Search
Search results
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"if you are nothing without the suit then you shouldn't have it."
A John Hughes-esque coming-of-age movie, disguised as a friendly neighborhood adventure from the MCU; Spider-Man: Homecoming is more about growing up, and less about saving the world.
Tom Holland is great as Spider-man. His Spidey is different, and in a way, refreshing. I like how the origin story is skipped, and instead, we dive head into the day-to-day adventures of a semi-awkward, fifteen-year-old. I'm more interested in the growth of Peter Parker, than the development of Holland's Spider-Man Spidey-Powers. I'm still undecided about the way Spidey looks in his costume. To me, he looks more like a CGI goofnut, than an Avenger. But, how many kids get to have Jennifer Connelly on standby, whenever they need a helpful voice?
Homecoming might not feel and act like your typical MCU movie, but it does prove we still need Tony Stark, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts in our lives. I smiled with all the screen time Happy has. He's truly an underrated character in the MCU. Plus, Tony plays the "cool uncle" spot-on.
One of the biggest criticisms with the MCU people have is the boring villain. Not in this case. Michael Keaton plays reverse-Batman, and his character actually has depth, an interesting storyline and a surprise twist. Bookem Woodbine plays a fun henchman, and all movies benefit from the presence of Donald Glover. The bad guys are not a snore nor a bore at this Homecoming Dance with the Devil.
I hope I wasn't the only one laughing at the casting of Tony Revolori as Flash the Bully. He's about as intimidating as a can of ravioli. Zendaya is way underused, but she shines in her scenes. I wish Ned was my best friend, but the poor fella will probably be typecast for life. However, he's a hilarious guy. How can you not like him?
Did you think I forgot about Aunt May? Of course not! Marisa Tomei is smokin' and brings honest energy to her supporting role.
The final boss battle is fun. So are the scenes on a ferry and a national monument. There's action, and there's a lot of growing up for Peter Parker and his friends. I'm not MCU fatigued after watching, but I do have a sudden urge to revisit Pretty in Pink.
Tom Holland is great as Spider-man. His Spidey is different, and in a way, refreshing. I like how the origin story is skipped, and instead, we dive head into the day-to-day adventures of a semi-awkward, fifteen-year-old. I'm more interested in the growth of Peter Parker, than the development of Holland's Spider-Man Spidey-Powers. I'm still undecided about the way Spidey looks in his costume. To me, he looks more like a CGI goofnut, than an Avenger. But, how many kids get to have Jennifer Connelly on standby, whenever they need a helpful voice?
Homecoming might not feel and act like your typical MCU movie, but it does prove we still need Tony Stark, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts in our lives. I smiled with all the screen time Happy has. He's truly an underrated character in the MCU. Plus, Tony plays the "cool uncle" spot-on.
One of the biggest criticisms with the MCU people have is the boring villain. Not in this case. Michael Keaton plays reverse-Batman, and his character actually has depth, an interesting storyline and a surprise twist. Bookem Woodbine plays a fun henchman, and all movies benefit from the presence of Donald Glover. The bad guys are not a snore nor a bore at this Homecoming Dance with the Devil.
I hope I wasn't the only one laughing at the casting of Tony Revolori as Flash the Bully. He's about as intimidating as a can of ravioli. Zendaya is way underused, but she shines in her scenes. I wish Ned was my best friend, but the poor fella will probably be typecast for life. However, he's a hilarious guy. How can you not like him?
Did you think I forgot about Aunt May? Of course not! Marisa Tomei is smokin' and brings honest energy to her supporting role.
The final boss battle is fun. So are the scenes on a ferry and a national monument. There's action, and there's a lot of growing up for Peter Parker and his friends. I'm not MCU fatigued after watching, but I do have a sudden urge to revisit Pretty in Pink.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Doors: Twilight in Books
Mar 24, 2021
Great idea, poorly executed
The idea behind the Doors books is that of three different versions of a story with a shared beginning, but the stories diverge when the characters go through one of three (actually five but two are ignored as far as I'm aware!) doors. A team of people, each hired for their own area of expertise, are tasked with rescuing a rich German man's daughter who has wandered down into the mysterious cellar of their former family home, where a series of doors are believed to lead to strange new places.
The first quarter of these books is identical, with the damsel in distress being introduced and the team coming together and being given their tasks. At this stage, there is next to no organisation around their approach, it really is simply a bunch of people heading into the unknown and being drastically under-prepared. When the team quickly find the missing and take her back to the surface, the reader is left somewhat taken aback at the speed with which it was resolved. This is nothing compared to how the reader feels when the team go back looking for the real missing woman, simply based on their employer's assistant's momentary mistake that the woman's eyes were the wrong colour. This is not challenged by anyone in the team, who head back downstairs. It's a bigger WTF moment than the Batman vs Superman 'Martha' fiasco.
As with some of Heitz's Dwarves books, I think this suffered from fairly poor translation, as a number of phrases and words just are not clear. At no point did i really know where the team were heading, forwards or backwards, which door they went through etc.
And the promise of heading into the future was very much an empty one. Some members of the team briefly find themselves in near-future Frankfurt and there is a short section of the book which adds no value and has no connection to the rest of the book whatsoever. Thereafter, there is just some cliched mysterious dark maze adventures, with some unexplained conspiracy around the use and beginnings of the doors and their purpose. (I am currently around 80% of the way through the 'Colony' book, having mercifully skipped the first, repeated, quarter, and am starting to realise that there is likely to be an overall story arch that only becomes clear once the reader has read all three books).
This book, and the series as a whole, offered so much potential and teased so much, but this one at least completely failed to deliver for me.
Advance copy received from NetGalley and the publishers in exchange for an honest review.
The first quarter of these books is identical, with the damsel in distress being introduced and the team coming together and being given their tasks. At this stage, there is next to no organisation around their approach, it really is simply a bunch of people heading into the unknown and being drastically under-prepared. When the team quickly find the missing and take her back to the surface, the reader is left somewhat taken aback at the speed with which it was resolved. This is nothing compared to how the reader feels when the team go back looking for the real missing woman, simply based on their employer's assistant's momentary mistake that the woman's eyes were the wrong colour. This is not challenged by anyone in the team, who head back downstairs. It's a bigger WTF moment than the Batman vs Superman 'Martha' fiasco.
As with some of Heitz's Dwarves books, I think this suffered from fairly poor translation, as a number of phrases and words just are not clear. At no point did i really know where the team were heading, forwards or backwards, which door they went through etc.
And the promise of heading into the future was very much an empty one. Some members of the team briefly find themselves in near-future Frankfurt and there is a short section of the book which adds no value and has no connection to the rest of the book whatsoever. Thereafter, there is just some cliched mysterious dark maze adventures, with some unexplained conspiracy around the use and beginnings of the doors and their purpose. (I am currently around 80% of the way through the 'Colony' book, having mercifully skipped the first, repeated, quarter, and am starting to realise that there is likely to be an overall story arch that only becomes clear once the reader has read all three books).
This book, and the series as a whole, offered so much potential and teased so much, but this one at least completely failed to deliver for me.
Advance copy received from NetGalley and the publishers in exchange for an honest review.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 4, 2021
The Suicide Squad is a (possible) reboot that may or may not follow on from Suicide Squad and (or only) Birds of Prey. Honestly I'm not sure that even DC knows what's going on with their movie time line. Anyway, Margot Robbie and Joel Kinnamen return as Harley Quinn and Rick Flagg to lead another team of criminal misfits on an impossible mission (or, if it's a reboot like James Gunn says then it's the first time they are together and we ignore that Flagg askes Harley why she's back in prison or that Waller's team are checking who has worked with who). This time task force X are sent to the island of Corto Maltese to find and destroy 'Project Starfish'.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Dec 24, 2020
To it's credit, Civil War was incredible at it's time of release, but a recent re watch left me feeling a little emptier than I remember, and I think it's down to further films in the MCU. The main issue is that whilst it's a third Captain America movie, it is also Avengers 2.5, and as such, loses something from both sides of the coin. The complicated relationship between Bucky and Cap was one of the driving forces that made The Winter Soldier one of the best MCU films to date, but here, that side is distracted from by the big headline brawl. The Civil War side of things is set up pretty well, but the pay off doesn't quite pack the punch it needs to due to the overall focus on the aformentioned Bucky/Cap story.
When it first released, it benefited from boasting the first MCU appearances of Black Panther and Spider-Man. Since then we've seen plenty of both, in arguably better movies. At the time of release, the airport fight scene had me beaming with nerdy joy, but since then, we've been spoiled by Infinity War and Endgame, and the titular Civil War is really a low stakes fight full of pulled punches, wrapped up in a fan pleasing package. Basically, hindsight shows that Civil War is a victim of Marvel Studios bigger event movies that have followed since.
Another point worth mentioning is the villains' evil plan. The big bad this time is classic Captain America antagonist Baron Zeno, and his plan is, well, it's really convoluted. I know it's a comic book film, and I should suspend my disbelief to a certain degree, but I can't rag on Lex Luthors' stupid plan in Batman v Superman and then give this a free pass. It gets the ball rolling, and puts all the players into the right places for the film to proceed, but it's dumb as fuck.
It's miles away from being a bad comic book film though. The cast are all once again superb. Some of the emotional beats are fantastic, especially the final showdown between Iron Man and Cap. The way Tony is portrayed as a man with nothing left to lose at the films climax is heart breaking. It's extremely visually pleasing, the CGI is top drawer and the action is stupidly entertaining.
Civil War ultimately is full of thrilling moments that are designed to have comic book fans jumping for joy, but underneath all it's pizzazz, my recent re watch has shown me that it's a film trying to do too much. Luckily the Russo's managed to refine their formula for Infinity War, and as such, Civil War is a flawed yet important stepping stone to the Infinity Saga climax. Still 100% worth watching.
When it first released, it benefited from boasting the first MCU appearances of Black Panther and Spider-Man. Since then we've seen plenty of both, in arguably better movies. At the time of release, the airport fight scene had me beaming with nerdy joy, but since then, we've been spoiled by Infinity War and Endgame, and the titular Civil War is really a low stakes fight full of pulled punches, wrapped up in a fan pleasing package. Basically, hindsight shows that Civil War is a victim of Marvel Studios bigger event movies that have followed since.
Another point worth mentioning is the villains' evil plan. The big bad this time is classic Captain America antagonist Baron Zeno, and his plan is, well, it's really convoluted. I know it's a comic book film, and I should suspend my disbelief to a certain degree, but I can't rag on Lex Luthors' stupid plan in Batman v Superman and then give this a free pass. It gets the ball rolling, and puts all the players into the right places for the film to proceed, but it's dumb as fuck.
It's miles away from being a bad comic book film though. The cast are all once again superb. Some of the emotional beats are fantastic, especially the final showdown between Iron Man and Cap. The way Tony is portrayed as a man with nothing left to lose at the films climax is heart breaking. It's extremely visually pleasing, the CGI is top drawer and the action is stupidly entertaining.
Civil War ultimately is full of thrilling moments that are designed to have comic book fans jumping for joy, but underneath all it's pizzazz, my recent re watch has shown me that it's a film trying to do too much. Luckily the Russo's managed to refine their formula for Infinity War, and as such, Civil War is a flawed yet important stepping stone to the Infinity Saga climax. Still 100% worth watching.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Spider-man, starring Tobey Maguire, came out on 14th June 2002. Co-starring Kirsten Dunst, James Franco and Willem Dafoe. My god doesn't every one look young!
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mom and Dad (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A teenage girl and her little brother must survive a wild 24 hours during which a mass hysteria of unknown origins causes parents to turn violently on their own kids.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 6, 2019 (Updated Oct 6, 2019)
Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a down on his luck loner, currently taking seven different kinds of medication and living with his frail old mother (Frances Conroe). Arthur fantasises about living a ‘normal’ life, with hopes of becoming a stand up comedian and dating his next door neighbour, and the lines between reality and fantasy begin to become just as blurred for us during the movie as they do within Arthur’s mind.
We’re in Gotham City during the early eighties. A garbage strike means that the city is currently suffering from a build up of garbage on the streets and the subsequent arrival of ‘super rats’. The rich are getting richer, the poor and the underprivileged even more so. And, at the forefront of all the wealth and power in the city is Thomas Wayne, who is currently looking to run for mayor. There is growing divide and unrest throughout Gotham, all of which serves to add fuel to the increasingly unstable mind of Arthur Fleck.
We’ve had our fair share of Joker portrayals over the decades, the most memorable of which being in 2008, and Heath Ledger’s brilliant take on the character in The Dark Knight. But Joaquin Phoenix brings a side to the Joker we’ve not experienced before - all skin and bone, abused, downtrodden, ridiculed and with a neurological condition that sees him suddenly laughing maniacally and uncontrollably, even during times of stress or sadness. Throughout the movie, we learn that Arthur also had a pretty unpleasant childhood and, for a while, you really can sympathise with him and the suffering he experiences. “I just don’t want to feel so bad any more” he says at one point.
Joker features no CGI, no costumed antics (other than the clowned kind), or any of the traditional comic book movie themes that we’re now so used to seeing. Instead, Joker treats us to something of a slow-burn character study, one mans slow descent into madness, and the birth of one of the most iconic villains of all time. Joaquin Phoenix is incredible in the role, supported by an outstanding cast, including Robert De Niro as a late night talk show host idolised by Arthur and Zazie Beets as the neighbour Arthur becomes obsessed with.
Joker isn’t exactly enjoyable in the traditional sense, uncomfortable at times and a brutally honest depiction of extreme mental health issues. But it’s beautifully shot, subtly weaving itself into the familiar DC universe while remaining unique and original. I was gripped from start to finish and I just hope that the upcoming Robert Pattison incarnation of The Batman fits into the universe and style that has been introduced here within Joker.
We’re in Gotham City during the early eighties. A garbage strike means that the city is currently suffering from a build up of garbage on the streets and the subsequent arrival of ‘super rats’. The rich are getting richer, the poor and the underprivileged even more so. And, at the forefront of all the wealth and power in the city is Thomas Wayne, who is currently looking to run for mayor. There is growing divide and unrest throughout Gotham, all of which serves to add fuel to the increasingly unstable mind of Arthur Fleck.
We’ve had our fair share of Joker portrayals over the decades, the most memorable of which being in 2008, and Heath Ledger’s brilliant take on the character in The Dark Knight. But Joaquin Phoenix brings a side to the Joker we’ve not experienced before - all skin and bone, abused, downtrodden, ridiculed and with a neurological condition that sees him suddenly laughing maniacally and uncontrollably, even during times of stress or sadness. Throughout the movie, we learn that Arthur also had a pretty unpleasant childhood and, for a while, you really can sympathise with him and the suffering he experiences. “I just don’t want to feel so bad any more” he says at one point.
Joker features no CGI, no costumed antics (other than the clowned kind), or any of the traditional comic book movie themes that we’re now so used to seeing. Instead, Joker treats us to something of a slow-burn character study, one mans slow descent into madness, and the birth of one of the most iconic villains of all time. Joaquin Phoenix is incredible in the role, supported by an outstanding cast, including Robert De Niro as a late night talk show host idolised by Arthur and Zazie Beets as the neighbour Arthur becomes obsessed with.
Joker isn’t exactly enjoyable in the traditional sense, uncomfortable at times and a brutally honest depiction of extreme mental health issues. But it’s beautifully shot, subtly weaving itself into the familiar DC universe while remaining unique and original. I was gripped from start to finish and I just hope that the upcoming Robert Pattison incarnation of The Batman fits into the universe and style that has been introduced here within Joker.
LEGO® DC Super Heroes Chase
Games
App
PLAY AS POPULAR LEGO® DC COMICS CHARACTERS! The LEGO® DC Super Heroes Chase game is for the all...
LEGO® Juniors
Games and Entertainment
App
CREATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING WITH COOL CREATIONS The LEGO® Juniors app is an engaging, creative...
LEGO® Star Wars™: The Complete Saga
Games and Entertainment
App
LEGO® Star Wars™: The Complete Saga is available on iOS for the first time! ***Episode I Story...