Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Mar 9, 2022
Lake Placid has a lot going for it. Great creature effects, snappy pacing, and Betty White being an absolute savage, more so than the giant fuck-off crocodile that is eating everyone.
The whole cast is great actually. Bridget Fonda and Bill Pullman are likable enough leads, even if they're generically molded to specifically fit this kind of film. Oliver Platt and Brendon Gleeson are incredibly entertaining supports and definitely make the movie more fun that it would be otherwise.
The legendary Stan Winston's effects work is top tier, and honestly, the flashes of CGI haven't aged too badly when all is said and done.
Lake Placid is certainly a product of its time, but it's a relic worth remembering. A unabashed, on-the-nose, 90s creature feature that did the double monster fake out before The Meg made it cool, and it's kind of glorious in its own special way.
The whole cast is great actually. Bridget Fonda and Bill Pullman are likable enough leads, even if they're generically molded to specifically fit this kind of film. Oliver Platt and Brendon Gleeson are incredibly entertaining supports and definitely make the movie more fun that it would be otherwise.
The legendary Stan Winston's effects work is top tier, and honestly, the flashes of CGI haven't aged too badly when all is said and done.
Lake Placid is certainly a product of its time, but it's a relic worth remembering. A unabashed, on-the-nose, 90s creature feature that did the double monster fake out before The Meg made it cool, and it's kind of glorious in its own special way.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Mar 7, 2019 (Updated Mar 7, 2019)
Characters (1 more)
SFX
One For A Rainy Day
A few years ago when I heard the guy from My Chemical Romance had wrote a graphic novel, it peaked my interest, but after reading up on some reviews of the book, it just sounded like a rip-off of other properties like Watchmen and X-Men and to be honest I wasn't a huge fan of the obscure character designs and bizarre artwork. I never got around to reading it after this as I was kind of put off by the accusations of unoriginality and the weird art.
Then late last year, I read that there was a Netflix adaption of the show being released and my curiosity was once again peaked. After reading some of the early glowing reviews from critics, I knew that I had found my next binge.
This show is fantastic, which for the most part is owed to it's well written and well acted characters. The members of the Umbrella Academy and their various odd relationships with one another, as well as the outsiders that have interaction with them throughout the show, make the character dynamics of this show as a whole pretty unique and exciting. The cast are all brilliant, with Robert Sheehan's Klaus being the clear stand-out. He gets all of the best lines and nails the American accent that he speaks with in the show.
It is cool to get an insight into the world that the show-runners have crafted, which is as odd as it is charming. It is similar to our own world, with a few pretty drastic changes that change the dynamic of the universe in a oddly interesting way. There were points while watching the show that I was reminded of other superhero stories like Watchmen and X-Men, but instead of Umbrella Academy blatantly ripping off these other stories, it instead takes some of the best parts from its respective influences and adapts them to suit the narrative that is unfolding. It comes off as more of a wink and a nod than just a lazy copy/paste job.
I also feel like the amazing CGI work on Pogo the chimp, - who is highly intelligent and serves as the family's butler, - deserves a shout-out. It is quite possibly the best CGI that I have ever seen in a TV show and is almost on the same level as the CGI on Caesar in the Planet Of The Apes movies.
Overall, The Umbrella Academy is a stellar example of what happens when a show embraces it's influences and presents them in a coherent way in collaboration with the original story that the show itself is telling. It is not the greatest superhero story ever filmed, but it is an extremely entertaining and satisfying ride that the show takes you on over its 10 episodes and it is well worth your time.
Then late last year, I read that there was a Netflix adaption of the show being released and my curiosity was once again peaked. After reading some of the early glowing reviews from critics, I knew that I had found my next binge.
This show is fantastic, which for the most part is owed to it's well written and well acted characters. The members of the Umbrella Academy and their various odd relationships with one another, as well as the outsiders that have interaction with them throughout the show, make the character dynamics of this show as a whole pretty unique and exciting. The cast are all brilliant, with Robert Sheehan's Klaus being the clear stand-out. He gets all of the best lines and nails the American accent that he speaks with in the show.
It is cool to get an insight into the world that the show-runners have crafted, which is as odd as it is charming. It is similar to our own world, with a few pretty drastic changes that change the dynamic of the universe in a oddly interesting way. There were points while watching the show that I was reminded of other superhero stories like Watchmen and X-Men, but instead of Umbrella Academy blatantly ripping off these other stories, it instead takes some of the best parts from its respective influences and adapts them to suit the narrative that is unfolding. It comes off as more of a wink and a nod than just a lazy copy/paste job.
I also feel like the amazing CGI work on Pogo the chimp, - who is highly intelligent and serves as the family's butler, - deserves a shout-out. It is quite possibly the best CGI that I have ever seen in a TV show and is almost on the same level as the CGI on Caesar in the Planet Of The Apes movies.
Overall, The Umbrella Academy is a stellar example of what happens when a show embraces it's influences and presents them in a coherent way in collaboration with the original story that the show itself is telling. It is not the greatest superhero story ever filmed, but it is an extremely entertaining and satisfying ride that the show takes you on over its 10 episodes and it is well worth your time.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Apocalypse Tomorrow (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
We get thrown into the disasters pretty quickly, so quickly in fact that I really thought I'd missed something, you will be glad to know that it's isn't so complex that you can't pick it up, it's just ridiculous.
The main characters of Neil and Colin are introduced very quickly and we get a rather clumsy potted backstory before they get swept up into the action. Joel Gretsch is a face I know from various things but it's The 4400 that sticks out the most, his acting in this isn't much of a stretch beyond what he's had experience with and he probably has the best character next to Marty.
Apocalypse Tomorrow, or Zodiac: Signs Of The Apocalypse, ticks all the classic TV disaster movie points... animals fleeing from impending danger, terrible CGI, vehicles and people being able to outrun nature, terrible CGI, and a dubious love interest moment... credit where credit is due, they did catch me out with this one. What I was severely upset by though was the fact that we hear about devastation around the world and there were no crappy shots of world famous landmarks being destroyed, don't they know that's what we come to these films for?!
You may know that I hate bouncy camera work, I was pleasantly surprised when (excluding in-car scenes) the camera was solid and not frustrating, TV movies tend to be a little erratic on that point. Sadly they do randomly have one scene where it appears that the cameraman was wearing trampoline shoes while going through caffeine withdrawal, even more confusingly there was a scene where I could have forgiven it happening but they chose a very calm moment to have it and it did nothing but annoy.
The props that are introduced suddenly looked very familiar and if I didn't know any better I'd have said they were original concept pieces for Stargate that had been found in a shed somewhere. The physical pieces don't actually look too bad visually, but the CGI is a mix of passable, bad and terrible, at no time convincing. Bizarrely that gives it pretty good marks for this sort of film.
As with many films that want to be more action than story our characters all get to jump to conclusions and accurate deductions without any work being put in. Significantly in this one it means that right near the beginning we jump from one scene to another and skip what feels like two scenes in the middle. From a tense situation everything goes calm instantly and everything is back to normal. With some better scripting there are a lot of moments like this that could have been avoided.
I feel like my score could be misleading, was this film bad? Yes. But it's just ridiculous enough to be amusing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/apocalypse-tomorrow-movie-review.html
The main characters of Neil and Colin are introduced very quickly and we get a rather clumsy potted backstory before they get swept up into the action. Joel Gretsch is a face I know from various things but it's The 4400 that sticks out the most, his acting in this isn't much of a stretch beyond what he's had experience with and he probably has the best character next to Marty.
Apocalypse Tomorrow, or Zodiac: Signs Of The Apocalypse, ticks all the classic TV disaster movie points... animals fleeing from impending danger, terrible CGI, vehicles and people being able to outrun nature, terrible CGI, and a dubious love interest moment... credit where credit is due, they did catch me out with this one. What I was severely upset by though was the fact that we hear about devastation around the world and there were no crappy shots of world famous landmarks being destroyed, don't they know that's what we come to these films for?!
You may know that I hate bouncy camera work, I was pleasantly surprised when (excluding in-car scenes) the camera was solid and not frustrating, TV movies tend to be a little erratic on that point. Sadly they do randomly have one scene where it appears that the cameraman was wearing trampoline shoes while going through caffeine withdrawal, even more confusingly there was a scene where I could have forgiven it happening but they chose a very calm moment to have it and it did nothing but annoy.
The props that are introduced suddenly looked very familiar and if I didn't know any better I'd have said they were original concept pieces for Stargate that had been found in a shed somewhere. The physical pieces don't actually look too bad visually, but the CGI is a mix of passable, bad and terrible, at no time convincing. Bizarrely that gives it pretty good marks for this sort of film.
As with many films that want to be more action than story our characters all get to jump to conclusions and accurate deductions without any work being put in. Significantly in this one it means that right near the beginning we jump from one scene to another and skip what feels like two scenes in the middle. From a tense situation everything goes calm instantly and everything is back to normal. With some better scripting there are a lot of moments like this that could have been avoided.
I feel like my score could be misleading, was this film bad? Yes. But it's just ridiculous enough to be amusing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/apocalypse-tomorrow-movie-review.html
Rosealinea (589 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jan 3, 2018
Plenty of comedy aspects. (1 more)
It will leave you feeling on edge.
Throughly enjoyable movie.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I went to see this movie with some of our family for our yearly cinema get together. I have to say, I was extremely impressed with the film. I admit, I was a little nervous as I have heard quite a lot of bad things about it, but surprise surprise, it was actually pretty good!
Plenty of the usual action packed scenes, although some of them did feel you leave you feeling a bit dizzy. It was nice to see the characters again and there is plenty of comedy aspects as well, such as the little penguin trying to growl like chewbacca and also a few comedy comments that are made.
One of the things that was mentioned about the film was about the poor CGI, I would have to disagree with that, as I felt that it did go with the film, the little penguins and also the sparkley frozen foxes where incredible and to me, it felt like it added a little something to it. I must say that I am not a fan of the CGI, however, when it is done well, I can appreciate it and this is the case in this film.
The only bad point I would say is that Chewbacca seems to have become very slim and not as heavily built as he has been in the past, I think that this is a let down as it makes him look a bit odd, out of proportion. I'm not sure though that it might just be me, but he didn't look right.
Throught the film, it leaves you feeling on edge, some of the scenes such as when Rey and Kylo are fighting, leave you gasping. Is there still a chance that he will not go over fully to the Darkside...we will see.
Id definitely recommend this film. It's incredible and I look forward to the next installment.
Plenty of the usual action packed scenes, although some of them did feel you leave you feeling a bit dizzy. It was nice to see the characters again and there is plenty of comedy aspects as well, such as the little penguin trying to growl like chewbacca and also a few comedy comments that are made.
One of the things that was mentioned about the film was about the poor CGI, I would have to disagree with that, as I felt that it did go with the film, the little penguins and also the sparkley frozen foxes where incredible and to me, it felt like it added a little something to it. I must say that I am not a fan of the CGI, however, when it is done well, I can appreciate it and this is the case in this film.
The only bad point I would say is that Chewbacca seems to have become very slim and not as heavily built as he has been in the past, I think that this is a let down as it makes him look a bit odd, out of proportion. I'm not sure though that it might just be me, but he didn't look right.
Throught the film, it leaves you feeling on edge, some of the scenes such as when Rey and Kylo are fighting, leave you gasping. Is there still a chance that he will not go over fully to the Darkside...we will see.
Id definitely recommend this film. It's incredible and I look forward to the next installment.
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Oct 4, 2018
CGI (2 more)
Acting choice
Interesting twist to a retelling
Plot? Dragon being real or save the environment? (2 more)
Who's the bad guy?
Where was Pete the whole dang time?
Letterboxd review: https://letterboxd.com/caitcher/film/petes-dragon-2016/
First impressions video:
When I first saw this movie two years ago, I thought it was okay at best. There were plenty of good things about it, but there are the downsides that kinda take over.
The first thing I noticed was the plot. I haven't seen the original movie, but considering this was Disney in the 70's, it looked charming as Disney should. But because this is a live-action retelling, we can't have that luxury. I didn't ask for Pete's Dragon to do much. I just asked for it to be a good movie. However, throughout the entire time, I think this movie didn't know what it wanted to be about either. Did it wanna be the ripoff of a 90's "save the environment" flick or did it actually wanna be like the original involving Pete's actual existence? Hence why I called this movie a pancake to my family after coming home from seeing it. It constantly flips on the cooking pan, and it won't stop.
But what are the good things after my bad things "rant." First of all, I really liked how Pete got along with the main family, especially the daughter. It was an adorable relationship and all of the actors'...well, acting was the way it should've been. The soundtrack was also pretty decent, despite the fact that this retelling was not a musical. Lastly, the CGI on Pete actually made him look adorable and scary at the same time considering the tone of the film, which worked in its favor.
If you want more details, feel free to click on my other review links at the top of this review.
First impressions video:
When I first saw this movie two years ago, I thought it was okay at best. There were plenty of good things about it, but there are the downsides that kinda take over.
The first thing I noticed was the plot. I haven't seen the original movie, but considering this was Disney in the 70's, it looked charming as Disney should. But because this is a live-action retelling, we can't have that luxury. I didn't ask for Pete's Dragon to do much. I just asked for it to be a good movie. However, throughout the entire time, I think this movie didn't know what it wanted to be about either. Did it wanna be the ripoff of a 90's "save the environment" flick or did it actually wanna be like the original involving Pete's actual existence? Hence why I called this movie a pancake to my family after coming home from seeing it. It constantly flips on the cooking pan, and it won't stop.
But what are the good things after my bad things "rant." First of all, I really liked how Pete got along with the main family, especially the daughter. It was an adorable relationship and all of the actors'...well, acting was the way it should've been. The soundtrack was also pretty decent, despite the fact that this retelling was not a musical. Lastly, the CGI on Pete actually made him look adorable and scary at the same time considering the tone of the film, which worked in its favor.
If you want more details, feel free to click on my other review links at the top of this review.
Josh Burns (166 KP) rated Megashark vs Crocasaurus (2010) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Is this B Monster Movie worth the watch?
Megashark vs Crocasaurus has a decent concept behind it as far as B Monster Movies go. 2 ancient giant animals somehow survived, hidden away, only to wake up for what is hopefully an epic clash. But does it deliver?
The acting amd writing is about what you'd expect from a movie like this. It's passable most of the time, but sometimes, not so much. That being said, top notch acting amd writing is not why anyone watches movies like this.
The movies biggest downfall is it's monsters. They look absolutely terrible and have inconsistent size from scene to scene. Let me break each one down.
The Megashark: this may be the least intetesting "giant monster" I've seen brought to screen, and unfortunately, itbis the star of the franchise (yes there is more than one Megashark movie). Terrible CGI aside, it's kills were extremely underwhelming, mostly resorting to flopping out of the water, to smash ships with it's tail as it hurtles over them, causing little CGI explosions. As an example of the inconsistent size, when it's fin sticks out of the water upon approaching a ship, it is about the size of the whole shark when it is seen flopping out of the water.
The Crocasaurus: This one is marginally more interesting with a wider range of terribly animated kills and the ability to be on both land and water.
The Clash: This was a laughably bad "battle between the two monsters. Most of it consisted of them forming a circle, both with the others tail it it's mouth, as the military poured missiles into them.
Overall, it's not at all a good movie, but I'm pretty sure that's intentional to a point. It has its moments where it reaches levels of fun for fans of the genre. If you catch it on TV ir maybe a streaming service (it's on Amazon Prime now), it might be worth a watch, but I don't recommend spending money on it.
The acting amd writing is about what you'd expect from a movie like this. It's passable most of the time, but sometimes, not so much. That being said, top notch acting amd writing is not why anyone watches movies like this.
The movies biggest downfall is it's monsters. They look absolutely terrible and have inconsistent size from scene to scene. Let me break each one down.
The Megashark: this may be the least intetesting "giant monster" I've seen brought to screen, and unfortunately, itbis the star of the franchise (yes there is more than one Megashark movie). Terrible CGI aside, it's kills were extremely underwhelming, mostly resorting to flopping out of the water, to smash ships with it's tail as it hurtles over them, causing little CGI explosions. As an example of the inconsistent size, when it's fin sticks out of the water upon approaching a ship, it is about the size of the whole shark when it is seen flopping out of the water.
The Crocasaurus: This one is marginally more interesting with a wider range of terribly animated kills and the ability to be on both land and water.
The Clash: This was a laughably bad "battle between the two monsters. Most of it consisted of them forming a circle, both with the others tail it it's mouth, as the military poured missiles into them.
Overall, it's not at all a good movie, but I'm pretty sure that's intentional to a point. It has its moments where it reaches levels of fun for fans of the genre. If you catch it on TV ir maybe a streaming service (it's on Amazon Prime now), it might be worth a watch, but I don't recommend spending money on it.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Curse of Chucky (2013) in Movies
Dec 6, 2019
A horror franchise this many movies in should be on its arse at this point, but the Child's Play series still manages to be entertaining with it's sixth entry.
After the silliness if Bride and Seed, Curse of Chucky steps back in to horror territory a bit more.
The majority of the film takes place in a creepy old house, as Chucky stalks an entirely new set of victims.
The characters this time around aren't hugely likable, except for Nica (played by Fiona Dourif, Brad Dourif's daughter). Not only is she likable and realistic final girl type, but she pretty badass as well. She is also wheelchair bound, which is a refreshing direction to take in this kind of film, and her disability adds a whole new dynamic to the Chucky series and just makes her more badass.
The plot itself is straightforward slasher material, but the last 20 minutes or so, really hammer home the movies connections to the original film, and the rest of the series. The ret con of Charles Lee Ray's origins and work a treat, and learning about more about him is an unexpected highlight.
The Chucky doll this time around looks weird. Really unsettling actually. There's a semi twist halfway through that actually has something to do with the way Chucky looks, and he's still pretty horrible looking.
The effects are mostly passable - there's a kill quite early on involving a car, that boasts some genuinely impressive practical effects, but it does mean towards CGI after that. Not always a bad thing mind, but there's one shit in particular of Chucky walking down a staircase... It's could have been so so good, but the obvious CGI is horrible...bleughh.
Other than that though, Don Mancini throws some decent camera work at us (the title card is an early highlight) and he successfully makes Curse of Chucky into a decent little horror movie.
After the silliness if Bride and Seed, Curse of Chucky steps back in to horror territory a bit more.
The majority of the film takes place in a creepy old house, as Chucky stalks an entirely new set of victims.
The characters this time around aren't hugely likable, except for Nica (played by Fiona Dourif, Brad Dourif's daughter). Not only is she likable and realistic final girl type, but she pretty badass as well. She is also wheelchair bound, which is a refreshing direction to take in this kind of film, and her disability adds a whole new dynamic to the Chucky series and just makes her more badass.
The plot itself is straightforward slasher material, but the last 20 minutes or so, really hammer home the movies connections to the original film, and the rest of the series. The ret con of Charles Lee Ray's origins and work a treat, and learning about more about him is an unexpected highlight.
The Chucky doll this time around looks weird. Really unsettling actually. There's a semi twist halfway through that actually has something to do with the way Chucky looks, and he's still pretty horrible looking.
The effects are mostly passable - there's a kill quite early on involving a car, that boasts some genuinely impressive practical effects, but it does mean towards CGI after that. Not always a bad thing mind, but there's one shit in particular of Chucky walking down a staircase... It's could have been so so good, but the obvious CGI is horrible...bleughh.
Other than that though, Don Mancini throws some decent camera work at us (the title card is an early highlight) and he successfully makes Curse of Chucky into a decent little horror movie.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
Lacking in heart
The Lion King is one of my all time favourite Disney films, so I approached this 'live action' remake with a lot of trepidation, and I'm afraid to say I was right to be worried.
Visually it looks stunning, which shouldn't really be a surprise as it has been brought to us by the same guys that did The Jungle Book. However I'm afraid the visuals are pretty much all this film has going for it. This film is virtually a carbon copy of the original animation but with all of the heart, soul and humour taken out of it. The problem with these Disney live action remakes is they're unnecessary and stuck in a difficult position - differ too much from the original and people hate it, but sticking too close to the original and it begs the question as to why not just watch the original? It's more difficult for The Lion King as it's gone from being cartoon animation to CGI animation and apart from looking more natural, that's the only real difference.
They've lost virtually all of the magic that made the original great in the first place. The humour either falls flat due to the poor execution, or has been removed and replaced with something much less witty and funny. I mean, where was dress in drag & do the hula?! I dont think the voice cast helps. Other than Chiwetel Ejiofor and of course James Earl Jones, the rest of the voice cast just seemed ridiculously out of place and ill fitting with the film. I cringed every time I heard Zazu as Jon Oliver is definitely no Rowan Atkinson! And dont even get me started on Beyonce. We really didnt need her horrific versions of songs thrown in too. Although the rest of the songs did at least make the rest of the film more bearable.
Altogether despite the stunning CGI, this is a very poor copy of the original and definitely one I wont be watching again - just stick to the original.
Visually it looks stunning, which shouldn't really be a surprise as it has been brought to us by the same guys that did The Jungle Book. However I'm afraid the visuals are pretty much all this film has going for it. This film is virtually a carbon copy of the original animation but with all of the heart, soul and humour taken out of it. The problem with these Disney live action remakes is they're unnecessary and stuck in a difficult position - differ too much from the original and people hate it, but sticking too close to the original and it begs the question as to why not just watch the original? It's more difficult for The Lion King as it's gone from being cartoon animation to CGI animation and apart from looking more natural, that's the only real difference.
They've lost virtually all of the magic that made the original great in the first place. The humour either falls flat due to the poor execution, or has been removed and replaced with something much less witty and funny. I mean, where was dress in drag & do the hula?! I dont think the voice cast helps. Other than Chiwetel Ejiofor and of course James Earl Jones, the rest of the voice cast just seemed ridiculously out of place and ill fitting with the film. I cringed every time I heard Zazu as Jon Oliver is definitely no Rowan Atkinson! And dont even get me started on Beyonce. We really didnt need her horrific versions of songs thrown in too. Although the rest of the songs did at least make the rest of the film more bearable.
Altogether despite the stunning CGI, this is a very poor copy of the original and definitely one I wont be watching again - just stick to the original.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 29, 2020 (Updated Dec 29, 2020)
I was lucky enough to see this in theaters with my 'rents. I do not agree with Warner Bros decision to release same day on HBO Max, so I initially wasn't going to see it, but my dad bought the tickets.
The story itself isn't bad, but it is wayyyyy too long. I have an issue with how long the first section of the film was, taking place on Themiscyra. It didn't really add to the story, other than showing the gold armor that's worn later. I think it was just an excuse to have Robin Wright and crew in the film.
Kristen Wiig, of course, as horrible as every. Normally, I avoid everything with her like the plague, she's not funny, nor is she a good actress. She was highly annoying, and the CGI at the end was SO BAD. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for bad CGI for these delayed films, they had an extra six months to make sure it looked good.
I loved that Chris Pine returned in WW84, I'm always up for some Chris Pine in movies. I did find Diana's unwillingness to give him up initially a little off for the character. It just wasn't Wonder Woman, and coming from a woman writer, it was weak.
The climatic speech was not the strongest, not unlike the climatic speech in the first film (Seriously, the improper grammar during the climactic speech in WW haunts me). It was just kind of lame.
Now, good ol' Pedro Pascal, I liked his character overall. I wish they'd have shown more of the little snippets of his history prior to the climax, i.e. being made fun of due to being Hispanic, changing his name to something anglo. That was the only point in the film where I actually felt something.
I did like it in general, and I would watch it again. It just wasn't as strong as I wanted.
The story itself isn't bad, but it is wayyyyy too long. I have an issue with how long the first section of the film was, taking place on Themiscyra. It didn't really add to the story, other than showing the gold armor that's worn later. I think it was just an excuse to have Robin Wright and crew in the film.
Kristen Wiig, of course, as horrible as every. Normally, I avoid everything with her like the plague, she's not funny, nor is she a good actress. She was highly annoying, and the CGI at the end was SO BAD. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for bad CGI for these delayed films, they had an extra six months to make sure it looked good.
I loved that Chris Pine returned in WW84, I'm always up for some Chris Pine in movies. I did find Diana's unwillingness to give him up initially a little off for the character. It just wasn't Wonder Woman, and coming from a woman writer, it was weak.
The climatic speech was not the strongest, not unlike the climatic speech in the first film (Seriously, the improper grammar during the climactic speech in WW haunts me). It was just kind of lame.
Now, good ol' Pedro Pascal, I liked his character overall. I wish they'd have shown more of the little snippets of his history prior to the climax, i.e. being made fun of due to being Hispanic, changing his name to something anglo. That was the only point in the film where I actually felt something.
I did like it in general, and I would watch it again. It just wasn't as strong as I wanted.
JoyKilla (6 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Dec 5, 2017
Justice Beer League
Contains spoilers, click to show
What should have been an epic film for the decade fell flat on many levels. I got burned out with the whole superhero theme a while back. So I may have brought a little heat into the burning fire.
They took nearly 4 hours of a film and cut into barely 2 hours. Imagine the editing room floor for just a moment. So much was cut in this movie and seemed so choppy. You can see the edits that most try to hide. The bad guy of the film looked straight out of a cartoon. Which wouldn't be bad if everyone else wasn't portrayed to be a real life character.
It's a good popcorn family flick but for fanboys who have waited years for this movie will be greatly saddened.
They took nearly 4 hours of a film and cut into barely 2 hours. Imagine the editing room floor for just a moment. So much was cut in this movie and seemed so choppy. You can see the edits that most try to hide. The bad guy of the film looked straight out of a cartoon. Which wouldn't be bad if everyone else wasn't portrayed to be a real life character.
It's a good popcorn family flick but for fanboys who have waited years for this movie will be greatly saddened.