Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Dec 11, 2017
Amazing
The Book of Life was one of my favorite films of 2014. When I first saw the trailer for Coco, it was hard not for me to draw comparisons. A celebration of the Day of the Dead. Mariachi. Centered around music. Coco brings its own flavor, however, a unique experience all its own. In fact, if it weren't for the god-awful twenty-five-minute Frozen short right before (since removed due to numerous complaints), this would have been close to a perfect moviegoing experience.
Little Miguel loves music. He has to sneak away to watch old recordings of his favorite musician Ernesto de la Cruz because the rest of his family thinks music is a curse. Following a mysterious chain of events (don't want to ruin it for you), Miguel finds himself in the Land of the Dead and must somehow find a way to get home before its too late.
The colors. Oh man, the colors. Vibrant, popping off the screen. It screams life even during the scenes in the Land of the Dead. This is one film I wish I would have seen in IMAX. The colors add an amazing pop, from the spirit animals to the city landscapes at night, making this one of the most beautiful animated films I have seen.
The colors alone are just a small touch to the overall creativity and originality behind Coco. The Land of the Dead is loaded with sights to behold, some you might miss if you blink. The attention to detail is spectacular from the cool bridge that guides the dead to the Land of the Living to the colorful spirit animals. I've seen a lot of movies and I haven't seen anything like this.
Not only are the visuals amazing, but the music holds its own as well, driving the entire story in an entertaining and powerful way. There are a lot of touching moments that revolve around the soundtrack. There will be musical numbers that make you laugh while others leave you with more of a somber feel. Maybe I cried a little. Maybe I didn't. You'll never know for sure. One thing I can say is this movie was about as touching as any I have seen this year.
Disney/Pixar is known for leaving you with a great message and Coco is no exception. Miguel was willing to follow his dreams at all costs, even if it cost him his life. How many of us can say the same? Another phenomenal job by Pixar. I give the film a 96.
Little Miguel loves music. He has to sneak away to watch old recordings of his favorite musician Ernesto de la Cruz because the rest of his family thinks music is a curse. Following a mysterious chain of events (don't want to ruin it for you), Miguel finds himself in the Land of the Dead and must somehow find a way to get home before its too late.
The colors. Oh man, the colors. Vibrant, popping off the screen. It screams life even during the scenes in the Land of the Dead. This is one film I wish I would have seen in IMAX. The colors add an amazing pop, from the spirit animals to the city landscapes at night, making this one of the most beautiful animated films I have seen.
The colors alone are just a small touch to the overall creativity and originality behind Coco. The Land of the Dead is loaded with sights to behold, some you might miss if you blink. The attention to detail is spectacular from the cool bridge that guides the dead to the Land of the Living to the colorful spirit animals. I've seen a lot of movies and I haven't seen anything like this.
Not only are the visuals amazing, but the music holds its own as well, driving the entire story in an entertaining and powerful way. There are a lot of touching moments that revolve around the soundtrack. There will be musical numbers that make you laugh while others leave you with more of a somber feel. Maybe I cried a little. Maybe I didn't. You'll never know for sure. One thing I can say is this movie was about as touching as any I have seen this year.
Disney/Pixar is known for leaving you with a great message and Coco is no exception. Miguel was willing to follow his dreams at all costs, even if it cost him his life. How many of us can say the same? Another phenomenal job by Pixar. I give the film a 96.
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated Gone with the Wind in Books
Jan 2, 2019
In 1861, Scarlett O'Hara is the belle of Georgia. Young, passionate and full of life. But when war comes, she is faced with hardships that she never even dreamed possible.
"Hardships make or break people."
Follow Scarlett O'Hara and her family through the destruction and despair of the Civil War and the years that followed in Reconstruction. With the old way of life dead and gone, will she wilt away along with many others of her previous status and class? Or will she find the gumption to press on and strive for survival, no matter the cost? Her love for one man blinds her to the truth about herself and those around her. After everything she has been through, will she lose the one thing she desires above all else?
"After all, tomorrow is another day."
**If you are not familiar with this story please be aware of a few minor spoilers**
I have grown up watching Gone With the Wind, but somehow, I never got around to reading the book. I am happy to check this one off of my "Bucket (Reading) List". Very long, (hence my relative blogging silence) but worth every word. Margaret Mitchell's descriptions are so detailed! I could feel the Southern sun upon my skin and could smell the scent of the magnolias growing around Tara. If you have seen the movie you will know that this is not a happy tale. But there are very valuable lessons to be learned. After reading the last page today, I was thinking about what I wanted to say in my review. And I think that what stood out to me the most, is that sometimes we are so blinded by what we think we want, what we have idolized for so long, that we can not see true happiness when it stares us in the face. There have been times in my life that I wanted my life to go in a particular direction, but the Lord changed my course. For a time it was challenging to see the good in the situation. But I would come to the realization that if I had continued down that path, I would have been miserable. Instead, I am exactly where I need to be and am continuing to learn to put my trust in God, knowing that He knows best and that He is guiding my steps. For all of her faults, Scarlett is a woman I can admire. No matter what life threw at her, she would not let herself be beaten. Her determination for survival drove her to extremes. But survive she did.
"Hardships make or break people."
Follow Scarlett O'Hara and her family through the destruction and despair of the Civil War and the years that followed in Reconstruction. With the old way of life dead and gone, will she wilt away along with many others of her previous status and class? Or will she find the gumption to press on and strive for survival, no matter the cost? Her love for one man blinds her to the truth about herself and those around her. After everything she has been through, will she lose the one thing she desires above all else?
"After all, tomorrow is another day."
**If you are not familiar with this story please be aware of a few minor spoilers**
I have grown up watching Gone With the Wind, but somehow, I never got around to reading the book. I am happy to check this one off of my "Bucket (Reading) List". Very long, (hence my relative blogging silence) but worth every word. Margaret Mitchell's descriptions are so detailed! I could feel the Southern sun upon my skin and could smell the scent of the magnolias growing around Tara. If you have seen the movie you will know that this is not a happy tale. But there are very valuable lessons to be learned. After reading the last page today, I was thinking about what I wanted to say in my review. And I think that what stood out to me the most, is that sometimes we are so blinded by what we think we want, what we have idolized for so long, that we can not see true happiness when it stares us in the face. There have been times in my life that I wanted my life to go in a particular direction, but the Lord changed my course. For a time it was challenging to see the good in the situation. But I would come to the realization that if I had continued down that path, I would have been miserable. Instead, I am exactly where I need to be and am continuing to learn to put my trust in God, knowing that He knows best and that He is guiding my steps. For all of her faults, Scarlett is a woman I can admire. No matter what life threw at her, she would not let herself be beaten. Her determination for survival drove her to extremes. But survive she did.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018
Good start to the DARK KNIGHT trilogy
BATMAN BEGINS is a seminal film in the oeuvre of Christopher Nolan for a variety of reasons. Certainly, it became his biggest Box Office success to date and marked him as an "A" list Director. Also, you start seeing the recurring actors that I call "the Nolan players" in his films - Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe. But, most importantly, BATMAN BEGINS starts showing the Hallmarks of what a "Christopher Nolan" film is.
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 8, 2021
More Fun Than I Expected
It is almost an effort in futility to review a movie such as THE SUICIDE SQUAD, for most folks fall into 1 of 2 camps:
1). Are a DC (or Comic Book Movie) Fan, and will go see this no matter what.
2). Are not of fan of the darker DCEU movies (as compared to the MCU films) and might have checked out the first SUICIDE SQUAD, but have no intention to watch this one.
This review is for the folks in the 2nd camp - for THE SUICIDE SQUAD is a fun summer action flick with silliness, action, humor and HEART at it’s core.
Directed by James Gunn (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), THE SUICIDE SQUAD starts out like the first SUICIDE SQUAD film (and most of the DCEU films) - dark, gritty and intense - with a new pack of anti-heroes joining in on a fight that absolutely cements this team as THE SUICIDE SQUAD.
After that, the film makes an interesting adjustment, actually giving the audience anti-heroes that you can root for with just enough of a balance between the dark grittiness that one has come to expect from a DCEU film with a bit more humane touch that really is the hallmark of the MCU.
And, under the Direction of James Gunn, this film finds that balance very, very well.
Gunn, of course, knows how to make these films - his balance of action and character moments is accurate, his action sequences are well plotted and choreographed (no need for “shaky cam” to hide the faults) and he populates this Suicide Squad with some memorable characters.
Margot Robbie, of course, is in another stratosphere in her portrayal of Harley Quinn. This is the 3rd film that Robbie stars as Quinn and she has this part down pat. The problem with the other 2 films that she starred in as Quinn (2016’s SUICIDE SQUAD and 2020’s BIRDS OF PREY) is that she was SO GOOD in those films, that everyone else paled in comparison, but in this film, she has some strong actors/characters to play off of, and this benefits the movie.
Starting with Idris Elba as Bloodsport the “Leader” of the Squad (in essence, replacing Will Smith) and this is a smart move for Elba has the commanding presence of a Leader with that sense of foreboding that he might not be such a good guy underneath - a quality that I just didn’t buy from Smith in the first movie.
Joining Elba as characters that were interesting and strong were RatCatcher 1 (Taiki Waititi - in an extended cameo) and RatCatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Savant (Michael Rooker), freedom fighter Sol Soria (Sonya Braga), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and the “Groot” of this piece, King Shark (Sylvester Stallone).
Oh…and special notice needs to be made of the character of Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian). Director Gunn has stated he wanted to find the dumbest villain in the DCEU and make him into one of the heroes of this piece. He found him in Polka Dot Man and is played with great pathos by Dastmalchian.
Fairing less well is the great Viola Davis as the hard-nosed Amanda Waller who seems to be still acting in the gritty, dark style of the first SUICIDE SQUAD film, so misses out on some of the fun of this film as well as Joel Kinneman as Colonel Rick Flagg (the military leader of the group). I really wasn’t invested in Flagg (or Kinneman’s portrayal of Flagg) in the first film - and I am not in this one either. He just isn’t at nearly the same level of performance as the others listed above.
Also…a note about John Cena (and his character PeaceMaker). This is the 2nd 2021 Summer Blockbuster Action flick that I have seen Cena in (following his turn in F9) and in both these films I found his performance to be “flat”. It just didn’t fill the screen, nor does he have enough charisma (a la The Rock) to charm his way through. I was bored by him in this film (as well as in F9).
But…this is a James Gunn film - and he doesn’t spend much time with the characters/actors that don’t really work, but rather, spends his camera time on the ones that do - and the over-the-top action sequences (and villain) that are filmed with a slight grin and a wink-in-the-eye.
It’s a much needed shot-in-the-arm for DCEU films, but - I’m afraid - it might be too little too late, as most folks have already tuned out the DCEU for being “too dark”. Which is too bad, for this is the fun summer blockbuster film action and comic book fans have been looking for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
1). Are a DC (or Comic Book Movie) Fan, and will go see this no matter what.
2). Are not of fan of the darker DCEU movies (as compared to the MCU films) and might have checked out the first SUICIDE SQUAD, but have no intention to watch this one.
This review is for the folks in the 2nd camp - for THE SUICIDE SQUAD is a fun summer action flick with silliness, action, humor and HEART at it’s core.
Directed by James Gunn (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), THE SUICIDE SQUAD starts out like the first SUICIDE SQUAD film (and most of the DCEU films) - dark, gritty and intense - with a new pack of anti-heroes joining in on a fight that absolutely cements this team as THE SUICIDE SQUAD.
After that, the film makes an interesting adjustment, actually giving the audience anti-heroes that you can root for with just enough of a balance between the dark grittiness that one has come to expect from a DCEU film with a bit more humane touch that really is the hallmark of the MCU.
And, under the Direction of James Gunn, this film finds that balance very, very well.
Gunn, of course, knows how to make these films - his balance of action and character moments is accurate, his action sequences are well plotted and choreographed (no need for “shaky cam” to hide the faults) and he populates this Suicide Squad with some memorable characters.
Margot Robbie, of course, is in another stratosphere in her portrayal of Harley Quinn. This is the 3rd film that Robbie stars as Quinn and she has this part down pat. The problem with the other 2 films that she starred in as Quinn (2016’s SUICIDE SQUAD and 2020’s BIRDS OF PREY) is that she was SO GOOD in those films, that everyone else paled in comparison, but in this film, she has some strong actors/characters to play off of, and this benefits the movie.
Starting with Idris Elba as Bloodsport the “Leader” of the Squad (in essence, replacing Will Smith) and this is a smart move for Elba has the commanding presence of a Leader with that sense of foreboding that he might not be such a good guy underneath - a quality that I just didn’t buy from Smith in the first movie.
Joining Elba as characters that were interesting and strong were RatCatcher 1 (Taiki Waititi - in an extended cameo) and RatCatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Savant (Michael Rooker), freedom fighter Sol Soria (Sonya Braga), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and the “Groot” of this piece, King Shark (Sylvester Stallone).
Oh…and special notice needs to be made of the character of Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian). Director Gunn has stated he wanted to find the dumbest villain in the DCEU and make him into one of the heroes of this piece. He found him in Polka Dot Man and is played with great pathos by Dastmalchian.
Fairing less well is the great Viola Davis as the hard-nosed Amanda Waller who seems to be still acting in the gritty, dark style of the first SUICIDE SQUAD film, so misses out on some of the fun of this film as well as Joel Kinneman as Colonel Rick Flagg (the military leader of the group). I really wasn’t invested in Flagg (or Kinneman’s portrayal of Flagg) in the first film - and I am not in this one either. He just isn’t at nearly the same level of performance as the others listed above.
Also…a note about John Cena (and his character PeaceMaker). This is the 2nd 2021 Summer Blockbuster Action flick that I have seen Cena in (following his turn in F9) and in both these films I found his performance to be “flat”. It just didn’t fill the screen, nor does he have enough charisma (a la The Rock) to charm his way through. I was bored by him in this film (as well as in F9).
But…this is a James Gunn film - and he doesn’t spend much time with the characters/actors that don’t really work, but rather, spends his camera time on the ones that do - and the over-the-top action sequences (and villain) that are filmed with a slight grin and a wink-in-the-eye.
It’s a much needed shot-in-the-arm for DCEU films, but - I’m afraid - it might be too little too late, as most folks have already tuned out the DCEU for being “too dark”. Which is too bad, for this is the fun summer blockbuster film action and comic book fans have been looking for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Drake (Twilight Falls #5)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Roman Campbell. Wild Child. Rebel. Rockstar. Broken. At the age of twenty-eight, Roman Campbell...
Contemporary MM Romance Trigger Warning
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Sky Without Stars (System Divine, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><strong>I totally skipped over <em>Sky Without Stars</em> at first.</strong></h2>
Hello, I'm confessing that I scrolled straight past <em>Sky Without Stars</em> until someone said the words, "<em>Les Misérables</em> in space."
Then all the grabby hands came out because <em>I love that movie</em> AND I love space??? And I sure as hell am not going to read 1000+ pages of the classic. <s>Hahaha, required reading scarred me.</s>
<h2><em><strong>Sky Without Stars</strong></em><strong> has the feel of <em>Les Misérables.</em></strong></h2>
It's been like 5+ years since I <em>watched</em> the movie so I don't remember much from the movie aside from the French revolution. I also recall having a fascination with Éponine, who I don't recall having much screentime. Despite not remembering much from the musical, <em>Sky Without Stars</em> gave off the vibes and had many elements frequently nodding to the classic.
<h3><strong>The different perspectives worked in favor.</strong></h3>
This whopping novel is divided between three different characters who will all eventually play a role in the brewing revolution on Laterre. With such a long length, having one perspective could have easily bogged down the story and be boring. But having three characters who each brought their own perspective and struggles? I enjoyed learning about each of them while reading <em>Sky Without Stars</em>.
<strong>Chatine:</strong> Chatine, based on Éponine (I think?), is by far my favorite perspective out of the three. She dresses up as a boy to go about her life in the Frets because she feels being a girl would put her at a disadvantage (and it really would). With the goal of leaving Laterre one day, she goes about her life stealing on the streets to save up for the passage.
<strong>Alouette:</strong> Y'all, I hated Cosette for some reason but I adore Alouette??? Brody and Rendell give Cosette a very nice upgrade here in <em>Sky Without Stars</em> that fit into the timeframe here! Alouette, despite not knowing much of her past and living underground, is curious and crafty as she occasionally navigates aboveground.
<strong>Marcellus:</strong> Poor Marcellus is divided between believing his grandfather as he's always had growing up or his now-deemed-traitor former governess. Despite being the least interesting perspective I read, I enjoy seeing his internal conflict and want to know what he will do in later books.
<h3><strong>There's apparently a love triangle.</strong></h3>
Younger me found the revolution too fascinating to care about trivial things such as romance. Lo and behold, I didn't even notice the love triangle until near the end, whoops. However, romance is a minor aspect of <em>Sky Without Stars,</em> and I found myself more swept away by the world.
<h2><strong>A lot of worldbuilding on Laterre.</strong></h2>
Drop yourselves into a rocket ship and let's go soaring into space because the worldbuilding is A+! Sometimes I found myself overwhelmed because I am a character development and fast-paced action person in books. However, I think it's well worth going through nearly 600 pages of mostly setup. Brody and Rendell will sweep you away to another world while bringing in elements from the original.
<h2><strong>Solid beginning to a series.</strong></h2>
<em>Sky Without Stars</em> is a solid start as a first novel, and I enjoyed seeing Brody's and Rendell's take on <em>Les Misérables</em>! This book is perfect for those who are fans of the musical or enjoy a good sci-fi with a brewing rebellion on another planet.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/sky-without-stars-by-jessica-brody-and-joanne-rendell/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><strong>I totally skipped over <em>Sky Without Stars</em> at first.</strong></h2>
Hello, I'm confessing that I scrolled straight past <em>Sky Without Stars</em> until someone said the words, "<em>Les Misérables</em> in space."
Then all the grabby hands came out because <em>I love that movie</em> AND I love space??? And I sure as hell am not going to read 1000+ pages of the classic. <s>Hahaha, required reading scarred me.</s>
<h2><em><strong>Sky Without Stars</strong></em><strong> has the feel of <em>Les Misérables.</em></strong></h2>
It's been like 5+ years since I <em>watched</em> the movie so I don't remember much from the movie aside from the French revolution. I also recall having a fascination with Éponine, who I don't recall having much screentime. Despite not remembering much from the musical, <em>Sky Without Stars</em> gave off the vibes and had many elements frequently nodding to the classic.
<h3><strong>The different perspectives worked in favor.</strong></h3>
This whopping novel is divided between three different characters who will all eventually play a role in the brewing revolution on Laterre. With such a long length, having one perspective could have easily bogged down the story and be boring. But having three characters who each brought their own perspective and struggles? I enjoyed learning about each of them while reading <em>Sky Without Stars</em>.
<strong>Chatine:</strong> Chatine, based on Éponine (I think?), is by far my favorite perspective out of the three. She dresses up as a boy to go about her life in the Frets because she feels being a girl would put her at a disadvantage (and it really would). With the goal of leaving Laterre one day, she goes about her life stealing on the streets to save up for the passage.
<strong>Alouette:</strong> Y'all, I hated Cosette for some reason but I adore Alouette??? Brody and Rendell give Cosette a very nice upgrade here in <em>Sky Without Stars</em> that fit into the timeframe here! Alouette, despite not knowing much of her past and living underground, is curious and crafty as she occasionally navigates aboveground.
<strong>Marcellus:</strong> Poor Marcellus is divided between believing his grandfather as he's always had growing up or his now-deemed-traitor former governess. Despite being the least interesting perspective I read, I enjoy seeing his internal conflict and want to know what he will do in later books.
<h3><strong>There's apparently a love triangle.</strong></h3>
Younger me found the revolution too fascinating to care about trivial things such as romance. Lo and behold, I didn't even notice the love triangle until near the end, whoops. However, romance is a minor aspect of <em>Sky Without Stars,</em> and I found myself more swept away by the world.
<h2><strong>A lot of worldbuilding on Laterre.</strong></h2>
Drop yourselves into a rocket ship and let's go soaring into space because the worldbuilding is A+! Sometimes I found myself overwhelmed because I am a character development and fast-paced action person in books. However, I think it's well worth going through nearly 600 pages of mostly setup. Brody and Rendell will sweep you away to another world while bringing in elements from the original.
<h2><strong>Solid beginning to a series.</strong></h2>
<em>Sky Without Stars</em> is a solid start as a first novel, and I enjoyed seeing Brody's and Rendell's take on <em>Les Misérables</em>! This book is perfect for those who are fans of the musical or enjoy a good sci-fi with a brewing rebellion on another planet.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/sky-without-stars-by-jessica-brody-and-joanne-rendell/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Grinch (2018) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020
Verdict: True Christmas Message
Story: The Grinch starts as we head to Whoville as they are preparing for Christmas the happiest time of the year for the town, only The Grinch sits above the town hating the holiday and everything about it with his dog Max.
AS Whoville is trying to have the biggest Christmas of all time, he plans to destroy Christmas once and for all, while a county Who Cindy-Lou is looking to ask for the simplest gift, help for her mother Donna that has been raising the children alone.
Thoughts on The Grinch
Characters – The Grinch is the grumpy who that lives above the town with Max the dog, he hates Christmas the most, he decides that this year is the year that he steals Christmas from the rest of the town, because of his own hate, this is a more cunning plan than the live action film gave us. Cindy-Lou is the one of the youngest members of the town, she wants to wish for help for her mother who is raising her siblings alone while working. She has a plan to try and capture Santa to make this wish in person. Donna is the single parent that has been raising her children alone, while working nights, she does well keeping things together without letting it show too much to her kids. We do have the other young whos that are helping Cindy, and we get Max who gets plenty of laughs with Grinch.
Story – The story here follows the Grinch who decides he wants to steal Christmas from the town who are always rubbing it in his face, while a plucky young girl wants to ask for something more than just a present. This is the second film version of the book I have seen, it is clearly a lot better than the Ron Howard version, holding together the clever dialogue Dr Seuss was famous for, it does ditch the personal back story of the Grinch which does help show him to be a wacky villain always planning, while giving the story a big heart with how the little girl wants what is best for her mother, this is a joy to watch because it is true to what Christmas is really about.
Fantasy/Family – The family message in this film is clear, this is the highlight of the film which is a joy to see, being together is important, whether it true family or people you can call family, while the fantasy side of the film is the world we are thrown into, which does work for the film.
Settings – The small town is always going to work for the film, it shows the unity within one town over the isolation of the Grinch that he is feeling.
Animation – The animation looks wonderful through the film which helps make the film more enjoyable, being able to give us the wacky moments and slapstick working in a way only animation can pull off.
Scene of the Movie – The present.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not knowing the book, so not sure if it is closer or not.
Final Thoughts – This is a joyful Christmas film that could be enjoyed by all, it hits the right marks through the film with ease and gets laughs whenever you need it.
Overall: Christmas Joy.
Story: The Grinch starts as we head to Whoville as they are preparing for Christmas the happiest time of the year for the town, only The Grinch sits above the town hating the holiday and everything about it with his dog Max.
AS Whoville is trying to have the biggest Christmas of all time, he plans to destroy Christmas once and for all, while a county Who Cindy-Lou is looking to ask for the simplest gift, help for her mother Donna that has been raising the children alone.
Thoughts on The Grinch
Characters – The Grinch is the grumpy who that lives above the town with Max the dog, he hates Christmas the most, he decides that this year is the year that he steals Christmas from the rest of the town, because of his own hate, this is a more cunning plan than the live action film gave us. Cindy-Lou is the one of the youngest members of the town, she wants to wish for help for her mother who is raising her siblings alone while working. She has a plan to try and capture Santa to make this wish in person. Donna is the single parent that has been raising her children alone, while working nights, she does well keeping things together without letting it show too much to her kids. We do have the other young whos that are helping Cindy, and we get Max who gets plenty of laughs with Grinch.
Story – The story here follows the Grinch who decides he wants to steal Christmas from the town who are always rubbing it in his face, while a plucky young girl wants to ask for something more than just a present. This is the second film version of the book I have seen, it is clearly a lot better than the Ron Howard version, holding together the clever dialogue Dr Seuss was famous for, it does ditch the personal back story of the Grinch which does help show him to be a wacky villain always planning, while giving the story a big heart with how the little girl wants what is best for her mother, this is a joy to watch because it is true to what Christmas is really about.
Fantasy/Family – The family message in this film is clear, this is the highlight of the film which is a joy to see, being together is important, whether it true family or people you can call family, while the fantasy side of the film is the world we are thrown into, which does work for the film.
Settings – The small town is always going to work for the film, it shows the unity within one town over the isolation of the Grinch that he is feeling.
Animation – The animation looks wonderful through the film which helps make the film more enjoyable, being able to give us the wacky moments and slapstick working in a way only animation can pull off.
Scene of the Movie – The present.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not knowing the book, so not sure if it is closer or not.
Final Thoughts – This is a joyful Christmas film that could be enjoyed by all, it hits the right marks through the film with ease and gets laughs whenever you need it.
Overall: Christmas Joy.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2020 (Updated Feb 18, 2020)
Tangled
I love the american verison of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". And even the Swedish series was good. But i like the american verison better. So what about this film, its dull. It cant live up to the pervious film/series. I give Clarie Foy credit she was good as Lisbeth, but both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara were both excellent as Lisbeth and Clarie was a step down from them. She was the only good part of this film. The plot, the supporting charcters, the twist, the action were all dull and cant live up to the pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 3, 2019
Director: Jon Watts
Writer: Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers (Screenplay) Steve Ditko, Stan Lee (Comic Book)
Starring: Tom Holland, Jake Gyllenhaal, Zendaya, Samuel L Jackson, Jon Favreau, Angourie Rice, Jacob Batalon, Tony Revolori
Plot: Following the events of Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man must step up to take on new threats in a world that has changed forever.
Runtime: 2 Hours 9 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: An Entertaining Jumble
Story: Spider-Man Far from Home starts when Peter Parker (Holland) and his classmates MJ (Zendaya), Ned (Batalon), Flash (Revolori) and others head off to Europe for a scientific school trip, Peter’s plan is to finally tell MJ how he feels, but things don’t go to plan.
Peter finds himself recruited by Nick Fury (Jackson) to help new superhero Quentin Beck known as Mysterio (Gyllenhaal) fight a new threat that is attacking cities in Europe, trying to decide if he is ready to tackle the added responsibility of being a superhero.
Thoughts on Spider-Man Far from Home
Characters – Peter Parker has two main storylines going on in this film, one side of him is the high school student that wants to tell the girl he likes his feeling, nervous and social awkward. The second one sees him facing the reality that he was hand picked to step up and help save the world, a decision which sees him wanting to just take a break from. Watching Peter balance the two is interesting because the high school one was the weaker side, the superhero side is very interesting to follow. Nick Fury is also adapting to life after the snap, where he isn’t in the same level of control on everything going on in the world, he wants Peter to come and work for him and doesn’t like being told no. They did try to recapture certain elements of the chemistry he had with Captain Marvel too. Quentin Beck is the new superhero dubbed Mysterio because of his powers and ability to defeat the elementals that have started attacking the major cities, he offers Peter a chance to discuss his position with having powers like nobody else has since Tony’s death. MJ is the girl of Peter’s dreams, she is very different to both versions of MJ we have seen before, being very distant to the rest of the class, but always manages to capture Peter watching her.
Performances – Tom Holland does do a very good job in the leading role, if it was just the high school side of the film, he does struggle at times, but it is the human effect of being a superhero that completely makes you believe what he is going through. Samuel L Jackson does what we expect from him in a supporting role, as does Zendaya who does everything without standing out. Jake Gyllenhaal though, he was a joy to watch especially in the second half of the film, he just takes his role and runs with it.
Story – The story here follows Peter Parker on his high school trip that gets interrupted to help try and save the world from a new threat, testing him to see if he is ready to replace Iron-Man. This like the character of Peter Parker can be broken down into two simple positives and negatives, the high school trip stuff, is there, most of it gets pretty boring quickly, it is here to help show a human life that he could have though. The superhero side of the story is the highlight because it does get to show how the once confident Peter is starting to question if he is ready to step up after seeing the consequences to what has happened to people in their lives. The villain is a surprise and while I won’t get into details, it is very entertaining to watch and could be one of the best they have bought to a stand alone film.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film is brilliant to watch, it blends with the special effects and doesn’t turn into anything as ridiculous as it could be when you see the fights. The sci-fi element of the film does address the dangers of technology being in the wrong hands once again, but it all works for the story being shown here.
Settings – The film gives us the basic European settings, we have Venice, Prague, Berlin and London, you know well know locations that have large populations which could get destroyed.
Special Effects – The effects in the film did seem flawless, we do have large scale, dust, water and fire monsters used for battles which all look like they could be real along with certain twists in the story which only add to the effects.
Scene of the Movie – What is real?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Most of the high school stuff.
Final Thoughts – This is a real mixed bag of a superhero movie, it could have been fantastic, only it gets too carried away dealing with the high school world which does drag things down.
Overall: Entertaining enough.
Rating
Writer: Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers (Screenplay) Steve Ditko, Stan Lee (Comic Book)
Starring: Tom Holland, Jake Gyllenhaal, Zendaya, Samuel L Jackson, Jon Favreau, Angourie Rice, Jacob Batalon, Tony Revolori
Plot: Following the events of Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man must step up to take on new threats in a world that has changed forever.
Runtime: 2 Hours 9 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: An Entertaining Jumble
Story: Spider-Man Far from Home starts when Peter Parker (Holland) and his classmates MJ (Zendaya), Ned (Batalon), Flash (Revolori) and others head off to Europe for a scientific school trip, Peter’s plan is to finally tell MJ how he feels, but things don’t go to plan.
Peter finds himself recruited by Nick Fury (Jackson) to help new superhero Quentin Beck known as Mysterio (Gyllenhaal) fight a new threat that is attacking cities in Europe, trying to decide if he is ready to tackle the added responsibility of being a superhero.
Thoughts on Spider-Man Far from Home
Characters – Peter Parker has two main storylines going on in this film, one side of him is the high school student that wants to tell the girl he likes his feeling, nervous and social awkward. The second one sees him facing the reality that he was hand picked to step up and help save the world, a decision which sees him wanting to just take a break from. Watching Peter balance the two is interesting because the high school one was the weaker side, the superhero side is very interesting to follow. Nick Fury is also adapting to life after the snap, where he isn’t in the same level of control on everything going on in the world, he wants Peter to come and work for him and doesn’t like being told no. They did try to recapture certain elements of the chemistry he had with Captain Marvel too. Quentin Beck is the new superhero dubbed Mysterio because of his powers and ability to defeat the elementals that have started attacking the major cities, he offers Peter a chance to discuss his position with having powers like nobody else has since Tony’s death. MJ is the girl of Peter’s dreams, she is very different to both versions of MJ we have seen before, being very distant to the rest of the class, but always manages to capture Peter watching her.
Performances – Tom Holland does do a very good job in the leading role, if it was just the high school side of the film, he does struggle at times, but it is the human effect of being a superhero that completely makes you believe what he is going through. Samuel L Jackson does what we expect from him in a supporting role, as does Zendaya who does everything without standing out. Jake Gyllenhaal though, he was a joy to watch especially in the second half of the film, he just takes his role and runs with it.
Story – The story here follows Peter Parker on his high school trip that gets interrupted to help try and save the world from a new threat, testing him to see if he is ready to replace Iron-Man. This like the character of Peter Parker can be broken down into two simple positives and negatives, the high school trip stuff, is there, most of it gets pretty boring quickly, it is here to help show a human life that he could have though. The superhero side of the story is the highlight because it does get to show how the once confident Peter is starting to question if he is ready to step up after seeing the consequences to what has happened to people in their lives. The villain is a surprise and while I won’t get into details, it is very entertaining to watch and could be one of the best they have bought to a stand alone film.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film is brilliant to watch, it blends with the special effects and doesn’t turn into anything as ridiculous as it could be when you see the fights. The sci-fi element of the film does address the dangers of technology being in the wrong hands once again, but it all works for the story being shown here.
Settings – The film gives us the basic European settings, we have Venice, Prague, Berlin and London, you know well know locations that have large populations which could get destroyed.
Special Effects – The effects in the film did seem flawless, we do have large scale, dust, water and fire monsters used for battles which all look like they could be real along with certain twists in the story which only add to the effects.
Scene of the Movie – What is real?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Most of the high school stuff.
Final Thoughts – This is a real mixed bag of a superhero movie, it could have been fantastic, only it gets too carried away dealing with the high school world which does drag things down.
Overall: Entertaining enough.
Rating