Search
Search results
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated The Wild Storm, Vol. 2 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I am old enough to remember when Jean Grey became Dark Phoenix. I am also old enough to remember reading all the Image Comics titles in the 90's, because they were cool! Not all of them (*cough* Rob Liefeld's YOUNGBLOOD and assorted other titles he helmed) were good, but some, like WILDC.A.T.s and WETWORKS, were a little cooler and better other than the aforementioned titles. Those "cooler" books split off and became a separate publishing imprint, Wildstorm. Unfortunately, some things, not unlike THE A-TEAM or THE GREATEST AMERICAN HERO, don't hold up as well, but they will always hold a "special spot" in our nerdy, li'l hearts!
In the late 90's, a writer came onboard looking to revamp one of the so-so books, STORMWATCH. That writer was Warren Ellis, and the series that spun out of the revamped STORMWATCH was THE AUTHORITY. With that book, Ellis made one hell of an impression with a lot of people, myself included, earning him, and THE AUTHORITY, a very high spot on the Nerd Chart.
I skipped out when, in 2017 (I think), DC Comics absorbed the Wildstorm characters/books, making them "exist" in the same comics universe as Superman and Batman!
Jump ahead to 2018. Warren Ellis approaches DC, offering THE WILD STORM, a massive (24 issues!) reboot of the Wildstorm universe. They greenlight it. And, what a ride!
Forget everything about the 90s WILDC.A.T.s, Grifter, even THE AUTHORITY. This is a blank slate, with so much potential!
Volume 2, reprinting issues 7-12, is just.. words elude me. It's not mind-numbing like a lot of what Marvel and DC are churning out of late, but it certainly makes my brain itch. Watching familiar faces being reworked and presented in a totally different way is fun and interesting at the same time. It's also equally entertaining to see equally familiar plots and sub-plots taken apart and put back together in an uniquely satisfying way.
The series is not TOO wordy, yet wordy enough that the story gives us much to chew on and reflect long after this volume, or any of the individual issues themselves, are read. My hat goes off to Warren Ellis, for he has clear outdone himself, something I did not think could be done!
However, as much as I was taken in by Ellis' writing, it is also worth noting Jon Davis-Hunt's art. At times, he reminded me of Keith Giffen's LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES work (back when Tom and Mary Bierbaum were writing it), simple, at first viewing, but further study shows so much more in each panel. I felt his art suits the angle that Ellis is shooting for, and for that, I am glad that he seems to be invested in the art until the 24th, and final, issue of the series is completed.
Look, plain and simple. Go read Volume, because you will most certainly want to read this volume, and then, Volume 3, when it comes out in March. This is a smart series, and if you are old enough to remember the 90s Wildstorm characters (like me), you'll be sorry if you don't check it out! 'Nuff said!
In the late 90's, a writer came onboard looking to revamp one of the so-so books, STORMWATCH. That writer was Warren Ellis, and the series that spun out of the revamped STORMWATCH was THE AUTHORITY. With that book, Ellis made one hell of an impression with a lot of people, myself included, earning him, and THE AUTHORITY, a very high spot on the Nerd Chart.
I skipped out when, in 2017 (I think), DC Comics absorbed the Wildstorm characters/books, making them "exist" in the same comics universe as Superman and Batman!
Jump ahead to 2018. Warren Ellis approaches DC, offering THE WILD STORM, a massive (24 issues!) reboot of the Wildstorm universe. They greenlight it. And, what a ride!
Forget everything about the 90s WILDC.A.T.s, Grifter, even THE AUTHORITY. This is a blank slate, with so much potential!
Volume 2, reprinting issues 7-12, is just.. words elude me. It's not mind-numbing like a lot of what Marvel and DC are churning out of late, but it certainly makes my brain itch. Watching familiar faces being reworked and presented in a totally different way is fun and interesting at the same time. It's also equally entertaining to see equally familiar plots and sub-plots taken apart and put back together in an uniquely satisfying way.
The series is not TOO wordy, yet wordy enough that the story gives us much to chew on and reflect long after this volume, or any of the individual issues themselves, are read. My hat goes off to Warren Ellis, for he has clear outdone himself, something I did not think could be done!
However, as much as I was taken in by Ellis' writing, it is also worth noting Jon Davis-Hunt's art. At times, he reminded me of Keith Giffen's LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES work (back when Tom and Mary Bierbaum were writing it), simple, at first viewing, but further study shows so much more in each panel. I felt his art suits the angle that Ellis is shooting for, and for that, I am glad that he seems to be invested in the art until the 24th, and final, issue of the series is completed.
Look, plain and simple. Go read Volume, because you will most certainly want to read this volume, and then, Volume 3, when it comes out in March. This is a smart series, and if you are old enough to remember the 90s Wildstorm characters (like me), you'll be sorry if you don't check it out! 'Nuff said!
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2019 (Updated Oct 5, 2019)
You were never really here.
Joker buries a knife deep into your chest right from the start and just when you feel it might finally be pulled out to give you relief it twists it in a little deeper. Make no mistake about it Joker is a slow burn drama/character study so those expecting big action and Batman are in for a real shock here but then again thats also what I think is so special. Joker works hard and earns its big explosive moments with such a steady, progresive, careful character build up that ensures when vilolence hits its shocking, powrful, cold and chilling and thats whats so refreshing and brave about it especially for a mainstream film. Theres no hand holding, no sugar coating and no holding back here and its absolutely riveting and glorious to behold playing out a cross between taxi driver and you were never really here joaquin phoenix plays an already dangerously unstable man pushed over his breaking point by life and society. From the moment we first set eyes on Arthur we see his pain seeping out through his pupils and an insight into his tortured mind. Its a story about an already fragile mind being pushed to a point where it finally snaps and shows how especially without the right help and support an avoidable monster is unleashed. We have all become so uncaring and selfish because of our own problems in life we fail to care and empathise with each other but its lack of care and understanding of mental ilness (treating it esentially like a joke) that leads Arther to finally snap. When he does finaly give its like a release for him all his sadness, anxiety and lack of confidence vanishes and we see man reshaped and reborn. Then theres his uncontrolable laugh which seems to come about when he's anxious or stressed and actually feels like it physicaly pains him everytime its released. Character progression is steady and realistic this man is clearly sick, had a rough upbringing, suffering from mental illness and he longs for a father figure and just to be loved which he tries to achieve from performing. Theres so many themes explored here the big one being how society and the media are partaily responsible for glamorising and encouraging violent behavior/serial killers making them popular/trendy and swaying other fragile tried and tested minds to rise up a follow the lead. Theres just so much to say about this film and its frying my head trying to get it all down and in readable state. At the end of the day Joker is fantastic and without a doubt the best comic book movie we have had to date setting the bar for all those that follow now. Its mature, graphic, highly depresing, intricate, unnerving, relevant and iteligent leaving such a thought provoking lasting impression that you cant help but be fearful and worried about the current state of the world we live in and how its changing for the worse becoming such a terifying and unsafe place.
Comic Caption Meme Maker
Comics, Entertainment and Photo & Video
9.0
Rate It
App
Transform your pictures into authentic looking comics! Add word balloons, stickers, and filters to...
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Wicker Man (1973) in Movies
Aug 29, 2021
Something Wicker This Way Comes
Contains spoilers, click to show
Forgive me, Father, for I am about to spoil this whole film. I am a novice film reviewer, and as such, I know no other way.
This film opens up with a police officer (Sergeant Howie) flying to an island in Scotland. I knew something was up when the older gentlemen in the harbor refused to send a dinghy for him to get onto the island. The older men seemed to be in on some kind of joke. As my teenager would say, “Very sus.”
The rather uppity lawman, portrayed quite convincingly by Edward Woodward, is searching for a girl on the island. The girl, Rowan Morrison, was reported missing by way of an anonymous letter sent to the mainland.
We are then introduced to the woman who is allegedly the missing girl’s mother. She runs the most unsettling candy shop ever. There are a lot of chocolate bunnies, which I am normally all in favor of. But she corrects the officer when he refers to them as bunnies. They are rabbits, of course. Because that increases the creepiness factor by ten.
Howie’s lodging is above a righteously rollicking pub. The locals sing and play about in the pub, and all seems normal.
Forward to the next scene. Holy unexpected nudity, Batman. I am glad my son chose to stay in his room and play Roblox. There are a bunch of naked locals openly copulating in and around the churchyard. Of course, it is later explained that it is not a churchyard, because poor, very stodgy, very Puritan Sergeant Howie has stumbled upon an island of RECKLESS HEATHEN PAGANS.
The lovely Britt Ekland portrays Willow, the barmaid. In a scene early on, she does a ritualistic dance in the nude, in the room next to the very tempted police officer. My boyfriend correctly observed that Howie should stay away from this woman, as she is clearly a siren. Her dance moves were odd to me, and at one point, I asked aloud, “What is she doing?” My boyfriend responded, “She’s twerking.”
The plot thickens like a good rabbit stew. Christopher Lee aptly portrays Lord Summerisle, the leader of the island. Summerisle makes some strange claims about the island, and says the women there get pregnant asexually by way of a ritual. This claim seems counterintuitive, since there seemed to be a lot of unprotected boinking going on by various members of the island, in the open air no less. But hey, maybe these adulterated pagans missed the lecture on the birds and the bees.
As a heathen myself, I didn’t find this movie too horrific until it neared the end. I was more focused on Sergeant Howie’s unwillingness to entertain a faith other than his own. The scenery was breathtaking, as it was filmed entirely on location in Scotland.
I’m not really going to spoil every detail of the ending. But I must observe that this is the strangest version of The 40-Year-Old Virgin I have ever seen.
This film opens up with a police officer (Sergeant Howie) flying to an island in Scotland. I knew something was up when the older gentlemen in the harbor refused to send a dinghy for him to get onto the island. The older men seemed to be in on some kind of joke. As my teenager would say, “Very sus.”
The rather uppity lawman, portrayed quite convincingly by Edward Woodward, is searching for a girl on the island. The girl, Rowan Morrison, was reported missing by way of an anonymous letter sent to the mainland.
We are then introduced to the woman who is allegedly the missing girl’s mother. She runs the most unsettling candy shop ever. There are a lot of chocolate bunnies, which I am normally all in favor of. But she corrects the officer when he refers to them as bunnies. They are rabbits, of course. Because that increases the creepiness factor by ten.
Howie’s lodging is above a righteously rollicking pub. The locals sing and play about in the pub, and all seems normal.
Forward to the next scene. Holy unexpected nudity, Batman. I am glad my son chose to stay in his room and play Roblox. There are a bunch of naked locals openly copulating in and around the churchyard. Of course, it is later explained that it is not a churchyard, because poor, very stodgy, very Puritan Sergeant Howie has stumbled upon an island of RECKLESS HEATHEN PAGANS.
The lovely Britt Ekland portrays Willow, the barmaid. In a scene early on, she does a ritualistic dance in the nude, in the room next to the very tempted police officer. My boyfriend correctly observed that Howie should stay away from this woman, as she is clearly a siren. Her dance moves were odd to me, and at one point, I asked aloud, “What is she doing?” My boyfriend responded, “She’s twerking.”
The plot thickens like a good rabbit stew. Christopher Lee aptly portrays Lord Summerisle, the leader of the island. Summerisle makes some strange claims about the island, and says the women there get pregnant asexually by way of a ritual. This claim seems counterintuitive, since there seemed to be a lot of unprotected boinking going on by various members of the island, in the open air no less. But hey, maybe these adulterated pagans missed the lecture on the birds and the bees.
As a heathen myself, I didn’t find this movie too horrific until it neared the end. I was more focused on Sergeant Howie’s unwillingness to entertain a faith other than his own. The scenery was breathtaking, as it was filmed entirely on location in Scotland.
I’m not really going to spoil every detail of the ending. But I must observe that this is the strangest version of The 40-Year-Old Virgin I have ever seen.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
MichaelS (0 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Feb 20, 2018
"Meanwhile, at the Hall Of Justice..."
This movie is the culmination of a childhood full of Saturday mornings in front of the tv in pajamas with a bowl of cereal. "Superfriends" was superheroes at it's most basic. The bad guys wanted to take over or destroy the world and the good guys have to stop them. That was the depth of the plots for both those classic cartoons, and this movie. It's pure cartoon fun brought to life, and I loved every minute of it.
The plot only serves as a reason for these heroes to come together. So you can say that story is not a top priority. Character is the name of the game here, and on that level, the movie is gold. Each character is fully realized, with their own individual situation they need to grow from. Every hero is given his or her moment to shine as an individual. When they stand as a team, it's some of the best superhero action we've ever gotten.
The performances of the League members is spot on across the board. Every character is presented exactly the way they should be. Ben Affleck continues to prove all the doubters wrong, by giving us the best live action version of Batman we've ever seen. Right from the start you see how he demands fear from evildoers, but filled with hope for the good things in the world. Gal Gadot IS Wonder Woman. If there was any doubt left after her solo movie, it should be thoroughly erased now. She's strong in body, mind, and spirit. Jason Mamoa forever erases the idea of Aquaman being the wimpiest superhero. His "surfer dude" take on the character brings all the recklessness and abandon you'd expect from a beach bum. He's almost like a Spartan soldier that lives for the excitement of battle. Ezra Miller brings a youthful excitement of someone who is simply jazzed by what he, and others, can do with their abilities. He's almost the comic relief until you realize that the excited reactions he gives to everything is exactly what we would to if we were dropped in that situation.
SPOILER TERRITORY....skip to "END SPOILERS" if you don't want anything ruined
Although it should really come as no surprise to anyone, Superman does indeed return from the dead in this movie. Not only is that he's resurrected very cool, but the aftermath gives us the best fight scene of the film. Superman vs The Justice League. 'nuff said? I've always loved Henry Cavill as Superman, but now he owns the role. He has grown from a man filled with self doubt, trying to find his place in the world, to a man who now fully realizes who he is, and what purpose he serves to mankind. Lots of great Superman stuff in this movie, and that is the thing I'm most thankful for.
END SPOILERS
This is the most fun I've had with a superhero movie in a long time. It may not have the deepest plot, but that is fine with me, because this is truly a comic book come to life. It's full of the action and joyful spirit that the boy in me tuned into every weekend. Now, if the post credit scene in the movie delivers, it REALLY will be everything that the classic Challenges Of The Superfriends, and reduce me to that boy in pajamas again, cereal in hand, and a smile on my face.
The plot only serves as a reason for these heroes to come together. So you can say that story is not a top priority. Character is the name of the game here, and on that level, the movie is gold. Each character is fully realized, with their own individual situation they need to grow from. Every hero is given his or her moment to shine as an individual. When they stand as a team, it's some of the best superhero action we've ever gotten.
The performances of the League members is spot on across the board. Every character is presented exactly the way they should be. Ben Affleck continues to prove all the doubters wrong, by giving us the best live action version of Batman we've ever seen. Right from the start you see how he demands fear from evildoers, but filled with hope for the good things in the world. Gal Gadot IS Wonder Woman. If there was any doubt left after her solo movie, it should be thoroughly erased now. She's strong in body, mind, and spirit. Jason Mamoa forever erases the idea of Aquaman being the wimpiest superhero. His "surfer dude" take on the character brings all the recklessness and abandon you'd expect from a beach bum. He's almost like a Spartan soldier that lives for the excitement of battle. Ezra Miller brings a youthful excitement of someone who is simply jazzed by what he, and others, can do with their abilities. He's almost the comic relief until you realize that the excited reactions he gives to everything is exactly what we would to if we were dropped in that situation.
SPOILER TERRITORY....skip to "END SPOILERS" if you don't want anything ruined
Although it should really come as no surprise to anyone, Superman does indeed return from the dead in this movie. Not only is that he's resurrected very cool, but the aftermath gives us the best fight scene of the film. Superman vs The Justice League. 'nuff said? I've always loved Henry Cavill as Superman, but now he owns the role. He has grown from a man filled with self doubt, trying to find his place in the world, to a man who now fully realizes who he is, and what purpose he serves to mankind. Lots of great Superman stuff in this movie, and that is the thing I'm most thankful for.
END SPOILERS
This is the most fun I've had with a superhero movie in a long time. It may not have the deepest plot, but that is fine with me, because this is truly a comic book come to life. It's full of the action and joyful spirit that the boy in me tuned into every weekend. Now, if the post credit scene in the movie delivers, it REALLY will be everything that the classic Challenges Of The Superfriends, and reduce me to that boy in pajamas again, cereal in hand, and a smile on my face.
Katarzyna Krasuska (81 KP) rated Behind Closed Doors in Books
Aug 10, 2018
The book that made me angry
Contains spoilers, click to show
So, where do i start?
It took me one and a half day to read it, purely because I wanted to get it over with...
I must warn you, there might be some spoilers here, so unless you're not interested in reading the book I wouldn't continue with the review.
I just found the entire story so unrealistic and badly written, that it really makes me angry when I see all these five star reviews. For what, I'm asking?
Let me take you through some of my biggest issues with the story:
Issue number 1.:
Imagine you're 32 years old Grace, single, with the most amazing job as a buyer for Harrods with constant trips to South America. You're also about to become a legal guardian to your little sister with Down Syndrome. You meet this gorgeous man named Jack, whom you immediately fall in love with due to a lovely act of kindness towards your sister. This man within no time at all proposes to you and with that asks you to quit your job, sell your house and let him be the legal guardian as well. Any alarm bells yet??
He then says he wants the wedding to happen straight away. He's very manipulative, he makes all the decisions about the ceremony by himself; he decides the date, the venue, he even picks your dress.
Now the biggest giveaway that the fella is bad news is when he disappears on your wedding night and doesn't answer his phone, then in the morning texts you saying: Stop being so dramatic! I'll see you in front of the hotel at 11.
Wouldn't this be enough? Wouldn't you start thinking, that maybe you don't know enough about your husband, that you rushed into things?
What responsible woman would ever do that? I mean, seriously?! Ok, maybe if she didn't have Millie(her sister) and thought, that this might be the last chance to be with someone, than maybe she would agree for that quick a wedding. Or if she didn't have that good a job... Not like that though, I just don't see it. I think this could only happen if Grace herself had some sort of personality disorder or at least a very, very low self esteem.
Issue number 2.:
The constant threats about sending Millie to asylum...what asylum? This isn't Batman and Gotham city, asylums like that don't exist anymore. And since when people with Down Syndrome are held in Psychiatric Hospitals (as that's what they're called!). Not just that, you can't just admit someone to one of them. There are assessments and number of tests done with the patient, which means that only good things could come out that, as Millie would have told doctors what's really happening and the police would be called...simple.
Issue number 3.:
Grace had so many chances to escape, that it's actually funny. She could scream in the restaurant, shout for help, refuse to leave, do something!!
Issue number 4.:
Then there's the ending...
Grace in some miraculous way gets away with murder... In this fantasy world filled with lawyers, psychopaths & wealth, the author didn't think about forensics...hmm, or is it just me?
Even though I can honestly say I've read worse (Husband's secret, Sister's secret etc), this was a very painful and frustrating read...
It took me one and a half day to read it, purely because I wanted to get it over with...
I must warn you, there might be some spoilers here, so unless you're not interested in reading the book I wouldn't continue with the review.
I just found the entire story so unrealistic and badly written, that it really makes me angry when I see all these five star reviews. For what, I'm asking?
Let me take you through some of my biggest issues with the story:
Issue number 1.:
Imagine you're 32 years old Grace, single, with the most amazing job as a buyer for Harrods with constant trips to South America. You're also about to become a legal guardian to your little sister with Down Syndrome. You meet this gorgeous man named Jack, whom you immediately fall in love with due to a lovely act of kindness towards your sister. This man within no time at all proposes to you and with that asks you to quit your job, sell your house and let him be the legal guardian as well. Any alarm bells yet??
He then says he wants the wedding to happen straight away. He's very manipulative, he makes all the decisions about the ceremony by himself; he decides the date, the venue, he even picks your dress.
Now the biggest giveaway that the fella is bad news is when he disappears on your wedding night and doesn't answer his phone, then in the morning texts you saying: Stop being so dramatic! I'll see you in front of the hotel at 11.
Wouldn't this be enough? Wouldn't you start thinking, that maybe you don't know enough about your husband, that you rushed into things?
What responsible woman would ever do that? I mean, seriously?! Ok, maybe if she didn't have Millie(her sister) and thought, that this might be the last chance to be with someone, than maybe she would agree for that quick a wedding. Or if she didn't have that good a job... Not like that though, I just don't see it. I think this could only happen if Grace herself had some sort of personality disorder or at least a very, very low self esteem.
Issue number 2.:
The constant threats about sending Millie to asylum...what asylum? This isn't Batman and Gotham city, asylums like that don't exist anymore. And since when people with Down Syndrome are held in Psychiatric Hospitals (as that's what they're called!). Not just that, you can't just admit someone to one of them. There are assessments and number of tests done with the patient, which means that only good things could come out that, as Millie would have told doctors what's really happening and the police would be called...simple.
Issue number 3.:
Grace had so many chances to escape, that it's actually funny. She could scream in the restaurant, shout for help, refuse to leave, do something!!
Issue number 4.:
Then there's the ending...
Grace in some miraculous way gets away with murder... In this fantasy world filled with lawyers, psychopaths & wealth, the author didn't think about forensics...hmm, or is it just me?
Even though I can honestly say I've read worse (Husband's secret, Sister's secret etc), this was a very painful and frustrating read...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
5 years after the release of the first Lego Movie, these lovable characters are back with a brand new adventure. I had such a blast with the original so I was interested to see how they’d continue the story.
In The Lego Movie 2 the residents of Bricksburg are faced with a new threat, soon seeing the city they love destroyed by aliens from Duplo. This leaves them living in a wasteland with a brand new name; Apocalypseburg. Self explanatory really. Everyone was subsequently forced to toughen up and get on with it, except for Emmet (Chris Pratt) of course. He’s still his adorable, optimistic self, with hilarious results.
Emmet’s world is turned upside down when his friends are abducted, including Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), whom he cares about very deeply and everyone’s favourite broody superhero, Batman (Will Arnett). When the rest of the city refuses to help, Emmet embarks on a dangerous quest to rescue them and stop another apocalypse. As if one wasn’t bad enough.
Whilst not as strong as its predecessor, I still had a good time with The Lego Movie 2. The soundtrack in particular stood out to me, and I thought it really added to the overall narrative. New character Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) stole the show for me, with her song ‘Not Evil’ being my favourite one. The lyrics are hilarious as she desperately tries to convince Lucy and the gang that she’s a kind, trustworthy person. Considering she kidnapped people, Lucy is certainly not convinced by this.
On his journey to save his friends, Emmet encounters a rugged, charming adventurer named Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Chris Pratt) and the two team up. Hilariously, Rex has pet velociraptors which is an obvious reference to Jurassic World, and something that tickled me throughout the film.
I was surprised at how well-written and clever the script was. Because of this, I believe audiences of all ages can enjoy it due to the array of cultural references and adult humour. It may be easy to write this off as ‘just a kid’s film’, but to me, it’s more than that. It’s a joy to watch with some genuine messages about self-reflection and the importance of friendship.
Much like the first film, The Lego Movie 2 also utilises visual gags where characters build things to escape sticky situations. I always admire the creative process behind this and it never fails to make me laugh, reminding me of all the crazy things I used to build when I still had my Lego sets. The film’s imagination knows no bounds, reinforcing the versatile nature of these toys. You can build anything if you put your mind to it.
Overall, I would recommend this film if you’re looking to switch off and be transported to a crazy world where Lego characters unite and get into adventures. It’s not a well polished, award-winning film, but that doesn’t matter. It’s a solid couple of hours worth of entertainment and fun for all the family. Sometimes that’s all that matters.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/28/%E2%99%AB-this-reviews-gonna-get-stuck-inside-your-%E2%99%AB-my-thoughts-on-the-lego-movie-2/
In The Lego Movie 2 the residents of Bricksburg are faced with a new threat, soon seeing the city they love destroyed by aliens from Duplo. This leaves them living in a wasteland with a brand new name; Apocalypseburg. Self explanatory really. Everyone was subsequently forced to toughen up and get on with it, except for Emmet (Chris Pratt) of course. He’s still his adorable, optimistic self, with hilarious results.
Emmet’s world is turned upside down when his friends are abducted, including Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), whom he cares about very deeply and everyone’s favourite broody superhero, Batman (Will Arnett). When the rest of the city refuses to help, Emmet embarks on a dangerous quest to rescue them and stop another apocalypse. As if one wasn’t bad enough.
Whilst not as strong as its predecessor, I still had a good time with The Lego Movie 2. The soundtrack in particular stood out to me, and I thought it really added to the overall narrative. New character Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) stole the show for me, with her song ‘Not Evil’ being my favourite one. The lyrics are hilarious as she desperately tries to convince Lucy and the gang that she’s a kind, trustworthy person. Considering she kidnapped people, Lucy is certainly not convinced by this.
On his journey to save his friends, Emmet encounters a rugged, charming adventurer named Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Chris Pratt) and the two team up. Hilariously, Rex has pet velociraptors which is an obvious reference to Jurassic World, and something that tickled me throughout the film.
I was surprised at how well-written and clever the script was. Because of this, I believe audiences of all ages can enjoy it due to the array of cultural references and adult humour. It may be easy to write this off as ‘just a kid’s film’, but to me, it’s more than that. It’s a joy to watch with some genuine messages about self-reflection and the importance of friendship.
Much like the first film, The Lego Movie 2 also utilises visual gags where characters build things to escape sticky situations. I always admire the creative process behind this and it never fails to make me laugh, reminding me of all the crazy things I used to build when I still had my Lego sets. The film’s imagination knows no bounds, reinforcing the versatile nature of these toys. You can build anything if you put your mind to it.
Overall, I would recommend this film if you’re looking to switch off and be transported to a crazy world where Lego characters unite and get into adventures. It’s not a well polished, award-winning film, but that doesn’t matter. It’s a solid couple of hours worth of entertainment and fun for all the family. Sometimes that’s all that matters.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/28/%E2%99%AB-this-reviews-gonna-get-stuck-inside-your-%E2%99%AB-my-thoughts-on-the-lego-movie-2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Hancock (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Throughout the annals of cinema, the big screen has been home to some of the most larger-than-life heroes ever to spring from the pages of comic books. Recent adaptations of Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman, all went on to box office gold and with several more character adaptations in the works, there seems to be no end to the public’s desire to see tales based on costumed heroes with amazing powers.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
Paytm Mall : Online Shopping
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
Paytm Mall is India’s premier online shopping app - brought to you by Paytm, India’s most...