it. Go see this with all the confidence in the world that you will walk away with a smile on your face and perhaps a tear or two in your eye. And, when you go, you might see me there because I’m DEFINITELY watching this again in theaters. All three hours.
Acting: 10
From Robert Downey Jr. to Paul Rudd, each of these actors/actresses manage to fit into their roles just right as if it was a part made just for them. One might say, “Well, they’ve played the roles for x amount of years. They should be good at it by now.” But it isn’t just their roles but the maturation of those roles that really make an impact. While one might think it easy just to play the same character repeatedly, we neglect to take into account the growth that characters do/should endure and how it affects the characters overall. Side note: I just love how much of a bad ass Brie Larson is and I can’t wait to see what Marvel has in store for her next.
Beginning: 10
Not only does the beginning have a strong emotional setup, it turns the entire film on its head. What you expected to happen is actually not happening at all. And furthermore…I LOVE IT!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Visuals are absolutely jaw-dropping in certain spots. The movie probably had some of the absolute best one-shots in film PERIOD. I can’t go into detail without giving anything away, but serious eye candy awaits, especially during the battles.
Conflict: 10
Whatever the film lacks in action more than makes up for things in Endgame’s grand finale. The battle reminded me of old kung fu films and Helm’s Deep all rolled into one. Outside of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I can’t remember a battle so epic in movies. If you don’t love it, you don’t love movies.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
My brain is running 100 miles an hour as I type this, thinking of all the different scenes and how everything tied so seamlessly together. Just masterful and wonderfully crafted. This movie will remain etched in your brain for a long time to come. Talk about setting a bar.
Pace: 10
With a three-hour runtime, this was honestly where I expected the film to trip up. Thing is, it doesn’t feel like three hours, not even in the slightest. I would’ve watched another hour if they had let me. There are so many stories to tell and so much going on that you’re at the end before you know it.
Plot: 10
I did have to put my thinking cap on in some spots, but all plot points tied in really nicely with no glaring holes I could see. It would be easy to make the storyline overly complex, but The Russo Brothers were firing on all cylinders with the execution of the story. It’s just complex enough to keep you engaged, but not to over-the-top where you lose interest.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Eleven years of these great superheroes leading up to this moment. Was Avengers: Endgame worth the wait? You better freakin’ believe it. Go see this with all the confidence in the world that you will walk away with a smile on your face and perhaps a tear or two in your eye. And, when you go, you might see me there because I’m DEFINITELY watching this again in theaters. All three hours.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Iron Man (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The summer 0f 2008 movie season kicks off in a big way with the release of “Iron Man”, the latest in a long line of popular Marvel Comics superheroes to make the leap to the big screen.
Robert Downey JR. stars as Tony Stark a Billionaire playboy who owns a vast company that is known mainly for manufacturing weapon systems. When the film opens, Stark is ambushed shortly after a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan and is wounded by the attackers who take Stark into captivity.
Using a device to keep the shrapnel from his vital organs and thus keep him alive, Stark is forced to create a weapon for his captors who plan to use the creative genius of Stark for their own nefarious schemes.
Stark turns the tables on his captors and devices a special suit which allows him to escape, and eventually make his way back to America after three long and harrowing months of captivity.
One back in home, Stark starts to take stock of his life and realizes that many of the weapons he designed to protect America are now being used by other factions to kill those they were designed to protect. When Stark announces to the press that he is stopping the manufacture of weapons by his company he is viewed as suffering from the long captivity and finds himself at odds with the shareholders and board of directors, as well as his long time advisor and friend Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges).
Undaunted, Stark begins to build a prototype suit in his lab, and soon emerges as an iron clad crusader who is obsessed with keeping the bad guys from using the weapons his company created against the innocent.
Assisted by his friend in the military Colonel Rhodes (Terrance Howard) and the lovely Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Tony Stark soon finds himself caught in an even more dastardly plot, and needs every ounce of his creativity and his latest invention to keep the world safe.
The movie is a pure delight and it was nice to see a summer movie that actually had some plot and character development, and did not try to dumb the material down for the audience or let the film be carried entirely by the special effects.
The movie also has some moments of good humor which work well within the film as much of it comes from the quick wit of or at the expense of Stark.
Robert Downey JR. is perfect in the role as he perfectly captures the character without making him to over the top as often is the case in many comic adaptations. He portrays Stark exactly as he is portrayed in the comics, a hard drinking womanizer, who is forced to take stock of his life, and make changes.
The supporting performances by Paltrow, Howard, and Bridges help make the film stand out as does the solid work by Director John Favreau who clearly has a grasp on the character and story and thankfully took the time to establish the characters and the premise before rushing Downey into the Iron Man suit.
When the action comes it is solid, and shines with modern effects, but never once overshadow the fact that this is a character driven story. The action teases the audience with the full potential of the suit, which I am sure will be explored further in future films.
Many times summer films arrive in a frenzy of hype and expectations only to be little more than thinly plotted films awash in FX that fail to satisfy. I am happy to say that “Iron Man” is the rare exception to the recent trend and is easily one of the best Super Hero Films ever crafted.
Robert Downey JR. stars as Tony Stark a Billionaire playboy who owns a vast company that is known mainly for manufacturing weapon systems. When the film opens, Stark is ambushed shortly after a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan and is wounded by the attackers who take Stark into captivity.
Using a device to keep the shrapnel from his vital organs and thus keep him alive, Stark is forced to create a weapon for his captors who plan to use the creative genius of Stark for their own nefarious schemes.
Stark turns the tables on his captors and devices a special suit which allows him to escape, and eventually make his way back to America after three long and harrowing months of captivity.
One back in home, Stark starts to take stock of his life and realizes that many of the weapons he designed to protect America are now being used by other factions to kill those they were designed to protect. When Stark announces to the press that he is stopping the manufacture of weapons by his company he is viewed as suffering from the long captivity and finds himself at odds with the shareholders and board of directors, as well as his long time advisor and friend Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges).
Undaunted, Stark begins to build a prototype suit in his lab, and soon emerges as an iron clad crusader who is obsessed with keeping the bad guys from using the weapons his company created against the innocent.
Assisted by his friend in the military Colonel Rhodes (Terrance Howard) and the lovely Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Tony Stark soon finds himself caught in an even more dastardly plot, and needs every ounce of his creativity and his latest invention to keep the world safe.
The movie is a pure delight and it was nice to see a summer movie that actually had some plot and character development, and did not try to dumb the material down for the audience or let the film be carried entirely by the special effects.
The movie also has some moments of good humor which work well within the film as much of it comes from the quick wit of or at the expense of Stark.
Robert Downey JR. is perfect in the role as he perfectly captures the character without making him to over the top as often is the case in many comic adaptations. He portrays Stark exactly as he is portrayed in the comics, a hard drinking womanizer, who is forced to take stock of his life, and make changes.
The supporting performances by Paltrow, Howard, and Bridges help make the film stand out as does the solid work by Director John Favreau who clearly has a grasp on the character and story and thankfully took the time to establish the characters and the premise before rushing Downey into the Iron Man suit.
When the action comes it is solid, and shines with modern effects, but never once overshadow the fact that this is a character driven story. The action teases the audience with the full potential of the suit, which I am sure will be explored further in future films.
Many times summer films arrive in a frenzy of hype and expectations only to be little more than thinly plotted films awash in FX that fail to satisfy. I am happy to say that “Iron Man” is the rare exception to the recent trend and is easily one of the best Super Hero Films ever crafted.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
Misses more than it hits
The first Gal Gadot-led WONDER WOMAN film (2017) is generally regarded by most (myself included) as the finest film in the DCEU and Gal Gadot’s portrayal of Diana Prince/Wonder Woman is the highlight of any DCEU film that she appears in, so it was with much (delayed) anticipation that a viewing of WONDER WOMAN 1984 (finally) took place.
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)