Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission impossible dead reckoning part one (2023) in Movies
Jul 14, 2023
What A Summer Blockbuster Movie Should Be
Boy, that Tom Cruise sure knows how to make a crowd-pleasing, summer blockbuster movie.
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Watchmen (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
**I've seen Tales of the Black Freighter, but I'm not sure I've ever seen the Ultimate Cut of this.**
A comedian died in New York. Someone threw him out of a window and when he hit the sidewalk his head was driven into his stomach. The only person that seems to care is Rorschach, the one superhero who refuses to take off his mask. The Keene Act was passed in 1977 banning all forms of costumed crimefighting. Rorschach continues to do so as he feels his mask is his true face. His theory is that someone is out to kill costumed heroes and that it's his responsibility to inform his former colleagues. There's Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II whom Rorschach used to be partners with before Dan retired, Adrian Veidt/Ozymondias, one of two costumed heroes to make his identity public who's also a self-made millionaire and considered to be the smartest man in the world, Dr. Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, the only one of the group who has genuine super powers thanks to an accident that nearly killed him who is now commissioned by the government, Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II, her mother was in the Minutemen along with The Comedian and wanted her daughter to follow in her footsteps, and finally Edward Blake/The Comedian, another superhero commissioned by the government that knows more than he should while his knowledge takes its toll on him and whoever is around him at the time thanks to his reckless and sadistic behavior. What any of them fail to realize is that there's a conspiracy going on that's bigger than any of them could have ever imagined.
I had watched the motion comic in its entirety earlier in the week to get myself ready for this and it had really gotten me excited for this film. The first time I read Watchmen, I thought it was good but not great. However, I thoroughly enjoyed it the second time through. My biggest question going into the film is how I would feel about the altered ending since I already knew about that going into it. Turns out that the ending in question wasn't so bad, but I wasn't happy with some of the other things that were changed or left out to lead up to said ending.
The film is pretty much right on the money the majority of the time. Zack Snyder continues his trend of pulling panels directly from the source material and making them a cinematic reality. The dialogue is often times word for word from the graphic novel and doesn't feel forced or out of place when something new is used. The cast left nothing to be complained about as they all did a great job. Jackie Earle Haley was a fantastic Rorschach. He sounded just the way I expected Rorschach to sound and just looked like a splitting image of Walter Kovacs. Billy Crudup's emotionless Dr. Manhattan was also pretty much just as I envisioned. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian was the one I seemed to be most pleased with. He did a great job making you care about this costumed superhero who did brutally sadistic things to people yet somehow still made you care about his character. Snyder's use of slow motion seems to be used more efficiently this time around. It felt like it was used only when needed rather than just to be eye candy. The effects used with Dr. Manhattan are worth a mention. Even if he's just standing there, you can tell how much time and effort was put into making him look spectacular. Let alone cost quite a bit of money. Rorschach's mask was also an interesting special effect that is sure to catch anyone's eye. The effects are pretty flawless and should please most moviegoers.
There was a lot of material left out of the film or changed that I wasn't particularly happy with. I don't want to seem too nitpicky, so I'll only touch base on a few of them. I view most of the stuff that was left out as character development that was important to the overall story. Most of the material in question concerns Rorschach; he visited Adrian Veidt to warn him of his mask killer theory not Dan, his response to The Keene Act, Walter Kovac's landlady, anything concerning his apartment, and his drop box, where he hides his mask during the day, everything about his psychiatrist's relationship bending and breaking during the course of the Rorschach case, how and where he got the mask, how he disposed of the man who kidnapped that little girl, and it just keeps going. Most of that was left out of the theatrical version of the film. Around the halfway point to the end of the film, I felt like it just strayed further and further away from the source material. In the novel, Dr. Manhattan is the only superhero with superpowers. The film kind of leaves that up in the air since other characters are seen punching stone off of walls and jumping to inhuman heights into the air. It was just kind of a, "Wait...what?" kind of moment for me. I realize it was probably just the wirework used that I'm questioning, but it didn't sit well with me.
I'm hoping the final cut of the film that's rumored to be three hours to three and a half hours long puts some of these important bits (including Hollis' death and The Black Freighter storyline among other things) back into the story. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but it wound up just not meeting my expectations. My recommendation is don't read the graphic novel before viewing the film. The film is worthwhile for Zack Snyder enthusiasts, comic book fans, and pretty much anyone looking for a good action film. I would recommend it to just about anyone, but I think that ultimate version of the DVD is going to be what fans will really be excited over and for good reason. As a film, it's incredibly entertaining. In comparison to the graphic novel, it comes up a bit short. For now, I just see it as a good film that could have been a lot better.
A comedian died in New York. Someone threw him out of a window and when he hit the sidewalk his head was driven into his stomach. The only person that seems to care is Rorschach, the one superhero who refuses to take off his mask. The Keene Act was passed in 1977 banning all forms of costumed crimefighting. Rorschach continues to do so as he feels his mask is his true face. His theory is that someone is out to kill costumed heroes and that it's his responsibility to inform his former colleagues. There's Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II whom Rorschach used to be partners with before Dan retired, Adrian Veidt/Ozymondias, one of two costumed heroes to make his identity public who's also a self-made millionaire and considered to be the smartest man in the world, Dr. Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, the only one of the group who has genuine super powers thanks to an accident that nearly killed him who is now commissioned by the government, Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II, her mother was in the Minutemen along with The Comedian and wanted her daughter to follow in her footsteps, and finally Edward Blake/The Comedian, another superhero commissioned by the government that knows more than he should while his knowledge takes its toll on him and whoever is around him at the time thanks to his reckless and sadistic behavior. What any of them fail to realize is that there's a conspiracy going on that's bigger than any of them could have ever imagined.
I had watched the motion comic in its entirety earlier in the week to get myself ready for this and it had really gotten me excited for this film. The first time I read Watchmen, I thought it was good but not great. However, I thoroughly enjoyed it the second time through. My biggest question going into the film is how I would feel about the altered ending since I already knew about that going into it. Turns out that the ending in question wasn't so bad, but I wasn't happy with some of the other things that were changed or left out to lead up to said ending.
The film is pretty much right on the money the majority of the time. Zack Snyder continues his trend of pulling panels directly from the source material and making them a cinematic reality. The dialogue is often times word for word from the graphic novel and doesn't feel forced or out of place when something new is used. The cast left nothing to be complained about as they all did a great job. Jackie Earle Haley was a fantastic Rorschach. He sounded just the way I expected Rorschach to sound and just looked like a splitting image of Walter Kovacs. Billy Crudup's emotionless Dr. Manhattan was also pretty much just as I envisioned. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian was the one I seemed to be most pleased with. He did a great job making you care about this costumed superhero who did brutally sadistic things to people yet somehow still made you care about his character. Snyder's use of slow motion seems to be used more efficiently this time around. It felt like it was used only when needed rather than just to be eye candy. The effects used with Dr. Manhattan are worth a mention. Even if he's just standing there, you can tell how much time and effort was put into making him look spectacular. Let alone cost quite a bit of money. Rorschach's mask was also an interesting special effect that is sure to catch anyone's eye. The effects are pretty flawless and should please most moviegoers.
There was a lot of material left out of the film or changed that I wasn't particularly happy with. I don't want to seem too nitpicky, so I'll only touch base on a few of them. I view most of the stuff that was left out as character development that was important to the overall story. Most of the material in question concerns Rorschach; he visited Adrian Veidt to warn him of his mask killer theory not Dan, his response to The Keene Act, Walter Kovac's landlady, anything concerning his apartment, and his drop box, where he hides his mask during the day, everything about his psychiatrist's relationship bending and breaking during the course of the Rorschach case, how and where he got the mask, how he disposed of the man who kidnapped that little girl, and it just keeps going. Most of that was left out of the theatrical version of the film. Around the halfway point to the end of the film, I felt like it just strayed further and further away from the source material. In the novel, Dr. Manhattan is the only superhero with superpowers. The film kind of leaves that up in the air since other characters are seen punching stone off of walls and jumping to inhuman heights into the air. It was just kind of a, "Wait...what?" kind of moment for me. I realize it was probably just the wirework used that I'm questioning, but it didn't sit well with me.
I'm hoping the final cut of the film that's rumored to be three hours to three and a half hours long puts some of these important bits (including Hollis' death and The Black Freighter storyline among other things) back into the story. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but it wound up just not meeting my expectations. My recommendation is don't read the graphic novel before viewing the film. The film is worthwhile for Zack Snyder enthusiasts, comic book fans, and pretty much anyone looking for a good action film. I would recommend it to just about anyone, but I think that ultimate version of the DVD is going to be what fans will really be excited over and for good reason. As a film, it's incredibly entertaining. In comparison to the graphic novel, it comes up a bit short. For now, I just see it as a good film that could have been a lot better.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"Bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from the ships, 'cause they knew death was better than bondage"
Full of life, joy, sorrow, and hilarity; Ryan Coogler's Black Panther just has a vibrancy you rarely find in the superhero scene, let alone blockbusters. Enriched with a deep, abiding love for African culture and Afrofuturism; the movie just feels purposeful. Important. Meaningful. Context matters here, as Black Panther will become one of very few films populated by African Americans not dealing with slavery or black history to thrive financially. And that cast is phenomenal. Boseman's soft-spoken panther-of-few-words is the rare MCUer to opt for a moment of silence rather than a snarky comment. Michael B Jordan brings an unmistakable swagger to the perpetually weak slate of Marvel villains, conveying a crushingly sad and challenging story that could just as easily be regarded as the true hero of the film. Letitia Wright as the genius tech maestro was a blast, a character who could give Tony Stark a run for his money both technologically and charismatically. And these are just three of Coogler's creations; drawn from a slate of inspired, unique and wonderfully represented roles for black actors...many of whom will deservingly use this as a career springboard of sorts.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
I remember years ago I read a book about the cultural significance of various comic book locales, and the Wakanda entry struck me as uniquely sad and inspiring. Wakanda, a place busting with innovation, tradition, and pride...hidden from the world. Sort of an alternate-timeline Africa which wasn't poisoned irreparably by colonialism and all its horrors. There's a sad duality obvious in this Wakanda, that being for it to exist, it must be hidden. Must be quietly nurtured, developed and treasured. It's an apt metaphor in relation to black pride, culture, and history; something constantly being reworked, reshaped and reimagined to put a sordid past (and present) in the rear-view mirror by those who perpetrate it, knowingly or not. This idea, that for something to thrive it must be isolated, is at the heart of Black Panther. You can understand why T'Challa, and generations before him, sacrificed anything to preserve the myth of Wakanda. But you can also understand Killmonger's feeling of betrayal. The profound moral objections inherent in a small community turning it's back on a larger suffering population in the name of self-preservation. There's no heroes and villains when Black Panther is at it's best, just two sides to a terrifying moral question *loaded* with historical weight.
Because Killmonger isn't really a villain. The best illustration of this is the contrasting "dream" sequences, in which T'Challa shares a promise with his father within a transcendentally beautiful African landscape, and Killmonger is confronted by all his pain, suffering and moral rigidity in the vast concrete jungle of Oakland, in the tiny apartment where his father was murdered for trying to make a difference. They both wake up with tears in their eyes, some from pain and some from catharsis. Coogler marks the chasm between T'Challa's and Killmonger's pasts so perfectly, and illustrates exactly why they feel the way they do with such wisdom. Black Panther so clearly empathizes with Killmonger and understands where his pain was born, and the horrors that nurtured it.
And so there's no hero and no villain to this movie. Just two men in nearly identical black panther suits, clashing over how Wakanda ought to venture into a new era. Nobility and passion, conservation and sacrifice, incremental change against a vengeful redistribution of power and oppression. Both men are correct in their aspirations, being "right" here doesn't matter. it's tough for a good man to be king. Killmonger made T'Challa the hero he is, by instilling in him a mission, a perceived duty to turn around, face an oppressed people and finally lend a hand. But more than that, there's something miraculous here. An apology from a good man. A recognition of a sin even when it's perpetrator was, until now, helpless to prevent it. A declaration that not contributing to hate and prejudice doesn't equate to actively working to prevent it. A plea for a humble brand of superheroism, for countless ghosts of the past to be heard and change to erupt in their name. Divides to be bridged, chasms to be crossed and wrongs to be righted.
Black Panther has a complex, meaningful and profoundly challenging thematic framework; offering a fresh dissection of what it means to grapple with the sins of those who came before. Sure, there are some technical issues along the way, the machinations of Marvel storytelling are evident and errors could be found; but if you understand that superhero stories were meant to ask these sorts of questions and push boundaries since their inception; Black Panther is a dream.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Oct 3, 2017
Plot Holes Galore (1 more)
Lack of Character Motivations
A Disappointing Sequel
Contains spoilers, click to show
You can look at this movie from two different perspectives. If you choose to see it as a dumb, switch-your-brain-off spy movie and are only going for the batshit insane action scenes, then you will have a good time. If you are looking for a decent comic book movie that serves as a sequel to the first movie and sets up a potential future franchise, then you will probably leave feeling similar to how I did, pretty disappointed.
The first movie was released with no hype behind it and for most people was a pleasant surprise. This film has a lot more to live up to and unfortunately it doesn't quite get there. Although the movie does feel like a sequel, it's not the worst sequel I've ever seen and it's not the worst sequel released this year.
Julianne Moore plays the antagonist in the movie and whilst her motivations for what she was doing were questionable, you could tell she was having fun with the character and it was a fun performance to watch. The action scenes were as fast paced and as fun as you would want them to be and although they do feel cartoony, there are a few crazy set pieces that you can’t help but grin at.
This movie also introduces the Statesman, an American version of the Kingsman who work out of a whisky factory rather than a tailor’s shop. Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry don’t get much screen time, which is fine, but Channing Tatum is hardly in the movie at all, despite appearing on a lot of the marketing for the film. I think he is onscreen in Hateful Eight for longer than he is in this.
Ok, spoiler time. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, don’t read on past this point. I mean if you have seen any of the trailers for the movie then you already know that they have brought Colin Firth back from the dead.
The explanation for this is sort of anti-climactic. Essentially, The Statesman have came up with a cure to gunshot wounds to the head and any other fatal wound that you may sustain, the process involves wrapping the wound in a gel strip and then inflating it with two syringes. Sure, you can argue this is a heightened reality where crazy stuff like this is entirely possible, but my problem with it, is that it immediately lowers all of the stakes. If anyone can be brought back from the dead, then how is there any peril left for the characters in the franchise?
After this whole revelation, they kill off Merlin, the character played by Mark Strong. His death is really pathetic and something that could have easily been avoided. Eggsy accidentally steps on a landmine, (even though they specifically point out that they are using a minesweeper,) then Merlin sprays the mine with a freeze gel so that Eggsy can step off of the mine and Merlin takes his place, then he distracts some guards and gets blown up. What I’m left wondering is the limit of what can be fixed with the regeneration strip. Surely if a bullet to the head can be walked off, then getting blown up by a landmine is fair game? Could they not have tried piecing him together like a jigsaw a wrapping him in the magic gel strips? I guess they could bring him back in the next movie and I’m sure if they do, we will know when the first trailer for Kingsman 3 is released.
Overall this isn’t a bad movie, it’s just disappointing. There are some entertaining action scenes, but rubbish dialogue and ridiculous plot elements make this inferior to the first Kingsman movie and pretty mediocre overall.
The first movie was released with no hype behind it and for most people was a pleasant surprise. This film has a lot more to live up to and unfortunately it doesn't quite get there. Although the movie does feel like a sequel, it's not the worst sequel I've ever seen and it's not the worst sequel released this year.
Julianne Moore plays the antagonist in the movie and whilst her motivations for what she was doing were questionable, you could tell she was having fun with the character and it was a fun performance to watch. The action scenes were as fast paced and as fun as you would want them to be and although they do feel cartoony, there are a few crazy set pieces that you can’t help but grin at.
This movie also introduces the Statesman, an American version of the Kingsman who work out of a whisky factory rather than a tailor’s shop. Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry don’t get much screen time, which is fine, but Channing Tatum is hardly in the movie at all, despite appearing on a lot of the marketing for the film. I think he is onscreen in Hateful Eight for longer than he is in this.
Ok, spoiler time. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, don’t read on past this point. I mean if you have seen any of the trailers for the movie then you already know that they have brought Colin Firth back from the dead.
The explanation for this is sort of anti-climactic. Essentially, The Statesman have came up with a cure to gunshot wounds to the head and any other fatal wound that you may sustain, the process involves wrapping the wound in a gel strip and then inflating it with two syringes. Sure, you can argue this is a heightened reality where crazy stuff like this is entirely possible, but my problem with it, is that it immediately lowers all of the stakes. If anyone can be brought back from the dead, then how is there any peril left for the characters in the franchise?
After this whole revelation, they kill off Merlin, the character played by Mark Strong. His death is really pathetic and something that could have easily been avoided. Eggsy accidentally steps on a landmine, (even though they specifically point out that they are using a minesweeper,) then Merlin sprays the mine with a freeze gel so that Eggsy can step off of the mine and Merlin takes his place, then he distracts some guards and gets blown up. What I’m left wondering is the limit of what can be fixed with the regeneration strip. Surely if a bullet to the head can be walked off, then getting blown up by a landmine is fair game? Could they not have tried piecing him together like a jigsaw a wrapping him in the magic gel strips? I guess they could bring him back in the next movie and I’m sure if they do, we will know when the first trailer for Kingsman 3 is released.
Overall this isn’t a bad movie, it’s just disappointing. There are some entertaining action scenes, but rubbish dialogue and ridiculous plot elements make this inferior to the first Kingsman movie and pretty mediocre overall.
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Fred (860 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Apr 25, 2019
Over-hyped? Yes. Good? Meh. Then why a 7? Read on.
So, I'll keep this spoiler-free, although I'm sure everyone and their dog will have seen this within a week of it's release. Let me say here that when I watch a movie, I remember the boring parts, especially when most of the movie is boring. And I also don't fall for it when the ending of a movie is awesome & so I leave the theater thinking the whole movie was awesome, when it just wasn't.
Anyway, the movie starts with a scene that could have been (and should have been) the ending to Infinity War & it would have changed nothing of the "half the world is dead" cliffhanger we were left with. We would have also gotten a shorter final movie, which would be better off. At least we wouldn't have those ridiculous "when to pee" articles on the internet. Please. I've seen all the Lord of the Rings movies in the theater. Nobody talked pee breaks & those movies were far superior to the Marvel movies. So, after this fantastic beginning, we then get a long sequence of scenes where it seems to want to re-introduce the characters we've seen in 20 freaking films already. Let's catch-up, shall we? Yes, let's make a 3 hour movie to show us our heroes eating lunch. Are you kidding me? The film goes on too long here & it's all very unnecessary. We are finally told the heroes are going to do something about the situation & they start to figure out how to do it. So, here's a minor SPOILER here, so skip to the next paragraph if you don't want to see it. The heroes decide to get the Infinity stones. And here's where there's a problem for me. See in Infinity War, I felt Thanos got the stones too easily. In a half hour, he got all 6. Well, the heroes get them even quicker in this film. What could have been made into a separate movie, they have the stones in 20 minutes. Playing with time-travel, they could have spread out the nostalgic look back into the older films, like they did in this film, but they could have had a lot more fun or play with it like Back to the Future II did when Marty went back to 1955 again. I felt a missed opportunity.
Okay, no more spoilers. So after the heroes do this, they now have to ability to do what they want & then starts maybe the greatest piece of film I've ever seen. At least in any of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. It's incredible & a comic-book fan's sweet dream come true. There are really no surprises as to what is going to happen. You know who's showing up. You know when they're showing up & you know what the endgame is going to be. Again, I will not give anything away, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows someone or someones will not continue on. We know the rumors & you've heard the end will bring you to tears. So, after this scene, we are "treated" to about 15 minutes of a sad sequence. Boo Hoo. We say goodbye, but then something extraordinary. The final scene to the film is perfect. It fixes one of what I considered a great injustice in the MCU & ends the film with a "YES!" moment.
So, final verdict is I am giving the film a 7 out of 10. Don't believe the perfect 10 scores. It's not a 10. In fact, I feel that if I ever watch it again, I will probably watch the beginning, then skip to the end. Most of the film is filler to lead us to that phenomenal scene.
Anyway, the movie starts with a scene that could have been (and should have been) the ending to Infinity War & it would have changed nothing of the "half the world is dead" cliffhanger we were left with. We would have also gotten a shorter final movie, which would be better off. At least we wouldn't have those ridiculous "when to pee" articles on the internet. Please. I've seen all the Lord of the Rings movies in the theater. Nobody talked pee breaks & those movies were far superior to the Marvel movies. So, after this fantastic beginning, we then get a long sequence of scenes where it seems to want to re-introduce the characters we've seen in 20 freaking films already. Let's catch-up, shall we? Yes, let's make a 3 hour movie to show us our heroes eating lunch. Are you kidding me? The film goes on too long here & it's all very unnecessary. We are finally told the heroes are going to do something about the situation & they start to figure out how to do it. So, here's a minor SPOILER here, so skip to the next paragraph if you don't want to see it. The heroes decide to get the Infinity stones. And here's where there's a problem for me. See in Infinity War, I felt Thanos got the stones too easily. In a half hour, he got all 6. Well, the heroes get them even quicker in this film. What could have been made into a separate movie, they have the stones in 20 minutes. Playing with time-travel, they could have spread out the nostalgic look back into the older films, like they did in this film, but they could have had a lot more fun or play with it like Back to the Future II did when Marty went back to 1955 again. I felt a missed opportunity.
Okay, no more spoilers. So after the heroes do this, they now have to ability to do what they want & then starts maybe the greatest piece of film I've ever seen. At least in any of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. It's incredible & a comic-book fan's sweet dream come true. There are really no surprises as to what is going to happen. You know who's showing up. You know when they're showing up & you know what the endgame is going to be. Again, I will not give anything away, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows someone or someones will not continue on. We know the rumors & you've heard the end will bring you to tears. So, after this scene, we are "treated" to about 15 minutes of a sad sequence. Boo Hoo. We say goodbye, but then something extraordinary. The final scene to the film is perfect. It fixes one of what I considered a great injustice in the MCU & ends the film with a "YES!" moment.
So, final verdict is I am giving the film a 7 out of 10. Don't believe the perfect 10 scores. It's not a 10. In fact, I feel that if I ever watch it again, I will probably watch the beginning, then skip to the end. Most of the film is filler to lead us to that phenomenal scene.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019
"They said the age of heroes would never come again."
As a huge fan of Zack Snyder's first two efforts inside the DCEU and Patty Jenkins wonderful Wonder Woman, my expectations for Justice League were pretty much through the roof. After the mediocre buzz that it got and all the stuff that happened behind the scenes, I was a little skeptical but still very excited, but after getting out of the theater, one word really just describes how I felt; disappointed.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Witness in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
A classic ‘game’ from my childhood (seriously, we played it all the time) was Telephone. You know the one – someone whispers something to their neighbor, that person whispers it to their neighbor, and so on until it’s made its way around the group. Hilarity ensues when the final person reveals what they heard – usually a far cry from the original message! So when Travis pulled out Witness, a modern twist on Telephone, I knew that all my years of training would finally amount to something!
Witness is a cooperative game of memory and deduction set in the world of the 1940’s comic “Blake and Mortimer.” You and your compatriots are working together to solve mysteries! But there’s a catch – you each only know certain information, and are limited in how you are allowed to disclose it to each other. If you could just say it outright, there’d be no fun! Each player gets a character book filled with cases and information. Everyone reads their information for the chosen case, and then, like in Telephone, and in a certain order, players whisper their information to the player next to them. Play continues until everyone has heard (through the grapevine, of course) all 4 players’ information. After all information has been relayed, players get a chance to write down any notes from what they remember – but only after everything has been said! Players then open the Questions booklet to their specific case and answer three questions about their specific puzzle. Players receive points for correct answers, and as a team, are attempting to achieve the highest score possible!
I think that Witness is such a neat game. It’s a fun mechanic – you’re trying to remember all of your information to accurately pass it on, only to hear more information to add to what you already need to remember, to then pass it on again! It definitely makes for some funny misheard information! Another aspect of Witness that I like is that it goes beyond a regular game of Telephone in the fact that there’s an end goal – you’re trying to piece together all of the information as you hear it second- or even third-hand to correctly answer some questions. There’s more pressure to communicate accurately because you and your team are striving for a compilation of perfect information to help you score the most endgame points. Witness ups the stakes more than your average game of Telephone, and that’s what makes it interesting and engaging for me.
The major downside of Witness is that it is a game for EXACTLY 4 players. You can’t play with 3. You can’t play with 5. It absolutely 100% must be played with 4 players. And sometimes that’s just not possible. We all know those game nights where maybe only 2 or 3 people are available. Or maybe those times when you invite a large number of people over and they all come. In either scenario, Witness is out, and that is a bummer because it is such a neat game. Since the information is divided between 4 books, there’s unfortunately no way to adapt it for other player counts. So you can either play Witness or you can’t – there’s no ‘maybe.’
Overall, I enjoy playing Witness. I think it’s a unique approach to a simple game. Unfortunately, I believe this game is out of print, but if you can get your hands on a copy, or you see it on a friend’s shelf, give it a play! Whispering to your neighbor and solving little logic puzzles never seemed so fun! Purple Phoenix Games gives Witness a mysterious 11 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/02/witness-review/
Witness is a cooperative game of memory and deduction set in the world of the 1940’s comic “Blake and Mortimer.” You and your compatriots are working together to solve mysteries! But there’s a catch – you each only know certain information, and are limited in how you are allowed to disclose it to each other. If you could just say it outright, there’d be no fun! Each player gets a character book filled with cases and information. Everyone reads their information for the chosen case, and then, like in Telephone, and in a certain order, players whisper their information to the player next to them. Play continues until everyone has heard (through the grapevine, of course) all 4 players’ information. After all information has been relayed, players get a chance to write down any notes from what they remember – but only after everything has been said! Players then open the Questions booklet to their specific case and answer three questions about their specific puzzle. Players receive points for correct answers, and as a team, are attempting to achieve the highest score possible!
I think that Witness is such a neat game. It’s a fun mechanic – you’re trying to remember all of your information to accurately pass it on, only to hear more information to add to what you already need to remember, to then pass it on again! It definitely makes for some funny misheard information! Another aspect of Witness that I like is that it goes beyond a regular game of Telephone in the fact that there’s an end goal – you’re trying to piece together all of the information as you hear it second- or even third-hand to correctly answer some questions. There’s more pressure to communicate accurately because you and your team are striving for a compilation of perfect information to help you score the most endgame points. Witness ups the stakes more than your average game of Telephone, and that’s what makes it interesting and engaging for me.
The major downside of Witness is that it is a game for EXACTLY 4 players. You can’t play with 3. You can’t play with 5. It absolutely 100% must be played with 4 players. And sometimes that’s just not possible. We all know those game nights where maybe only 2 or 3 people are available. Or maybe those times when you invite a large number of people over and they all come. In either scenario, Witness is out, and that is a bummer because it is such a neat game. Since the information is divided between 4 books, there’s unfortunately no way to adapt it for other player counts. So you can either play Witness or you can’t – there’s no ‘maybe.’
Overall, I enjoy playing Witness. I think it’s a unique approach to a simple game. Unfortunately, I believe this game is out of print, but if you can get your hands on a copy, or you see it on a friend’s shelf, give it a play! Whispering to your neighbor and solving little logic puzzles never seemed so fun! Purple Phoenix Games gives Witness a mysterious 11 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/02/witness-review/