Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
With the slow, familiar strains of “Hedwig’s Theme”, the leitmotif that shepherds us into the world of Harry Potter, we’re once again immersed in the magic and adventure of the wizarding world. If for some reason you forgot where the story left off at the end of The Half-Blood Prince, the mournful dirge that plays as Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley prepare to meet reminds you that their world has changed drastically.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Glen Banyard (13 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 12, 2019
Several potential plot holes (1 more)
One bad error
End of the era
So to date I have seen this six times, pretty much done the cinema checklist, bring seen it in 2D, 3D,4DX and IMAX. It still never fails to get the emotions running at one scene for me.
It's it perfect? No, there are potential plot holes, and one very noticeable continuity error, however given for a film running 3 hours, you don't notice it pass at all.
I maybe bits as I have been a comic book geek for too many years, and even a bad Marvel movie is still pretty good, this though, a whole new level
It's it perfect? No, there are potential plot holes, and one very noticeable continuity error, however given for a film running 3 hours, you don't notice it pass at all.
I maybe bits as I have been a comic book geek for too many years, and even a bad Marvel movie is still pretty good, this though, a whole new level
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
8.0
Rate It
Book
It's true — all of it! The blockbuster movie jumps from the big screen to the comic-book page!...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Recursion in Books
Jul 15, 2019
I want to start this review by saying that science fiction isn't my usual genre that I love to read. However, I loved Dark Matter by Blake Crouch, so I decided that I'd give Recursion by Blake Crouch a read since the synopsis intrigued me. I was absolutely blown away by Recursion!
Helena, a nueroscientist is working on a chair to help people with memory loss like her mother who suffers from Alzheimer's. She has it almost all figured out, but she lacks the funding to make her dream a reality. Funding comes in the form of Marcus Slade. Together, Slade and Helena work together to create a chair that can send people back in the past and change memories. However, when people start suffering from False Memory Syndrome due to the changing of memories, Helena wants to stop. Slade won't allow it. Together with Barry, who was forced to have his memories changed, Helena will stop at nothing to stop her memory chair from being used for bad, even if it means dying again and again.
I'm not a very scientific person. (In fact, science and math were my worse subjects in school.) This book does use a lot of scientific jargon that went way over my head at times, yet I was still very intrigued. There are enough context clues to figure out what's going on without all the scientific speak. I felt the plot was solid for Recursion, and scarily enough, I could actually picture this becoming a reality in the not too distant future. Blake Crouch has a knack for writing books that seem so lifelike and in the moment. There is plenty of action in Recursion, and there's also enough mystery to make the reader wonder what is going to happen next. Due to being able to go back to different memories and plotting different outcomes, Recursion is full of little plot twists. There's no cliff hangers in this book, and all my questions were answered by the last page.
The characters in Recursion were so very lifelike! Barry reminded me at first of a dad who loved his family, especially his daughter, very much. He seems like a down to Earth guy and just very well rounded. I admired tenacity to always want to make things right. I also loved Helena's character. I loved how she was willing to do whatever it took, including death and extreme pain, to try to make things right. Helena was an extremely intelligent woman, but she wasn't conceited about it. I felt like Slade's heart was in the right place, but greed took over. I felt like Slade was the perfect antagonist, and his personality reminded me of many people in power and those with a lot of money. I enjoyed reading about each character's story in each memory. I found that to be extremely interesting.
The pacing for Recursion was perfect. This book held my attention from the very first page until the very last word in the book. Not once did I ever become bored or lost while reading this book. I was hooked from the get-go, and I couldn't wait to read more of Recursion every time I was interrupted.
Trigger warnings for Recursion include profanity, mentions of drug use, alcohol use, profanity, sexual references (non graphic), death, violence, some gore, and murder.
Overall, Recursion is quite the read! It's got a thrilling plot and memorable characters throughout! I would love to see this book made into a movie. I think it would do very well! I would definitely recommend Recursion by Blake Crouch to anyone looking for a book that will keep them hooked from the beginning. Regardless of if you're a science fiction fan or not, Recursion is the kind of book that will please any reader.
Helena, a nueroscientist is working on a chair to help people with memory loss like her mother who suffers from Alzheimer's. She has it almost all figured out, but she lacks the funding to make her dream a reality. Funding comes in the form of Marcus Slade. Together, Slade and Helena work together to create a chair that can send people back in the past and change memories. However, when people start suffering from False Memory Syndrome due to the changing of memories, Helena wants to stop. Slade won't allow it. Together with Barry, who was forced to have his memories changed, Helena will stop at nothing to stop her memory chair from being used for bad, even if it means dying again and again.
I'm not a very scientific person. (In fact, science and math were my worse subjects in school.) This book does use a lot of scientific jargon that went way over my head at times, yet I was still very intrigued. There are enough context clues to figure out what's going on without all the scientific speak. I felt the plot was solid for Recursion, and scarily enough, I could actually picture this becoming a reality in the not too distant future. Blake Crouch has a knack for writing books that seem so lifelike and in the moment. There is plenty of action in Recursion, and there's also enough mystery to make the reader wonder what is going to happen next. Due to being able to go back to different memories and plotting different outcomes, Recursion is full of little plot twists. There's no cliff hangers in this book, and all my questions were answered by the last page.
The characters in Recursion were so very lifelike! Barry reminded me at first of a dad who loved his family, especially his daughter, very much. He seems like a down to Earth guy and just very well rounded. I admired tenacity to always want to make things right. I also loved Helena's character. I loved how she was willing to do whatever it took, including death and extreme pain, to try to make things right. Helena was an extremely intelligent woman, but she wasn't conceited about it. I felt like Slade's heart was in the right place, but greed took over. I felt like Slade was the perfect antagonist, and his personality reminded me of many people in power and those with a lot of money. I enjoyed reading about each character's story in each memory. I found that to be extremely interesting.
The pacing for Recursion was perfect. This book held my attention from the very first page until the very last word in the book. Not once did I ever become bored or lost while reading this book. I was hooked from the get-go, and I couldn't wait to read more of Recursion every time I was interrupted.
Trigger warnings for Recursion include profanity, mentions of drug use, alcohol use, profanity, sexual references (non graphic), death, violence, some gore, and murder.
Overall, Recursion is quite the read! It's got a thrilling plot and memorable characters throughout! I would love to see this book made into a movie. I think it would do very well! I would definitely recommend Recursion by Blake Crouch to anyone looking for a book that will keep them hooked from the beginning. Regardless of if you're a science fiction fan or not, Recursion is the kind of book that will please any reader.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Make Dirty Millions the Clean Way!!
Book
How to make dirty millions the clean way, was written as part of my life's goal to end world hunger...
self-help
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Iron Man 2 picks up right where the first one left off, and manages to continue the enjoyment without losing too much steam in the process. Jon Favreau has kept the exciting action, lost a bit of character development, but added more of a comic-book dimension to the film series.
The plot was slow to start, but once you see how events start fitting together for the eventual showdown, the movie picks up speed and leads in for a very satisfying finish. Thankfully, there weren’t too many slow moments (this is an action movie, after all), and the plot flowed well from scene to scene. The action-packed ending more than makes up for any slow moments toward the beginning.
The interplay between the characters definitely felt more formal than the first film. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the title character with just as much snarky humor and snide dialogue as he did in the first film, but he seems to play his dramatic scenes with less emphasis than the first. Don Cheadle, as Colonel Rhodes, continues with the memorable character that Terrence Howard defined, but doesn’t come into his own until near the finale. Scarlett Johansson performs the part of the sultry and mysterious Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff quite well, although aside from one stunning action scene, her role is relatively minor compared to the rest of the cast. The villains, Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke; and Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, more than match their opposition on screen. Rockwell in particular is absolutely fantastic in his portrayal: totally believable, animated, and fun to watch. I just wish everyone had his enthusiasm for the film, because I sensed less emotion this time around.
Iron Man 2 also has much more of a comic-book feel than the previous movie. Marvel fans will notice quite a few more nods to the Marvel Universe, but even more than that, Iron Man feels more like the fantastic character that he is when he has a properly villainous opponent. In the end, this film is a fitting sequel that nearly matches it’s predecessor.
The plot was slow to start, but once you see how events start fitting together for the eventual showdown, the movie picks up speed and leads in for a very satisfying finish. Thankfully, there weren’t too many slow moments (this is an action movie, after all), and the plot flowed well from scene to scene. The action-packed ending more than makes up for any slow moments toward the beginning.
The interplay between the characters definitely felt more formal than the first film. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the title character with just as much snarky humor and snide dialogue as he did in the first film, but he seems to play his dramatic scenes with less emphasis than the first. Don Cheadle, as Colonel Rhodes, continues with the memorable character that Terrence Howard defined, but doesn’t come into his own until near the finale. Scarlett Johansson performs the part of the sultry and mysterious Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff quite well, although aside from one stunning action scene, her role is relatively minor compared to the rest of the cast. The villains, Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke; and Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, more than match their opposition on screen. Rockwell in particular is absolutely fantastic in his portrayal: totally believable, animated, and fun to watch. I just wish everyone had his enthusiasm for the film, because I sensed less emotion this time around.
Iron Man 2 also has much more of a comic-book feel than the previous movie. Marvel fans will notice quite a few more nods to the Marvel Universe, but even more than that, Iron Man feels more like the fantastic character that he is when he has a properly villainous opponent. In the end, this film is a fitting sequel that nearly matches it’s predecessor.
As with most comics/graphic novels-into-movies I've read, I'll admit that I saw the movie (quite a few years back) before reading this.
Essentially a comic-book-brought-to-screen, the movie iteself was incredibly violent (but enjoyable), with ridiculous amoutns of blood and body parts splattered across the screen, and with more nudity than I was expecting alongside the whole sub-plot of King Leonidas wife getting the Spartans to march.
An entire sub-plot that is not in the source material at all.
I also have to say that the violence in this - while still there - is actually toned down quite a bit from what I was expecting, with several of the panels virtually lifted from the pages and put on to the screen.
The story, for anyone who doesn't already know, is centred around King Leonidas' view of Thermopylae - or 'The Hot Gates' - , a narrow pass defended by the 300 Spartans of the title (plus miscellaneous other Greeks, although you'd be forgive for thinking they weren't there the way this, and the legend, is told!) to the death, and which was immortalised by the poet Simodides as follows on an epigram placed on theri burial mound:
"Go tell the Spartans, you who passeth by,
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie."
(see: http://www.poetryatlas.com/poetry/poem/1458/go-tell-the-spartans.html)
Essentially a comic-book-brought-to-screen, the movie iteself was incredibly violent (but enjoyable), with ridiculous amoutns of blood and body parts splattered across the screen, and with more nudity than I was expecting alongside the whole sub-plot of King Leonidas wife getting the Spartans to march.
An entire sub-plot that is not in the source material at all.
I also have to say that the violence in this - while still there - is actually toned down quite a bit from what I was expecting, with several of the panels virtually lifted from the pages and put on to the screen.
The story, for anyone who doesn't already know, is centred around King Leonidas' view of Thermopylae - or 'The Hot Gates' - , a narrow pass defended by the 300 Spartans of the title (plus miscellaneous other Greeks, although you'd be forgive for thinking they weren't there the way this, and the legend, is told!) to the death, and which was immortalised by the poet Simodides as follows on an epigram placed on theri burial mound:
"Go tell the Spartans, you who passeth by,
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie."
(see: http://www.poetryatlas.com/poetry/poem/1458/go-tell-the-spartans.html)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997) in Movies
Mar 2, 2021
I Know What You Did Last Summer opens with the Type O Negative cover of Summer Breeze, which is always going to be a winner in my book.
This film is rightly considered a bit of a classic these days, and there's really not a whole bunch to complain about. It has well written characters, a decent cast, a visually creepy villain, an engaging whodunit plot, one of the best chase scenes in slasher movie history (that's right), and still manages to stand on its own two feet in a world where it's constantly compared to Scream.
I find this to be an unfair comparison. Beyond the 90s setting, teen characters, slasher tropes, and shared writer in Kevin Williamson, there's not much else that ties them together. Scream is of course a fantastic horror, but relishes in being satire, whereas IKWYDLS is a straight shooting horror. Its the exact kind of film that Scream takes aim at, but it still manages to be a decent slasher without feeling silly, and delivers some well earned jump scares for good measure. I also really enjoy it's fishing town setting and the hole movie is accompanied by a hilariously epic score courtesy of John Debney. It's great.
I will always have a lot of time for IKWYDLS, overshadowed by some of its contemporaries, but a hugely satisfying and entertaing horror in its own right.
This film is rightly considered a bit of a classic these days, and there's really not a whole bunch to complain about. It has well written characters, a decent cast, a visually creepy villain, an engaging whodunit plot, one of the best chase scenes in slasher movie history (that's right), and still manages to stand on its own two feet in a world where it's constantly compared to Scream.
I find this to be an unfair comparison. Beyond the 90s setting, teen characters, slasher tropes, and shared writer in Kevin Williamson, there's not much else that ties them together. Scream is of course a fantastic horror, but relishes in being satire, whereas IKWYDLS is a straight shooting horror. Its the exact kind of film that Scream takes aim at, but it still manages to be a decent slasher without feeling silly, and delivers some well earned jump scares for good measure. I also really enjoy it's fishing town setting and the hole movie is accompanied by a hilariously epic score courtesy of John Debney. It's great.
I will always have a lot of time for IKWYDLS, overshadowed by some of its contemporaries, but a hugely satisfying and entertaing horror in its own right.