Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
May 22, 2019
Rocketman isn't the standard music biopic movie you're used to - the formulaic rise to fame and fortune, accompanied by drug and alcohol misuse and a troubled, lonely life. The story of Elton John, the musician whose life this movie is about, certainly does have all of those elements, but Rocketman presents them in such a wonderfully crazy and original way. Weaving classic songs into the storytelling and providing a wonderfully welcome and heart warming fantasy element to the movie.
The story begins with a middle-aged Elton (Taron Egerton), dressed in one of his trademark outrageous outfits (this time a winged devil costume, complete with horns!), as he marches into a group therapy session and informs everyone that he is addicted to cocaine, sex and prescription drugs. “For as long as I can remember I’ve hated myself” he continues, before starting to recall his childhood years. He sees his younger self across the room, looking at him as the first song begins. It's more like something out of a musical though, with both versions of Elton involved in the singing and dancing, not to mention the members of the therapy group too!
That therapy room is where much of the story is told, rejoining Elton at various stages of his recovery as he recounts the moments of his life that shaped him and brought him to the point he's at now. We initially join the younger version of Elton that we saw in the opening number, or Reggie Dwight as he was known back then, tinkling out his first few notes on the family piano and never feeling fully accepted by his family. His dad is uncaring and cold towards him, never once giving him the simple hug he craves, while his mum (brilliantly played by Bryce Dallas Howard) eventually proves herself to be not that much better than dad either as time goes on. Only Reggie's Nan seems to offer him any kind of support and encouragement, and it's not long before Reggie is receiving piano lessons, attending music school and playing small gigs in the local pubs.
Fast forward a few years to Elton as a young man (played by Egerton from now on), as he starts to get noticed by the right people in those pub gigs. He's paired with Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell) where they form the partnership which will last a lifetime - Bernie providing the lyrics, Elton providing the music and the performance. They form a strong friendship, and it's fun to see them growing together as artists, revealing how such classic songs came from such simple beginnings. It's not long before Elton is on the fast track to becoming a global superstar, performing at the Troubadour club in LA where he immediately wows the audience. It's there that he catches the eye of John Reid (Richard Madden), who he starts a disastrous romantic relationship with, as well as taking him on as manager.
From there the movie becomes a rollercoaster ride of emotions, carried along by an outstanding, and I'd say Oscar worthy, performance from Egerton. Singing all of the songs, and portraying perfectly the highs and lows of Elton John's incredible career. As mentioned previously, he's also supported by what is an amazing cast, all sharing the singing duties. Familiar songs that give extra meaning and insight as they seamlessly integrate within the story. And they're also completely bonkers at times too! A song performed underwater, a song where everyone in the bar levitates off the ground, Elton firing up into the sky like a rocket and exploding like a firework! Despite all of this, the movie still manages to feel relatable and believable and is a real joy to watch.
The story begins with a middle-aged Elton (Taron Egerton), dressed in one of his trademark outrageous outfits (this time a winged devil costume, complete with horns!), as he marches into a group therapy session and informs everyone that he is addicted to cocaine, sex and prescription drugs. “For as long as I can remember I’ve hated myself” he continues, before starting to recall his childhood years. He sees his younger self across the room, looking at him as the first song begins. It's more like something out of a musical though, with both versions of Elton involved in the singing and dancing, not to mention the members of the therapy group too!
That therapy room is where much of the story is told, rejoining Elton at various stages of his recovery as he recounts the moments of his life that shaped him and brought him to the point he's at now. We initially join the younger version of Elton that we saw in the opening number, or Reggie Dwight as he was known back then, tinkling out his first few notes on the family piano and never feeling fully accepted by his family. His dad is uncaring and cold towards him, never once giving him the simple hug he craves, while his mum (brilliantly played by Bryce Dallas Howard) eventually proves herself to be not that much better than dad either as time goes on. Only Reggie's Nan seems to offer him any kind of support and encouragement, and it's not long before Reggie is receiving piano lessons, attending music school and playing small gigs in the local pubs.
Fast forward a few years to Elton as a young man (played by Egerton from now on), as he starts to get noticed by the right people in those pub gigs. He's paired with Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell) where they form the partnership which will last a lifetime - Bernie providing the lyrics, Elton providing the music and the performance. They form a strong friendship, and it's fun to see them growing together as artists, revealing how such classic songs came from such simple beginnings. It's not long before Elton is on the fast track to becoming a global superstar, performing at the Troubadour club in LA where he immediately wows the audience. It's there that he catches the eye of John Reid (Richard Madden), who he starts a disastrous romantic relationship with, as well as taking him on as manager.
From there the movie becomes a rollercoaster ride of emotions, carried along by an outstanding, and I'd say Oscar worthy, performance from Egerton. Singing all of the songs, and portraying perfectly the highs and lows of Elton John's incredible career. As mentioned previously, he's also supported by what is an amazing cast, all sharing the singing duties. Familiar songs that give extra meaning and insight as they seamlessly integrate within the story. And they're also completely bonkers at times too! A song performed underwater, a song where everyone in the bar levitates off the ground, Elton firing up into the sky like a rocket and exploding like a firework! Despite all of this, the movie still manages to feel relatable and believable and is a real joy to watch.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
In May 1940, as Germany advanced into France, Allied troops found themselves surrounded at the town of Dunkirk with little time to escape. In the distance, the Germans sought to capture or kill each of the nearly 400,000 men. French and British soldiers began the slow process to evacuate using every naval or civilian ship available. Dunkirk examines the heroism involved by everyone on the land, sea, and air in their attempt to get their countrymen home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
MoviePro : Video Recorder
Photo & Video
App
MoviePro - the most powerful video recording & film making app with innumerable options as seen on...
SetMyCameraPro - Tools for Photography
Photo & Video and Utilities
App
If you are a photo enthusiast and want high quality professional photos, SetMyCamera Pro can help!...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
After 17 years away from the big screen, Indiana Jones has dusted off his trusty fedora and bullwhip in one of the most eagerly awaited returns to the screen in cinema history. Harrison Ford once again plays the rough and rugged archeologist who is as equally adept in the classroom as he is in the depths of an ancient trap laden chamber.
In “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, audience are re-introduced to Jones, who is by now an older, and wiser man who spent the years of WWII as a special operative which earned him not only the rank of Colonel, but numerous medals and citations.
The film opens with a group of bad guys forcing Indiana to locate an object from a gigantic storage area in the infamous Area 51. Since Jones was part of a team that examined said object nearly a decade earlier, his services are greatly desired, and he is forced to play along with his captors.
Of course Indiana Jones is still a man of action, and soon turns the tables on his captors in a daring and humor filled action sequence that quickly answers those that doubted Ford could pull off his charismatic character in his 60’s.
The events of the situation do not go unnoticed by the U.S. government who suspect Jones of collaborating with the enemy, and in the Red Scare America of the 1950’s Jones soon finds himself suspended from his teaching position and looking to head overseas.
As Indy’s train heads out of town, he is approached by a motorcycle riding messenger who says his name is Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), and he has been sent to find Indy by a former college of Indy’s Professor Oxle (John Hurt). Intrigued, Jones listens to the tale Mutt tells him that people have kidnapped Oxley and his mother, and he shows him a letter that Oxley instructed him to pass along to Indy should anything happen to him.
Before Indy can dig further into the mystery, he and Mutt are accosted by thugs and after a daring race through traffic on Mutt’s motorcycle, find themselves on a plane to South America in search of Oxley and Mutt’s mother as well as the fabled Crystal Skull that legend says will grant amazing powers to anyone who returns it to the fabled Golden City.
Thinking that his old friend Oxley may have succeeded where Indy was unable to many years earlier, Jones takes up the cause of locating the fabled artifact and the city as he believes that they are also the keys to locating his missing friend. The film really slows down here and devotes a good amount of time to advancing the story and characters and thanks to the amazingly detailed sets and enjoyable characters; you may find yourself not minding the change of pace.
Of course there are plenty of bad guys to add to the mix, including the evil Irinia Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who is leading a team of Russian soldiers who also have designs on the skull, as it would give them the power to read and control the minds of the leaders the world over, amongst other powers that would be used for their aggressive agendas.
What follows is an effects-laden adventure leading to a grand finale that is not as spectacular as past films in the series, but enjoyable nonetheless. When the action comes it is solid, and while some of it seems to be a retread of some of the classic moments of the series, it does deliver enough thrills to keep fans happy. There are some very welcome moments in the film such as a nice tribute to Sean Connery and the Late Denholm Elliot as well as a cleverly placed cameo early in the film during the warehouse fight.
Shia LaBeouf is an interesting addition to the series and his scenes with Ford are very enjoyable. They have a natural chemistry and do not seem forced like the Short Round character from “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”. I was also very happy to see Karen Allen return to the series as Marion Ravenwood. She has truly proven to be the only love interest in the series that truly measures up to Indy, and her fiery temper with a girl next door charm is the perfect foil for Jones.
The effects in the film are not groundbreaking, but solid, however some may find that the films plot is a bit to complex and takes too long to setup. There were funny moments in the film to go along with the action and viewers who pay close attention will catch some very subtle nods to other moments in the series.
I was pleased with the sets in the film as Director Steven Speilberg and Producer George Lucas clearly paid attention to details in the look of the film. The tombs and exotic chambers depicted in the film had a very immersive nature to them much the same way that classic Disneyland rides like Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion place guests right in the middle of the spooky and exotic locales. From cobwebs, skeletons, and insects and well as treasures galore, it was like being in on the adventure with Indy.
The series does have some life in it and while the film does not measure up with the first film in the series, I would say it is on par with “Temple of Doom” and was for me, more enjoyable than “The Last Crusade.” The film leaves the door open for yet another adventure, and if comments from Speilberg and Lucas are to be taken seriously, we may see the beloved archeologist back on the big screen in the not too distant future.
In “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, audience are re-introduced to Jones, who is by now an older, and wiser man who spent the years of WWII as a special operative which earned him not only the rank of Colonel, but numerous medals and citations.
The film opens with a group of bad guys forcing Indiana to locate an object from a gigantic storage area in the infamous Area 51. Since Jones was part of a team that examined said object nearly a decade earlier, his services are greatly desired, and he is forced to play along with his captors.
Of course Indiana Jones is still a man of action, and soon turns the tables on his captors in a daring and humor filled action sequence that quickly answers those that doubted Ford could pull off his charismatic character in his 60’s.
The events of the situation do not go unnoticed by the U.S. government who suspect Jones of collaborating with the enemy, and in the Red Scare America of the 1950’s Jones soon finds himself suspended from his teaching position and looking to head overseas.
As Indy’s train heads out of town, he is approached by a motorcycle riding messenger who says his name is Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), and he has been sent to find Indy by a former college of Indy’s Professor Oxle (John Hurt). Intrigued, Jones listens to the tale Mutt tells him that people have kidnapped Oxley and his mother, and he shows him a letter that Oxley instructed him to pass along to Indy should anything happen to him.
Before Indy can dig further into the mystery, he and Mutt are accosted by thugs and after a daring race through traffic on Mutt’s motorcycle, find themselves on a plane to South America in search of Oxley and Mutt’s mother as well as the fabled Crystal Skull that legend says will grant amazing powers to anyone who returns it to the fabled Golden City.
Thinking that his old friend Oxley may have succeeded where Indy was unable to many years earlier, Jones takes up the cause of locating the fabled artifact and the city as he believes that they are also the keys to locating his missing friend. The film really slows down here and devotes a good amount of time to advancing the story and characters and thanks to the amazingly detailed sets and enjoyable characters; you may find yourself not minding the change of pace.
Of course there are plenty of bad guys to add to the mix, including the evil Irinia Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who is leading a team of Russian soldiers who also have designs on the skull, as it would give them the power to read and control the minds of the leaders the world over, amongst other powers that would be used for their aggressive agendas.
What follows is an effects-laden adventure leading to a grand finale that is not as spectacular as past films in the series, but enjoyable nonetheless. When the action comes it is solid, and while some of it seems to be a retread of some of the classic moments of the series, it does deliver enough thrills to keep fans happy. There are some very welcome moments in the film such as a nice tribute to Sean Connery and the Late Denholm Elliot as well as a cleverly placed cameo early in the film during the warehouse fight.
Shia LaBeouf is an interesting addition to the series and his scenes with Ford are very enjoyable. They have a natural chemistry and do not seem forced like the Short Round character from “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”. I was also very happy to see Karen Allen return to the series as Marion Ravenwood. She has truly proven to be the only love interest in the series that truly measures up to Indy, and her fiery temper with a girl next door charm is the perfect foil for Jones.
The effects in the film are not groundbreaking, but solid, however some may find that the films plot is a bit to complex and takes too long to setup. There were funny moments in the film to go along with the action and viewers who pay close attention will catch some very subtle nods to other moments in the series.
I was pleased with the sets in the film as Director Steven Speilberg and Producer George Lucas clearly paid attention to details in the look of the film. The tombs and exotic chambers depicted in the film had a very immersive nature to them much the same way that classic Disneyland rides like Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion place guests right in the middle of the spooky and exotic locales. From cobwebs, skeletons, and insects and well as treasures galore, it was like being in on the adventure with Indy.
The series does have some life in it and while the film does not measure up with the first film in the series, I would say it is on par with “Temple of Doom” and was for me, more enjoyable than “The Last Crusade.” The film leaves the door open for yet another adventure, and if comments from Speilberg and Lucas are to be taken seriously, we may see the beloved archeologist back on the big screen in the not too distant future.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
I’ve never left the cinema more unnerved than I did after watching Todd Phillips’ first foray in the superhero genre. Joker is a frequently violent, often grotesque and regularly intense portrayal of the iconic character that’s already receiving praise and backlash in equal measure from those in the critic community.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!