Search
Search results
Smurfs Epic Run - Fun Platform Adventure
Games
App
Gargamel’s has casted an evil fog spell to capture all the Smurfs. The whole village is gone and...
Between the Stops: The View of My Life from the Top of the Number 12 Bus
5.0
Rate It
Book
This long-awaited memoir from one of Britain's best-loved celebrities - a writer, broadcaster,...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023) in Movies
May 6, 2023
A Return to Form for the MCU
Welcome back, MCU, we missed you.
With GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOLUME 3, the MCU has returned to the top ranks of movie-making, creating a thrilling, character-driven action/adventure that is emotionally charged and satisfying.
Directed and Written by James Gunn (as he has done with the first 2 Guardians films), Guardians 3 ties off the trilogy of this ragtag group of heroes in an appropriate, fun way by focusing on something that recent MCU films failed to do - it focuses on the characters and their relationships and how the out-of-this-world adventure that they are on will, ultimately, grow and enrich these characters and relationships.
Chris Pratt (Star-Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax), Pom Klementieff (Mantis) and the voice of Vin Diesel (Groot) are all back and they all slip, comfortably, into their roles and relationships and it feels good to have them back together again.
Karen Gillan (Nebula) and, especially, Bradley Cooper (the voice of Rocket Racoon) shine above the rest as the script calls for their characters to grow in smart, fulfilling ways and both actors shine in these circumstances.
This film also has something that the previous few films - especially the latest Ant-Man film - were lacking…a terrific villain. Chukwudi Iwuji is terribly scary as THE HIGH EVOLUTIONARY who is so single-minded in his mission that living beings - and planets - are expendable. It is a terrific performance (and the 2nd straight strong one from Iwuji in a comic book vehicle, following his work in the HBO-MAX DCU TV Series Peacemaker). He is a talent to keep an eye on.
Of course, credit to all of this goes to James Gunn who, after some controversy, returned to helm the end of the Guardians trilogy (at least the Guardians of the Galaxy with THESE characters) and he hits the mark, finding the right blend of action and character that makes the audience care very much what happens to this group. It is a strong exit film from the MCU for Gunn and the DCU is very lucky/smart to hire him as their artistic director going forward.
A very rewarding end to the Guardians trilogy - and a return to form (at least for 1 film) for the MCU.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
With GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOLUME 3, the MCU has returned to the top ranks of movie-making, creating a thrilling, character-driven action/adventure that is emotionally charged and satisfying.
Directed and Written by James Gunn (as he has done with the first 2 Guardians films), Guardians 3 ties off the trilogy of this ragtag group of heroes in an appropriate, fun way by focusing on something that recent MCU films failed to do - it focuses on the characters and their relationships and how the out-of-this-world adventure that they are on will, ultimately, grow and enrich these characters and relationships.
Chris Pratt (Star-Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax), Pom Klementieff (Mantis) and the voice of Vin Diesel (Groot) are all back and they all slip, comfortably, into their roles and relationships and it feels good to have them back together again.
Karen Gillan (Nebula) and, especially, Bradley Cooper (the voice of Rocket Racoon) shine above the rest as the script calls for their characters to grow in smart, fulfilling ways and both actors shine in these circumstances.
This film also has something that the previous few films - especially the latest Ant-Man film - were lacking…a terrific villain. Chukwudi Iwuji is terribly scary as THE HIGH EVOLUTIONARY who is so single-minded in his mission that living beings - and planets - are expendable. It is a terrific performance (and the 2nd straight strong one from Iwuji in a comic book vehicle, following his work in the HBO-MAX DCU TV Series Peacemaker). He is a talent to keep an eye on.
Of course, credit to all of this goes to James Gunn who, after some controversy, returned to helm the end of the Guardians trilogy (at least the Guardians of the Galaxy with THESE characters) and he hits the mark, finding the right blend of action and character that makes the audience care very much what happens to this group. It is a strong exit film from the MCU for Gunn and the DCU is very lucky/smart to hire him as their artistic director going forward.
A very rewarding end to the Guardians trilogy - and a return to form (at least for 1 film) for the MCU.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 11, 2022
I've taken a few days since seeing Multiverse of Madness to try and digest it as a whole, and decide how I felt about it. It's certainly wild, and leaves a hefty impression. My initial reservations stem from a couple of elements. Firstly, due to the nature of the multiverse, there are some big set pieces and character moments that feel a bit inconsequential. I hope that future projects might reveist these moments and the subsequent fallout from them, but I've got a sneaky feeling that might not happen. Secondly, there's a massive plot point that drives the entire movie that feels a little unearned, even if the execution packs a hell of a punch.
Overall though, I feel that these are minor detriments to what is a spectacular, and comic-book-as-fuck MCU entry, an entry that carries a unique signature, thanks in no small part to its director. It's no secret that I'm a big ol' Sam Raimi fan, and the entirety of MoM feels like a film straight from his mind. Sure, it has the standard Marvel Studios template, but his style shines through with little effort. There are definitely some moments that feel like a gateway horror flick, and even a bit of splatter that you might not expect from an MCU movie. There's even a few Evil Dead references chucked in for good measure.
It terms of wider connections, there's a lot goinh on here. The narrative does a lot to establish Dr Strange as a major player going forward, and introduces a great deep cut from the comics in America Chavez, another character that would fit right in with a Young Avenger film that is surely not too far off. It's also the first theater release to really feel impacted by the Disney+ shows, essentially acting as not just a sequel to Doctor Strange and No Way Home, but to WandaVision as well. On that note, Elizabeth Olsen all but steals the show here, and it's quite glorious. Elsewhere, the multiverse ensures that there are some crazy set pieces, and some fun cameos that will surely have fans talking and speculating for quite some time.
If nothing else, MoM is an incredibly fun Sam Raimi film, and a solid entry into the wider MCU, and I'm happy with that result.
Overall though, I feel that these are minor detriments to what is a spectacular, and comic-book-as-fuck MCU entry, an entry that carries a unique signature, thanks in no small part to its director. It's no secret that I'm a big ol' Sam Raimi fan, and the entirety of MoM feels like a film straight from his mind. Sure, it has the standard Marvel Studios template, but his style shines through with little effort. There are definitely some moments that feel like a gateway horror flick, and even a bit of splatter that you might not expect from an MCU movie. There's even a few Evil Dead references chucked in for good measure.
It terms of wider connections, there's a lot goinh on here. The narrative does a lot to establish Dr Strange as a major player going forward, and introduces a great deep cut from the comics in America Chavez, another character that would fit right in with a Young Avenger film that is surely not too far off. It's also the first theater release to really feel impacted by the Disney+ shows, essentially acting as not just a sequel to Doctor Strange and No Way Home, but to WandaVision as well. On that note, Elizabeth Olsen all but steals the show here, and it's quite glorious. Elsewhere, the multiverse ensures that there are some crazy set pieces, and some fun cameos that will surely have fans talking and speculating for quite some time.
If nothing else, MoM is an incredibly fun Sam Raimi film, and a solid entry into the wider MCU, and I'm happy with that result.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Apes...together...strong!
The recent revival of the Apes franchise has managed to defy all expectations by not only being a worthy entry into the franchise, but also being strong films on their own merit. Working as a kind-of-prequel-reboot of the old franchise, and ignoring the Tim Burton film completely, it is strange to realise this is only the third film since the reboot. Lesser franchises would have churned out one every year or two, and be up to part five by now, but not the Apes films. It genuinely feels like they are taking time to ensure each film is worthy. Which is where another expectation is defied – the films don’t seem to diminish in quality, nor feel repetitive. Each entry so far has had its own feel and worked to move the story along. War for the Planet of the Apes is no exception, and is one of the finest blockbuster films of this year.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Green Lantern (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Bursting onto the screen with a winning combination of action and dazzling effects DC Comics’ “The Green Lantern” has arrived to the delight of comic fans the world over. The film stars Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan, a talented but cocky test pilot who is haunted by the untimely passing of his father during a test flight when young Hal was a child.
Hal avoids commitment and leads his life as a brash individual who does things his way and answers to no one.
After a close call during a training flight that puts him at odds with his employer, Hal is enveloped by a green ball of energy which transports him to a crash site where he encounters a dying alien. While unsure of what he is seeing, Hal attempts to comfort and aid the alien creature who informs Hal that he has been selected for great honor. The dying alien bestows upon him a ring and a lantern and leaves Hal with far more questions than answers.
In time, through the powers of the ring, Hal is transported to an alien world called Oa where he encounters a myriad of alien creatures and learns that he has been selected by the ring to become a member of the Green Lantern Corps. The Lanterns act as interstellar peacekeepers with each of the 3600 members assigned to a sector of space to patrol and defend. Since there’s never been a human selected, the noble and fearless Lanterns believe that the ring must have made an error in selecting an individual who is more full of bravado than real courage.
The fact that Jordan is human and replacing the revered Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), does not sit well with a powerful Lantern named Sinestro (Mark Strong), who torments and mocks Hal, literally pounding into Hal how unworthy he is. All the while, a deadly menace with the power to destroy Oa and the Green Lantern Corps named Parallax, freed from the prison he was placed in by Abin Sur, is laying waste to everything in his path including several Lanterns who seem powerless to stop him.
Jordan must also deal with Hector (Peter Sarsgaard) who, unbeknownst to Hal, has become infected by Parallax. As if his life wasn’t complicated enough, Jordan also has to address his feelings for his childhood friend Carole (Blake Lively). Hector, fueled by jealousy over Carole and Jordan’s relationship, and resentment for his for his politico father (Tim Robbins), becomes the embodiment of evil, requiring Hal battle his own doubts and shortcomings and stand alone against an enemy that is bent on destroying all life on earth.
While Lively is relegated to little more than a love interest in the film, Reynolds seizes the character and gives Jordan a vulnerability and sense of humor rather than making him all brawn and fooldhardiness. While much of the film that is devoted to the interplay between the characters and setting up the Green Lantern universe, the film has some amazing visual effects and solid action sequences that, although are presented in converted 3-D, come cross in a spectacular fashion.
While I avoid reading reviews in advance of the screener it had not escaped my attention that the film was getting severely panned by many old guard reviewers. I would question whether any of them had actually read the comic in which the film was based. Director Martin Campbell and his team of writers have crafted a solid summer action picture that not only delivers but is faithful to the source material. This is a comicbook based movie after all and whoever is looking for dynamic plots, award-winning acting, and complex and intertwined character development, will certainly miss the point. Plot and dialogue are usually kept in a simple and straightforward manner in summer action films and I believe Lantern actually goes a step beyond the usual summer offerings in this regard.
While the film is certainly resplendent with its amazing visual effects, it is, at its core, a human story about overcoming weaknesses and finding qualities we did not know we possessed. Many people are quick to lambaste films that focus solely on action and effects yet “The Green Lantern” attempts to add depth to the characters by touching on their past associations and their deep understanding of each other. While it would be impossible in a two-hour movie to go into the depth that a comicbook can, it was nice to see that some effort was made to flesh out the characters.
Yes, the film does follow a formulaic route in terms of a hero rising to the occasion and dealing with some inner turmoil and emotional conflicts which has been the staple ever since stories were first written. That being said, there is a delightful energy about the film and Reynolds’ enthusiasm for his part.
Hal avoids commitment and leads his life as a brash individual who does things his way and answers to no one.
After a close call during a training flight that puts him at odds with his employer, Hal is enveloped by a green ball of energy which transports him to a crash site where he encounters a dying alien. While unsure of what he is seeing, Hal attempts to comfort and aid the alien creature who informs Hal that he has been selected for great honor. The dying alien bestows upon him a ring and a lantern and leaves Hal with far more questions than answers.
In time, through the powers of the ring, Hal is transported to an alien world called Oa where he encounters a myriad of alien creatures and learns that he has been selected by the ring to become a member of the Green Lantern Corps. The Lanterns act as interstellar peacekeepers with each of the 3600 members assigned to a sector of space to patrol and defend. Since there’s never been a human selected, the noble and fearless Lanterns believe that the ring must have made an error in selecting an individual who is more full of bravado than real courage.
The fact that Jordan is human and replacing the revered Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), does not sit well with a powerful Lantern named Sinestro (Mark Strong), who torments and mocks Hal, literally pounding into Hal how unworthy he is. All the while, a deadly menace with the power to destroy Oa and the Green Lantern Corps named Parallax, freed from the prison he was placed in by Abin Sur, is laying waste to everything in his path including several Lanterns who seem powerless to stop him.
Jordan must also deal with Hector (Peter Sarsgaard) who, unbeknownst to Hal, has become infected by Parallax. As if his life wasn’t complicated enough, Jordan also has to address his feelings for his childhood friend Carole (Blake Lively). Hector, fueled by jealousy over Carole and Jordan’s relationship, and resentment for his for his politico father (Tim Robbins), becomes the embodiment of evil, requiring Hal battle his own doubts and shortcomings and stand alone against an enemy that is bent on destroying all life on earth.
While Lively is relegated to little more than a love interest in the film, Reynolds seizes the character and gives Jordan a vulnerability and sense of humor rather than making him all brawn and fooldhardiness. While much of the film that is devoted to the interplay between the characters and setting up the Green Lantern universe, the film has some amazing visual effects and solid action sequences that, although are presented in converted 3-D, come cross in a spectacular fashion.
While I avoid reading reviews in advance of the screener it had not escaped my attention that the film was getting severely panned by many old guard reviewers. I would question whether any of them had actually read the comic in which the film was based. Director Martin Campbell and his team of writers have crafted a solid summer action picture that not only delivers but is faithful to the source material. This is a comicbook based movie after all and whoever is looking for dynamic plots, award-winning acting, and complex and intertwined character development, will certainly miss the point. Plot and dialogue are usually kept in a simple and straightforward manner in summer action films and I believe Lantern actually goes a step beyond the usual summer offerings in this regard.
While the film is certainly resplendent with its amazing visual effects, it is, at its core, a human story about overcoming weaknesses and finding qualities we did not know we possessed. Many people are quick to lambaste films that focus solely on action and effects yet “The Green Lantern” attempts to add depth to the characters by touching on their past associations and their deep understanding of each other. While it would be impossible in a two-hour movie to go into the depth that a comicbook can, it was nice to see that some effort was made to flesh out the characters.
Yes, the film does follow a formulaic route in terms of a hero rising to the occasion and dealing with some inner turmoil and emotional conflicts which has been the staple ever since stories were first written. That being said, there is a delightful energy about the film and Reynolds’ enthusiasm for his part.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 8, 2021
More Fun Than I Expected
It is almost an effort in futility to review a movie such as THE SUICIDE SQUAD, for most folks fall into 1 of 2 camps:
1). Are a DC (or Comic Book Movie) Fan, and will go see this no matter what.
2). Are not of fan of the darker DCEU movies (as compared to the MCU films) and might have checked out the first SUICIDE SQUAD, but have no intention to watch this one.
This review is for the folks in the 2nd camp - for THE SUICIDE SQUAD is a fun summer action flick with silliness, action, humor and HEART at it’s core.
Directed by James Gunn (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), THE SUICIDE SQUAD starts out like the first SUICIDE SQUAD film (and most of the DCEU films) - dark, gritty and intense - with a new pack of anti-heroes joining in on a fight that absolutely cements this team as THE SUICIDE SQUAD.
After that, the film makes an interesting adjustment, actually giving the audience anti-heroes that you can root for with just enough of a balance between the dark grittiness that one has come to expect from a DCEU film with a bit more humane touch that really is the hallmark of the MCU.
And, under the Direction of James Gunn, this film finds that balance very, very well.
Gunn, of course, knows how to make these films - his balance of action and character moments is accurate, his action sequences are well plotted and choreographed (no need for “shaky cam” to hide the faults) and he populates this Suicide Squad with some memorable characters.
Margot Robbie, of course, is in another stratosphere in her portrayal of Harley Quinn. This is the 3rd film that Robbie stars as Quinn and she has this part down pat. The problem with the other 2 films that she starred in as Quinn (2016’s SUICIDE SQUAD and 2020’s BIRDS OF PREY) is that she was SO GOOD in those films, that everyone else paled in comparison, but in this film, she has some strong actors/characters to play off of, and this benefits the movie.
Starting with Idris Elba as Bloodsport the “Leader” of the Squad (in essence, replacing Will Smith) and this is a smart move for Elba has the commanding presence of a Leader with that sense of foreboding that he might not be such a good guy underneath - a quality that I just didn’t buy from Smith in the first movie.
Joining Elba as characters that were interesting and strong were RatCatcher 1 (Taiki Waititi - in an extended cameo) and RatCatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Savant (Michael Rooker), freedom fighter Sol Soria (Sonya Braga), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and the “Groot” of this piece, King Shark (Sylvester Stallone).
Oh…and special notice needs to be made of the character of Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian). Director Gunn has stated he wanted to find the dumbest villain in the DCEU and make him into one of the heroes of this piece. He found him in Polka Dot Man and is played with great pathos by Dastmalchian.
Fairing less well is the great Viola Davis as the hard-nosed Amanda Waller who seems to be still acting in the gritty, dark style of the first SUICIDE SQUAD film, so misses out on some of the fun of this film as well as Joel Kinneman as Colonel Rick Flagg (the military leader of the group). I really wasn’t invested in Flagg (or Kinneman’s portrayal of Flagg) in the first film - and I am not in this one either. He just isn’t at nearly the same level of performance as the others listed above.
Also…a note about John Cena (and his character PeaceMaker). This is the 2nd 2021 Summer Blockbuster Action flick that I have seen Cena in (following his turn in F9) and in both these films I found his performance to be “flat”. It just didn’t fill the screen, nor does he have enough charisma (a la The Rock) to charm his way through. I was bored by him in this film (as well as in F9).
But…this is a James Gunn film - and he doesn’t spend much time with the characters/actors that don’t really work, but rather, spends his camera time on the ones that do - and the over-the-top action sequences (and villain) that are filmed with a slight grin and a wink-in-the-eye.
It’s a much needed shot-in-the-arm for DCEU films, but - I’m afraid - it might be too little too late, as most folks have already tuned out the DCEU for being “too dark”. Which is too bad, for this is the fun summer blockbuster film action and comic book fans have been looking for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
1). Are a DC (or Comic Book Movie) Fan, and will go see this no matter what.
2). Are not of fan of the darker DCEU movies (as compared to the MCU films) and might have checked out the first SUICIDE SQUAD, but have no intention to watch this one.
This review is for the folks in the 2nd camp - for THE SUICIDE SQUAD is a fun summer action flick with silliness, action, humor and HEART at it’s core.
Directed by James Gunn (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), THE SUICIDE SQUAD starts out like the first SUICIDE SQUAD film (and most of the DCEU films) - dark, gritty and intense - with a new pack of anti-heroes joining in on a fight that absolutely cements this team as THE SUICIDE SQUAD.
After that, the film makes an interesting adjustment, actually giving the audience anti-heroes that you can root for with just enough of a balance between the dark grittiness that one has come to expect from a DCEU film with a bit more humane touch that really is the hallmark of the MCU.
And, under the Direction of James Gunn, this film finds that balance very, very well.
Gunn, of course, knows how to make these films - his balance of action and character moments is accurate, his action sequences are well plotted and choreographed (no need for “shaky cam” to hide the faults) and he populates this Suicide Squad with some memorable characters.
Margot Robbie, of course, is in another stratosphere in her portrayal of Harley Quinn. This is the 3rd film that Robbie stars as Quinn and she has this part down pat. The problem with the other 2 films that she starred in as Quinn (2016’s SUICIDE SQUAD and 2020’s BIRDS OF PREY) is that she was SO GOOD in those films, that everyone else paled in comparison, but in this film, she has some strong actors/characters to play off of, and this benefits the movie.
Starting with Idris Elba as Bloodsport the “Leader” of the Squad (in essence, replacing Will Smith) and this is a smart move for Elba has the commanding presence of a Leader with that sense of foreboding that he might not be such a good guy underneath - a quality that I just didn’t buy from Smith in the first movie.
Joining Elba as characters that were interesting and strong were RatCatcher 1 (Taiki Waititi - in an extended cameo) and RatCatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Savant (Michael Rooker), freedom fighter Sol Soria (Sonya Braga), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and the “Groot” of this piece, King Shark (Sylvester Stallone).
Oh…and special notice needs to be made of the character of Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian). Director Gunn has stated he wanted to find the dumbest villain in the DCEU and make him into one of the heroes of this piece. He found him in Polka Dot Man and is played with great pathos by Dastmalchian.
Fairing less well is the great Viola Davis as the hard-nosed Amanda Waller who seems to be still acting in the gritty, dark style of the first SUICIDE SQUAD film, so misses out on some of the fun of this film as well as Joel Kinneman as Colonel Rick Flagg (the military leader of the group). I really wasn’t invested in Flagg (or Kinneman’s portrayal of Flagg) in the first film - and I am not in this one either. He just isn’t at nearly the same level of performance as the others listed above.
Also…a note about John Cena (and his character PeaceMaker). This is the 2nd 2021 Summer Blockbuster Action flick that I have seen Cena in (following his turn in F9) and in both these films I found his performance to be “flat”. It just didn’t fill the screen, nor does he have enough charisma (a la The Rock) to charm his way through. I was bored by him in this film (as well as in F9).
But…this is a James Gunn film - and he doesn’t spend much time with the characters/actors that don’t really work, but rather, spends his camera time on the ones that do - and the over-the-top action sequences (and villain) that are filmed with a slight grin and a wink-in-the-eye.
It’s a much needed shot-in-the-arm for DCEU films, but - I’m afraid - it might be too little too late, as most folks have already tuned out the DCEU for being “too dark”. Which is too bad, for this is the fun summer blockbuster film action and comic book fans have been looking for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Loki was fun to watch. (1 more)
Good SFX.
Totally forgettable villain. (1 more)
Any scene involving Kat Dennings and her intern.
Thor: God Of Meh
In the run up to the release of Thor: Ragnarok, the third Thor movie, I decided to go back and watch the only movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that I have not seen yet. I never had anything against this movie before I saw it, I had just heard it is mediocre and a bit unnecessary and to be honest Thor is one of my least favourite Avengers. Funnily enough what I got was a fairly unnecessary, mediocre superhero sequel with some fun moments sprinkled throughout.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
Rachel (48 KP) rated Tortured Dreams (Dreams & Reality Series #1) in Books
May 27, 2017
Managed 17%
*Spoiler Alert*
It's really uncommon for me to start a book and just give up on it. I always endeavor to finish everything but this time I just couldn't!
I found everything about this story excruciating. The writing is all over the place, pretty much 0 description of anything. None of the characters were sympathetic in any way, I really could not have cared less about the lead character. Dialogue is stilted, not natural in any way and the actions of people were as natural as Dolly the cloned sheep.
Even though I only read 17% of the story certain thoughts, and even whole sentences, had already been repeated.
The main character is a sociopath, something that is hammered at over and over again, yet the author presents her in a totally unrealistic way.
"She couldn't have PTSD because she had no feelings for others". That is utterly wrong. PTSD has nothing to do with empathy or feelings for others - the clue is in the name.
I have a friend who is diagnosed with sociopathic personality disorder and it is a fallacy that sociopath's have no apparentlysympathy nor empathy for anyone. The way they process it is just different. They can be very dampened down, yes, but they exist!
Apparently another character - who is a psychopath - managed to somehow beat all of the psychological testing and is part of the FBI! This character apparently secretly gives the sociopathic character money to live on. Why would a fully blown psychopath do that? There is nothing in it for him and it wouldn't even feed his narcissism as it's not a public spectacle.
Now our 'sociopath' character somehow manages to recognise serial killers/rapists from across crowded bars, they are magically drawn only to her, so she let's them follow her home and she kills them. Isn't that convenient?! Oh - she also has a serial killer stalker who writes her letters detailing all 200 of his murders.......
Then homeland security turn up - they somehow know all about her and her magical murdering skills - and need her to help in a case that involves mediaeval torture. Luckily she owns an extremely rare book that answers their most burning question's so she is asked to join a taskforce. Which just happens to be made up entirely of emotionally and psychologically damaged men.
Because that is what every law service desperately wants.
I could go on but I'm just getting annoyed again as I write about it! Honestly, save your time and money and get something more realistic. A comic book of Tom and Jerry perhaps
It's really uncommon for me to start a book and just give up on it. I always endeavor to finish everything but this time I just couldn't!
I found everything about this story excruciating. The writing is all over the place, pretty much 0 description of anything. None of the characters were sympathetic in any way, I really could not have cared less about the lead character. Dialogue is stilted, not natural in any way and the actions of people were as natural as Dolly the cloned sheep.
Even though I only read 17% of the story certain thoughts, and even whole sentences, had already been repeated.
The main character is a sociopath, something that is hammered at over and over again, yet the author presents her in a totally unrealistic way.
"She couldn't have PTSD because she had no feelings for others". That is utterly wrong. PTSD has nothing to do with empathy or feelings for others - the clue is in the name.
I have a friend who is diagnosed with sociopathic personality disorder and it is a fallacy that sociopath's have no apparentlysympathy nor empathy for anyone. The way they process it is just different. They can be very dampened down, yes, but they exist!
Apparently another character - who is a psychopath - managed to somehow beat all of the psychological testing and is part of the FBI! This character apparently secretly gives the sociopathic character money to live on. Why would a fully blown psychopath do that? There is nothing in it for him and it wouldn't even feed his narcissism as it's not a public spectacle.
Now our 'sociopath' character somehow manages to recognise serial killers/rapists from across crowded bars, they are magically drawn only to her, so she let's them follow her home and she kills them. Isn't that convenient?! Oh - she also has a serial killer stalker who writes her letters detailing all 200 of his murders.......
Then homeland security turn up - they somehow know all about her and her magical murdering skills - and need her to help in a case that involves mediaeval torture. Luckily she owns an extremely rare book that answers their most burning question's so she is asked to join a taskforce. Which just happens to be made up entirely of emotionally and psychologically damaged men.
Because that is what every law service desperately wants.
I could go on but I'm just getting annoyed again as I write about it! Honestly, save your time and money and get something more realistic. A comic book of Tom and Jerry perhaps