Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Banewreaker in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Banewreaker Will Make You Feel Bad for Sauron
Contains spoilers, click to show
Very few fantasy fans can get away with admitting that they aren’t all that big into sweeping, high epic fantasy à la Lord of the Rings or the Pern stories or everything that Terry Brooks writes. Many non-fantasy fans, however, can point to these tales as examples of why they aren’t into fantasy. Like it or not, it’s hard not to see the latter group’s point, as a lot of high fantasy is riddled with confusing terminology, rehashed stories, and genre clichés. This is not to say that these stories are bad, per sé, just that they can easily turn off readers who aren’t in the right kind of crowd.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Carey’s two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as it’s sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichés piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichés. This story is clichés. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is what’s going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that they’ve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, it’s Lord of the Rings from Sauron’s point of view.
It’s not a riff, though. It’s not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that it’s mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was “the quickening of the flesh,” which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, we’ll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if you’ve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that they’re the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesn’t create anything because he’s busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didn’t want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesn’t want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomane’s wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satoris’s few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one side’s view of evil is another’s view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled “evil” character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, she’s not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another man’s wife or another country’s momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if it’s a flaw, it’s an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldn’t be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, that’s the point. This is a story of clichés, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichés and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their “evil” enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, you’re still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasn’t stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I can’t claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-lover’s time – especially if you’ve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Carey’s two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as it’s sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichés piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichés. This story is clichés. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is what’s going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that they’ve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, it’s Lord of the Rings from Sauron’s point of view.
It’s not a riff, though. It’s not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that it’s mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was “the quickening of the flesh,” which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, we’ll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if you’ve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that they’re the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesn’t create anything because he’s busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didn’t want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesn’t want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomane’s wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satoris’s few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one side’s view of evil is another’s view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled “evil” character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, she’s not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another man’s wife or another country’s momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if it’s a flaw, it’s an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldn’t be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, that’s the point. This is a story of clichés, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichés and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their “evil” enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, you’re still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasn’t stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I can’t claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-lover’s time – especially if you’ve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Paul Chesworth (3 KP) created a post
Feb 20, 2018
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm not really sure where to start with this so settle in for a ride. I've tried to avoid major spoilers but some of the things I've written might give away or hint at events in Endgame so please don't read this until you've seen it at the cinema.
We were left forlorn in the wilds of Wakanda after Thanos' snap in Infinity War. 50% of every living creatures on the planet, on every planet, wiped out of existence. Thanos has set off in his retirement while our heroes are reassembling. What's left of the team is trying to get back to a normal life, saving the world, saving each other. Some are moving on, some are stuck on the past, all are lost.
I wrote more notes for this than I've written for any other movie. It was so much of a problem that I condensed the original and then recondensed them into collected topics. I'm vaguely going to go in chronological order, let's do it!
We open with Hawkeye. The scene was simple and effective to help line up the change in him, but it wasn't the tone I expected for the beginning of the film. You have to start it somehow, and I don't know how I thought they would but tonally it didn't say "Marvel" to me. In the trailers we see his darker side coming through, after seeing the film I can't help but wonder if they needed to do this to him. It felt a little like they were just doing it to use for one scene. Clint is a stand-up guy, he would have been there for them regardless in this situation.
As we recap on what's happening in the wake of the snap we find Nebula and Tony attempting to return from Titan on the Guardian's ship. For me, Nebula was the best bit of the whole film. The scenes with Tony are wonderful and touching, she's able to make a connection that she's never really had before and her transformation through the film is a delight.
Something at this point that I feel I should bring up is the partnership that we witness. Tony and Nebula, Nebula and War Machine, Rocket and Thor. We're given lots of different Marvel Mash-ups with great results. Nebula, in particular, shone through in these. Watch out for her with Rhodey.
Steve, Cap, is very much in control throughout this movie, in leadership as well as of his emotions. He still has his positive outlook on life but even when it wanes he's determined. Visually they've left you no room to wonder on whether he is the first Avenger, he leads into a room and he gets a lot of shots that frame him perfectly. But he has changed... on more than one occasion I found myself going "Language, Steve!" I was unsure about his support group in the trailer and after the full scene it felt like it was just there to set up occurrences towards the end of the film. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was actually a Captain America film, it felt much more like one than Civil War did.
Before coming to Endgame one of the things I had been thinking about was how Scott was going to return from the quantum realm. What happens kind of feels like they had no idea how they were going to do it, and it was frustrating and leaves you with questions about what happened in the five years since the snap. There's also a potential horror movie spin-off teased in Scott's walk through San Francisco, he encounters a kid on a bike... classic horror movie moment in that scene.
Nat gets to flex her leadership muscles in the post-snap world trying to keep a new band of Avengers together. Still based in the Avengers complex she's coordinating with members around the world and out in space. We finally see some genuine raw emotion from her as they search for Hawkeye as he's off on his... well what is it? Redirected revenge? She's always had a trusted position with Fury and it seems like his dusting has pushed her to step up.
Carol is back after her recent debut... I still don't think we can call her Captain Marvel when no one else does. I still don't like her, I can't help it. She's cocky and she doesn't seem to have any desire to actually work with the team. If there's anything that I got from this film it's that Black Widow should have had her own film already rather than introducing Carol at the last minute. She's not really a massive feature of the film and her inclusion feels almost like they needed to a solution to a problem and she was the quickest way to fix it.
Now we get to the point where I had some major upset. In my opinion, Marvel have done wrong by Bruce/Hulk and Thor. I saw a spoiler on Twitter for Bruce that I hoped was fan-inspired, but when we get to him in the film I sat in annoyed silence as those around me murmured with excitement. As far as Thor goes, I can see why they made the choices they did with him but it felt like they just turned him into a joke, and that didn't sit right with me at all. Just one small step back from what they did and they would have nailed it, but it felt like they just went for the cheap laugh at his expense.
So it's time to talk about time travel, I think we all knew that we could expect to see it in some way or another in Endgame. Tony and Bruce obvious have a big hand in this one, and it was nice to see them acknowledging the "normal" person discussion of time travel with film references. Outside of that though they threw a lot of complicated script at it, it felt like a very random step away from how they usually deal with technical things in the universe.
From the one hour point of the movie(ish) everything starts to pick up, up until then I wasn't loving the film, and that was upsetting to me. What follows from the quantum suit walk is a lot of fun. There are a lot of nostalgic moments that brought humour and a fun layer to the older films and we get what is probably the most satisfying moment of the entire MCU.
Visually this is one of the better films in the sequence. Shots weren't overly cluttered and so busy that you couldn't see what was happening, and there were a lot more poignant visuals. There are however a few that make me think they had to be reshot because you get very specific angles that give you the back of someone's head and the audio sounds slightly off to the rest of the scene.
Two things left to specifically mention...
The women of Marvel. For so many films we had very few female heroes, certainly none that got their fair share of coverage until The Wasp, Captain Marvel and an excellent female ensemble in Black Panther. I'm all for more female characters but I think Endgame went too far. There is one scene near the end that felt more like they were worried they hadn't had enough women on screen and they really packed them in, it felt awkward rather than awesome.
Stan Lee's cameo. It wasn't the usual fun we're used to. Fleeting and forgettable. Stan deserved better, this just didn't feel right. I even briefly wondered if it was actually him.
For me, Endgame wasn't the finale that we deserved. It wasn't better than Infinity War but I don't think that it could have been because of how much it had to bring to the table. I went and saw it twice because I like to see the 3D and 2D when they come out, it was actually one of the better 3D films I've seen on a regular screen.
I probably would have given this 3 stars, while I had fun watching it I came out both times feeling kind of "meh" about it. Nebula, America's ass and the epic moment in the finale, as well as a few other amusing moments, bumped it up slightly. I sadly found that first hour rather challenging and couldn't get on board with some of the character choices that were made.
What you should do
Let's face it, you're going to watch it if you've invested time in watching all the Marvel movies and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I'm aware I'm in a minority with my feelings about this, but not everyone can feel the same way about everything. What a world it would be if we could.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd still like an infinity stone... but I don't know which one.
We were left forlorn in the wilds of Wakanda after Thanos' snap in Infinity War. 50% of every living creatures on the planet, on every planet, wiped out of existence. Thanos has set off in his retirement while our heroes are reassembling. What's left of the team is trying to get back to a normal life, saving the world, saving each other. Some are moving on, some are stuck on the past, all are lost.
I wrote more notes for this than I've written for any other movie. It was so much of a problem that I condensed the original and then recondensed them into collected topics. I'm vaguely going to go in chronological order, let's do it!
We open with Hawkeye. The scene was simple and effective to help line up the change in him, but it wasn't the tone I expected for the beginning of the film. You have to start it somehow, and I don't know how I thought they would but tonally it didn't say "Marvel" to me. In the trailers we see his darker side coming through, after seeing the film I can't help but wonder if they needed to do this to him. It felt a little like they were just doing it to use for one scene. Clint is a stand-up guy, he would have been there for them regardless in this situation.
As we recap on what's happening in the wake of the snap we find Nebula and Tony attempting to return from Titan on the Guardian's ship. For me, Nebula was the best bit of the whole film. The scenes with Tony are wonderful and touching, she's able to make a connection that she's never really had before and her transformation through the film is a delight.
Something at this point that I feel I should bring up is the partnership that we witness. Tony and Nebula, Nebula and War Machine, Rocket and Thor. We're given lots of different Marvel Mash-ups with great results. Nebula, in particular, shone through in these. Watch out for her with Rhodey.
Steve, Cap, is very much in control throughout this movie, in leadership as well as of his emotions. He still has his positive outlook on life but even when it wanes he's determined. Visually they've left you no room to wonder on whether he is the first Avenger, he leads into a room and he gets a lot of shots that frame him perfectly. But he has changed... on more than one occasion I found myself going "Language, Steve!" I was unsure about his support group in the trailer and after the full scene it felt like it was just there to set up occurrences towards the end of the film. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was actually a Captain America film, it felt much more like one than Civil War did.
Before coming to Endgame one of the things I had been thinking about was how Scott was going to return from the quantum realm. What happens kind of feels like they had no idea how they were going to do it, and it was frustrating and leaves you with questions about what happened in the five years since the snap. There's also a potential horror movie spin-off teased in Scott's walk through San Francisco, he encounters a kid on a bike... classic horror movie moment in that scene.
Nat gets to flex her leadership muscles in the post-snap world trying to keep a new band of Avengers together. Still based in the Avengers complex she's coordinating with members around the world and out in space. We finally see some genuine raw emotion from her as they search for Hawkeye as he's off on his... well what is it? Redirected revenge? She's always had a trusted position with Fury and it seems like his dusting has pushed her to step up.
Carol is back after her recent debut... I still don't think we can call her Captain Marvel when no one else does. I still don't like her, I can't help it. She's cocky and she doesn't seem to have any desire to actually work with the team. If there's anything that I got from this film it's that Black Widow should have had her own film already rather than introducing Carol at the last minute. She's not really a massive feature of the film and her inclusion feels almost like they needed to a solution to a problem and she was the quickest way to fix it.
Now we get to the point where I had some major upset. In my opinion, Marvel have done wrong by Bruce/Hulk and Thor. I saw a spoiler on Twitter for Bruce that I hoped was fan-inspired, but when we get to him in the film I sat in annoyed silence as those around me murmured with excitement. As far as Thor goes, I can see why they made the choices they did with him but it felt like they just turned him into a joke, and that didn't sit right with me at all. Just one small step back from what they did and they would have nailed it, but it felt like they just went for the cheap laugh at his expense.
So it's time to talk about time travel, I think we all knew that we could expect to see it in some way or another in Endgame. Tony and Bruce obvious have a big hand in this one, and it was nice to see them acknowledging the "normal" person discussion of time travel with film references. Outside of that though they threw a lot of complicated script at it, it felt like a very random step away from how they usually deal with technical things in the universe.
From the one hour point of the movie(ish) everything starts to pick up, up until then I wasn't loving the film, and that was upsetting to me. What follows from the quantum suit walk is a lot of fun. There are a lot of nostalgic moments that brought humour and a fun layer to the older films and we get what is probably the most satisfying moment of the entire MCU.
Visually this is one of the better films in the sequence. Shots weren't overly cluttered and so busy that you couldn't see what was happening, and there were a lot more poignant visuals. There are however a few that make me think they had to be reshot because you get very specific angles that give you the back of someone's head and the audio sounds slightly off to the rest of the scene.
Two things left to specifically mention...
The women of Marvel. For so many films we had very few female heroes, certainly none that got their fair share of coverage until The Wasp, Captain Marvel and an excellent female ensemble in Black Panther. I'm all for more female characters but I think Endgame went too far. There is one scene near the end that felt more like they were worried they hadn't had enough women on screen and they really packed them in, it felt awkward rather than awesome.
Stan Lee's cameo. It wasn't the usual fun we're used to. Fleeting and forgettable. Stan deserved better, this just didn't feel right. I even briefly wondered if it was actually him.
For me, Endgame wasn't the finale that we deserved. It wasn't better than Infinity War but I don't think that it could have been because of how much it had to bring to the table. I went and saw it twice because I like to see the 3D and 2D when they come out, it was actually one of the better 3D films I've seen on a regular screen.
I probably would have given this 3 stars, while I had fun watching it I came out both times feeling kind of "meh" about it. Nebula, America's ass and the epic moment in the finale, as well as a few other amusing moments, bumped it up slightly. I sadly found that first hour rather challenging and couldn't get on board with some of the character choices that were made.
What you should do
Let's face it, you're going to watch it if you've invested time in watching all the Marvel movies and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I'm aware I'm in a minority with my feelings about this, but not everyone can feel the same way about everything. What a world it would be if we could.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd still like an infinity stone... but I don't know which one.
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Lovecraft's Monsters in Books
Dec 19, 2017
I received an ARC copy of this anthology in exchange for my honest opinion, and regrettably, I wasn't overly impressed with it. I made notes as I read, and those notes are what I will be posting here now:
Well, I'm about to start the third story, but I thought I'd keep a running commentary on each story so that when it came time to review it, I wouldn't forget how I felt about each individual one.
"Only the End of the World Again" by Neil Gaiman was good. Probably 4 stars. It wasn't the typical greatness that I USUALLY associate with Gaiman, but it was still a quick and enjoyable read. I read it aloud to my eight year old son (editing out the few naughty words, of course) and even he really loved it. There were a few places where he didn't understand what was going on, but overall, he thought it was a great story.
"Bulldozer" by Laird Barron was terrible. I couldn't make it through the story. The writing style was AWFUL. I know that it was supposed to be written -- in parts -- in a stream of consciousness style, but it was awful. I stopped about halfway through and just said screw it. I wouldn't even give this story a star at all.
Finished "Red Goat Black Goat" by Nadia Bulkin. While it had some nice creepy vibes, it was, overall, a 2 star story. I realize, as a short story, it is limited by length and time constraints, but the story just starts in the middle of a world about which the reader has no idea whatsoever. It's not what I would call a good story, although, as I said, there were a couple of moments when I had to look up from my completely dark bedroom and make sure I didn't hear bumps in the night, so it gets one extra star for that.
"The Same Deep Waters As You" was actually fantastic. It's been the best story in the anthology so far. I know, I know... me saying something is better than a Gaiman story is almost unheard of, but this story by Hodge was truly good from beginning to end. It was completely unique, and even though it was a short story, it was completely self-contained. It didn't leave me wondering what happened before the story started to get us to this place, and it ended perfectly, not in a 'to be continued' style. Also, just wow. The ending was a killer. I did NOT see it coming AT ALL. Five stars.
"A Quarter to Three" gets 2.5 stars simply because of Newman's writing style. She is very articulate, and I loved the tone of this story. The content of the story, however, wasn't that great. However, I feel compelled to give it an extra half a star -- bumping it up to 3 stars -- for this one, perfect line:
"It was easy to see what she had seen in him; it left a thin damp trail between his scuffed footprints." Ha. Loved it
"The Dappled Things" was a total bust. 1 star, and that is being generous. So boring I nearly fell asleep twice trying to get through the first two pages. Not worth the time it took to read it.
"Inelastic Collisions" was decent. I have nothing really bad to say about it, but I have nothing super great to say about it either. Three stars.
"Remnants" deserves about 3.5 stars. It's pretty decent. I like the story and the way the plot developed. However, I dislike how abruptly it ended. If the ending had been a little more well-rounded, it could have easily been a 4.5 star story.
"Love is Forbidden We Croak and Howl" -- eh. Two stars. Didn't really hold my interest that much. I kept drifting off...
"The Sect of the Idiot" was a solid three stars. Overall the story wasn't super, but I really, really, REALLY did love the detail paid to the dream sequence. It was beautiful and creepy and dark. Lovely bit of storytelling, that was.
"Jar of Salts" is easily 4.5 stars. Short little Lovecraftian poem, but such a pleasure to read.
Well, I'm finally finished with Lovecraft's Monsters, but honestly, after the last update I made, none of the other stories were really worth reading. I was, overall, a bit disappointed with the book. :-/
Well, I'm about to start the third story, but I thought I'd keep a running commentary on each story so that when it came time to review it, I wouldn't forget how I felt about each individual one.
"Only the End of the World Again" by Neil Gaiman was good. Probably 4 stars. It wasn't the typical greatness that I USUALLY associate with Gaiman, but it was still a quick and enjoyable read. I read it aloud to my eight year old son (editing out the few naughty words, of course) and even he really loved it. There were a few places where he didn't understand what was going on, but overall, he thought it was a great story.
"Bulldozer" by Laird Barron was terrible. I couldn't make it through the story. The writing style was AWFUL. I know that it was supposed to be written -- in parts -- in a stream of consciousness style, but it was awful. I stopped about halfway through and just said screw it. I wouldn't even give this story a star at all.
Finished "Red Goat Black Goat" by Nadia Bulkin. While it had some nice creepy vibes, it was, overall, a 2 star story. I realize, as a short story, it is limited by length and time constraints, but the story just starts in the middle of a world about which the reader has no idea whatsoever. It's not what I would call a good story, although, as I said, there were a couple of moments when I had to look up from my completely dark bedroom and make sure I didn't hear bumps in the night, so it gets one extra star for that.
"The Same Deep Waters As You" was actually fantastic. It's been the best story in the anthology so far. I know, I know... me saying something is better than a Gaiman story is almost unheard of, but this story by Hodge was truly good from beginning to end. It was completely unique, and even though it was a short story, it was completely self-contained. It didn't leave me wondering what happened before the story started to get us to this place, and it ended perfectly, not in a 'to be continued' style. Also, just wow. The ending was a killer. I did NOT see it coming AT ALL. Five stars.
"A Quarter to Three" gets 2.5 stars simply because of Newman's writing style. She is very articulate, and I loved the tone of this story. The content of the story, however, wasn't that great. However, I feel compelled to give it an extra half a star -- bumping it up to 3 stars -- for this one, perfect line:
"It was easy to see what she had seen in him; it left a thin damp trail between his scuffed footprints." Ha. Loved it
"The Dappled Things" was a total bust. 1 star, and that is being generous. So boring I nearly fell asleep twice trying to get through the first two pages. Not worth the time it took to read it.
"Inelastic Collisions" was decent. I have nothing really bad to say about it, but I have nothing super great to say about it either. Three stars.
"Remnants" deserves about 3.5 stars. It's pretty decent. I like the story and the way the plot developed. However, I dislike how abruptly it ended. If the ending had been a little more well-rounded, it could have easily been a 4.5 star story.
"Love is Forbidden We Croak and Howl" -- eh. Two stars. Didn't really hold my interest that much. I kept drifting off...
"The Sect of the Idiot" was a solid three stars. Overall the story wasn't super, but I really, really, REALLY did love the detail paid to the dream sequence. It was beautiful and creepy and dark. Lovely bit of storytelling, that was.
"Jar of Salts" is easily 4.5 stars. Short little Lovecraftian poem, but such a pleasure to read.
Well, I'm finally finished with Lovecraft's Monsters, but honestly, after the last update I made, none of the other stories were really worth reading. I was, overall, a bit disappointed with the book. :-/
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Zombies Vs. Unicorns in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>Book Review</b>
I had heard about this feud soon after it started, so when news that a book was coming out I had to read it. C'mon, zombies and unicorns, this is a combination I couldn't miss out on. After a lackluster and disappointing start, with many stories I didn't like at all, I was starting to think I'd have a hard time finishing the book, even with the different authors. It wasn't until The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson on page 147 that the stories picked up and I ended up enjoying the rest, though my enjoyment deviated from okay to great. The "arguments" between editors Holly Black (Team Unicorn) and Justine Larbalestier (Team Zombie) were usually quite amusing, though they themselves don't contribute to the book. I, for one, would have liked to have read their takes on their chosen teams.
I'm not going to review each story individually, but list them with my (very) basic impression of the story. The book has varying degrees of gore, cursing, sexual innuendo and references, bestiality (you read that right, but it's more referred to than shown, thank goodness), suicide, and other violent acts.
<u>Stories</u> (in order of appearance):
*The Highest Justice by Garth Nix (Marked as a unicorn story, this is actually both unicorn and zombie. A decent story.)
*Love Will Tear Us Apart by Alaya Dawn Johnson (Zombie. Did not care for this at all)
*Purity Test by Naomi Novik (Unicorn. Didn't hate this story, but wasn't fond of it either)
*Bougainvillea by Carrie Ryan (Zombie. Didn't like.)
*A Thousand Flowers by Margo Lanagan (Unicorn. Also wasn't fond of.)
*The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson (Zombie. Rather twisted, but so am I, so I enjoyed it.)
*The Care and Feeding of Your Baby Killer Unicorn by Diana Peterfreund (Unicorn. My favorite story in the anthology.)
*Inoculata by Scott Westerfield (Zombie. Pretty good.)
*Princess Prettypants by Meg Cabot (Unicorn. Very tongue-in-cheek, I liked this story a lot.)
*Cold Hands by Cassandra Clare (Zombie. Interesting world created here. Definitely passed my likability test.)
*The Third Virgin by Kathleen Duey (Unicorn. An okay story.)
*Prom Night by Libba Bray (Zombie. Second favorite of the book and very close to a tie with Peterfreund's tale.)
The unicorn stories went in many different directions, with all sorts of unicorns, while most of the zombie stories stayed where you would expect them and had typical zombies, though there were a few surprises still in store. I went into this as Team Zombie, and while my favorite was a unicorn story, I still firmly remain with the shamblers. Overall, I ended up enjoying the majority of the book, so if you're interested in zombies, unicorns, or especially both, pick this up for an interesting assortment of stories.
3.5 stars for the print version
<b>Audio Review</b>
This unabridged CD set includes ten discs, which average a little over one story each, though generally there is one whole story bookended by the end of one preceding it and the start of another afterward that will continue onto the next disc. They have very short chapters, generally less than a minute and I could tell when each chapter ended and the next began, which didn't make for totally smooth listening but it also wasn't too bad either. I would have rather have had longer chapters that had a clearer starting and stopping point to make it easier to find my place again. Most of the readers, both male and female, sound fairly young, which makes sense since this is a YA anthology, but the majority also sounded as if they were reading to school children, which makes for annoying listening. I found most of the voices grating and unfortunately none of them are named for me to be more specific. However, the one male was fine and the woman who did Diana Peterfreund was good and I believe she also narrated one or two others in the book. The use of sound effects break up stories, a groan that also says "brains" for zombies and trumpets and a horse whinny for unicorns. Immediately after is the intro from the editors with their ongoing debate that became increasingly irritating as I read on; this may have to do with how they performed those discussions. As written word, these exchanges are far more entertaining. For the most part, I really didn't enjoy listening to this and much prefer reading it in print.
2 stars for audio
I had heard about this feud soon after it started, so when news that a book was coming out I had to read it. C'mon, zombies and unicorns, this is a combination I couldn't miss out on. After a lackluster and disappointing start, with many stories I didn't like at all, I was starting to think I'd have a hard time finishing the book, even with the different authors. It wasn't until The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson on page 147 that the stories picked up and I ended up enjoying the rest, though my enjoyment deviated from okay to great. The "arguments" between editors Holly Black (Team Unicorn) and Justine Larbalestier (Team Zombie) were usually quite amusing, though they themselves don't contribute to the book. I, for one, would have liked to have read their takes on their chosen teams.
I'm not going to review each story individually, but list them with my (very) basic impression of the story. The book has varying degrees of gore, cursing, sexual innuendo and references, bestiality (you read that right, but it's more referred to than shown, thank goodness), suicide, and other violent acts.
<u>Stories</u> (in order of appearance):
*The Highest Justice by Garth Nix (Marked as a unicorn story, this is actually both unicorn and zombie. A decent story.)
*Love Will Tear Us Apart by Alaya Dawn Johnson (Zombie. Did not care for this at all)
*Purity Test by Naomi Novik (Unicorn. Didn't hate this story, but wasn't fond of it either)
*Bougainvillea by Carrie Ryan (Zombie. Didn't like.)
*A Thousand Flowers by Margo Lanagan (Unicorn. Also wasn't fond of.)
*The Children of the Revolution by Maureen Johnson (Zombie. Rather twisted, but so am I, so I enjoyed it.)
*The Care and Feeding of Your Baby Killer Unicorn by Diana Peterfreund (Unicorn. My favorite story in the anthology.)
*Inoculata by Scott Westerfield (Zombie. Pretty good.)
*Princess Prettypants by Meg Cabot (Unicorn. Very tongue-in-cheek, I liked this story a lot.)
*Cold Hands by Cassandra Clare (Zombie. Interesting world created here. Definitely passed my likability test.)
*The Third Virgin by Kathleen Duey (Unicorn. An okay story.)
*Prom Night by Libba Bray (Zombie. Second favorite of the book and very close to a tie with Peterfreund's tale.)
The unicorn stories went in many different directions, with all sorts of unicorns, while most of the zombie stories stayed where you would expect them and had typical zombies, though there were a few surprises still in store. I went into this as Team Zombie, and while my favorite was a unicorn story, I still firmly remain with the shamblers. Overall, I ended up enjoying the majority of the book, so if you're interested in zombies, unicorns, or especially both, pick this up for an interesting assortment of stories.
3.5 stars for the print version
<b>Audio Review</b>
This unabridged CD set includes ten discs, which average a little over one story each, though generally there is one whole story bookended by the end of one preceding it and the start of another afterward that will continue onto the next disc. They have very short chapters, generally less than a minute and I could tell when each chapter ended and the next began, which didn't make for totally smooth listening but it also wasn't too bad either. I would have rather have had longer chapters that had a clearer starting and stopping point to make it easier to find my place again. Most of the readers, both male and female, sound fairly young, which makes sense since this is a YA anthology, but the majority also sounded as if they were reading to school children, which makes for annoying listening. I found most of the voices grating and unfortunately none of them are named for me to be more specific. However, the one male was fine and the woman who did Diana Peterfreund was good and I believe she also narrated one or two others in the book. The use of sound effects break up stories, a groan that also says "brains" for zombies and trumpets and a horse whinny for unicorns. Immediately after is the intro from the editors with their ongoing debate that became increasingly irritating as I read on; this may have to do with how they performed those discussions. As written word, these exchanges are far more entertaining. For the most part, I really didn't enjoy listening to this and much prefer reading it in print.
2 stars for audio
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Hell's Angels (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Big budget, elaborate air combat scenes which resulted in several deaths and Gimmick after gimmick… This has to be the Howard Hughes’ World War 1 epic, Hell’s Angels.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Last Dragon (1985) in Movies
Jun 7, 2019
So Bad You Just Might Like it
In his quest to find “The Master” and expand his training, black martial arts expert Bruce Leroy (Taimak) has to square off against Sho’nuff the Shogun of Harlem. With me, yet?
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Director Gary Ross had his work cut out trying to create a film which brought to life the startling realism of Suzanne Collins’ successful trilogy of novels and here we have the first, The Hunger Games.
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Wow!
Contains spoilers, click to show
First of all I will not be referring to this film by the crap UK name of Avengers Assembled. The film is The Avengers and that all it needs to be called.
This is biggest and most anticipated film from the last few years. It is a sequel to the Marvel films Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America (2011) and The Incredible Hulk (2008). But is it possible to make one film starring them all? Would it work with all of them in lead roles? The film brings together Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans) & The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) along with S.H.I.E.L.D. agents Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). They join forces against Thor's Brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) who has unleashed an alien race upon the Earth so he can conquer it.
As many of you will know by now, I am a huge action movie and comic adaption fan, so this film exactly what I was looking for. I kept away from many reviews and possible spoilers. However I had to see the trailers. After seeing them and being blown away I got a little worried for the film. Many trailers use so much of the action and plot that they show most of the good parts of the film. I really hoped that this wouldn't happen with this one. I wanted this film to be good.
After the first 5 minutes I was worried. The film started out well but there was a really really bad camera cut/edit. For a film fan it stood out and slapped me in the face. I started to worry that it was a sign of things to come. However my fears were soon dispelled as the film sucked me in with outstanding direction, visuals and 3D effects like I have never seen before. The way the film was prepared starting out with Iron Man in 2008 and then tying in all the following films together are a big lead up to this one. A huge gamble but it really paid off. The outstanding cast work so well together. With all these larger than life characters already having their own individual stories told, all what was left was to bring them together. But first they start out against each other. Their individual egos explode as they battle each other with explosive devastation. Soon they all share a common goal and start to band together. Then the film really lets to. Up until this point it was amazing. When they finally start working together that's when an amazing movie exceeds all expectations and takes the superhero genre to a level never before seen. This is also the point then the 3D effects take on a whole new level. Prior to this they were used for depth and clarity of the film very well, but now it bring you in to the film and doesn't let go. The greatest effect is an alien ship appearing from over your head. It actually startled me as it appeared above my head before it was on the screen. Never before outside of a theme park has a 3D film managed this.
Fortunately it didn't just meet my expectations, it exceeded them more than I ever thought possible. I really can't find the right words to convey how good this film really is. It has moments where you laugh so hard you cry, amazingly the best of these involve The Hulk! There are moments where you find yourself holding your breath at the sheer scope of what you are seeing. The action raises the bar for the genre to maybe unattainable heights. This film is so very good.
I usually rate films on a scale of 1-10 but 10 feels inadequate for this. So for this one I am using 1-100. This film scores a 99. Only losing out on 100 due to the single bad edit at the start of the film. Joss Whedon has managed the impossible with this film and pulled of a film no one expected to be so good. For this reason and for the first time my stand out performance is the director Joss Whedon, for creating a perfect superhero movie.
You have to see this on the biggest screen you can find and in 3D
This is biggest and most anticipated film from the last few years. It is a sequel to the Marvel films Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America (2011) and The Incredible Hulk (2008). But is it possible to make one film starring them all? Would it work with all of them in lead roles? The film brings together Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans) & The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) along with S.H.I.E.L.D. agents Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). They join forces against Thor's Brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) who has unleashed an alien race upon the Earth so he can conquer it.
As many of you will know by now, I am a huge action movie and comic adaption fan, so this film exactly what I was looking for. I kept away from many reviews and possible spoilers. However I had to see the trailers. After seeing them and being blown away I got a little worried for the film. Many trailers use so much of the action and plot that they show most of the good parts of the film. I really hoped that this wouldn't happen with this one. I wanted this film to be good.
After the first 5 minutes I was worried. The film started out well but there was a really really bad camera cut/edit. For a film fan it stood out and slapped me in the face. I started to worry that it was a sign of things to come. However my fears were soon dispelled as the film sucked me in with outstanding direction, visuals and 3D effects like I have never seen before. The way the film was prepared starting out with Iron Man in 2008 and then tying in all the following films together are a big lead up to this one. A huge gamble but it really paid off. The outstanding cast work so well together. With all these larger than life characters already having their own individual stories told, all what was left was to bring them together. But first they start out against each other. Their individual egos explode as they battle each other with explosive devastation. Soon they all share a common goal and start to band together. Then the film really lets to. Up until this point it was amazing. When they finally start working together that's when an amazing movie exceeds all expectations and takes the superhero genre to a level never before seen. This is also the point then the 3D effects take on a whole new level. Prior to this they were used for depth and clarity of the film very well, but now it bring you in to the film and doesn't let go. The greatest effect is an alien ship appearing from over your head. It actually startled me as it appeared above my head before it was on the screen. Never before outside of a theme park has a 3D film managed this.
Fortunately it didn't just meet my expectations, it exceeded them more than I ever thought possible. I really can't find the right words to convey how good this film really is. It has moments where you laugh so hard you cry, amazingly the best of these involve The Hulk! There are moments where you find yourself holding your breath at the sheer scope of what you are seeing. The action raises the bar for the genre to maybe unattainable heights. This film is so very good.
I usually rate films on a scale of 1-10 but 10 feels inadequate for this. So for this one I am using 1-100. This film scores a 99. Only losing out on 100 due to the single bad edit at the start of the film. Joss Whedon has managed the impossible with this film and pulled of a film no one expected to be so good. For this reason and for the first time my stand out performance is the director Joss Whedon, for creating a perfect superhero movie.
You have to see this on the biggest screen you can find and in 3D