Search
Search results
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 (971 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.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 4, 2019
Thoughts on Joker
Characters – Arthur Fleck is a loner that has been struggling for work, he wants to be an entertainer and is working on his own material to try his luck at stand-up comedy. He starts a new relationship and thinks his life is going in a new direction, until he learns the truth, becoming the icon we know. Murray Franklin is the host of his own talk show, he handles the comedy of the real events and is the man Arthur sees as an idol, he sees one of the clips of the stand up and puts it on his own show. Sophie is the neighbour and single mother that starts a relationship with Arthur, showing him in a better life. Penny is the mother of Arthur, she sees only the good in the richest man in the town and writes to him often waiting for a reply from her former employer. While most of the characters do have more about them, though most details will contain full spoilers.
Performances – Joaquin Phoenix gives us a wonderful performance, showing his commitment to the role, which will be one people will talk about when award season hits. Robert De Niro is joy to watch as the charismatic talk show host. Zazie Beetz is good to watch, though she just doesn’t get enough screen time. Frances Conroy is strong to through the film.
Story – The story here follows a man that has been failed by the society and the mental health system, which sees him struggle to deal with reality and begin his path to become one of the most iconic comic villains. This is much like Venom, a strange choice for a character to bring to the centre stage because we shouldn’t be backing a villainous character, but this time we do get everything connecting to why Joker became who he is. By stepping into how mental health can be brushed aside at times forcing people to fall through the cracks, not being treated the correct way to help them. If you are expecting any sort of comic book movie, you will be lost in this one because nothing we see has anything that couldn’t become a reality, which is what could make the film feel unsettling in places. This is also a story that could have been told without needing to throw a big character name like the Joker in around it and it might have been even better if it didn’t rely on the familiar name.
Crime – The crime side of the film shows how Arthur starts by being a victim, before he starts to try and show just how far he will go to stand up for himself.
Settings – The film does use the settings brilliantly, showing how Arthur has come from the bottom, never been given a thing in life, which does reflect just how we would see a Batman figure born with wealth.
Scene of the Movie – Talk show time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the laughing stuff, it would include spoilers to why though.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting a dark spin on the world for one of the biggest names in comic book history, without making it feel like a comic book in anyway.
Overall: Dark and as Twisted as You Would Imagine.
Characters – Arthur Fleck is a loner that has been struggling for work, he wants to be an entertainer and is working on his own material to try his luck at stand-up comedy. He starts a new relationship and thinks his life is going in a new direction, until he learns the truth, becoming the icon we know. Murray Franklin is the host of his own talk show, he handles the comedy of the real events and is the man Arthur sees as an idol, he sees one of the clips of the stand up and puts it on his own show. Sophie is the neighbour and single mother that starts a relationship with Arthur, showing him in a better life. Penny is the mother of Arthur, she sees only the good in the richest man in the town and writes to him often waiting for a reply from her former employer. While most of the characters do have more about them, though most details will contain full spoilers.
Performances – Joaquin Phoenix gives us a wonderful performance, showing his commitment to the role, which will be one people will talk about when award season hits. Robert De Niro is joy to watch as the charismatic talk show host. Zazie Beetz is good to watch, though she just doesn’t get enough screen time. Frances Conroy is strong to through the film.
Story – The story here follows a man that has been failed by the society and the mental health system, which sees him struggle to deal with reality and begin his path to become one of the most iconic comic villains. This is much like Venom, a strange choice for a character to bring to the centre stage because we shouldn’t be backing a villainous character, but this time we do get everything connecting to why Joker became who he is. By stepping into how mental health can be brushed aside at times forcing people to fall through the cracks, not being treated the correct way to help them. If you are expecting any sort of comic book movie, you will be lost in this one because nothing we see has anything that couldn’t become a reality, which is what could make the film feel unsettling in places. This is also a story that could have been told without needing to throw a big character name like the Joker in around it and it might have been even better if it didn’t rely on the familiar name.
Crime – The crime side of the film shows how Arthur starts by being a victim, before he starts to try and show just how far he will go to stand up for himself.
Settings – The film does use the settings brilliantly, showing how Arthur has come from the bottom, never been given a thing in life, which does reflect just how we would see a Batman figure born with wealth.
Scene of the Movie – Talk show time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the laughing stuff, it would include spoilers to why though.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting a dark spin on the world for one of the biggest names in comic book history, without making it feel like a comic book in anyway.
Overall: Dark and as Twisted as You Would Imagine.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) in Movies
Jan 13, 2023
Strong Acting aids Character Study
Back in 2008, Writer/Director Martin McDonagh scored an improbable hit with IN BRUGES, a tale of two hitmen “laying low” in…well…Bruges, Belgium while awaiting instructions from their boss. During this down time these two characters muse about the meanings of life and love in a wonderful, Oscar Nominated, character study.
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Mini Avengers, Assemble
Is anyone else getting bored of superhero films? Nope? Just me then. We’re not even halfway through 2016 and there have been three of them. In February, there was Deadpool, a film that despite all the odds, turned out to be smashing – despite its generic finale.
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2019 (Updated Jan 28, 2019)
A Middling Reboot
This is another movie from late 2018 that I am only just getting a chance to see. After my girlfriend and I sat through this one, she turned to me and asked what I thought of it. In response, I just shrugged my shoulders and went, "It was alright." That is genuinely the best way that I can think of to sum up my feeling on this film.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
