Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Iron Man (2008) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020
Where it all began
After becoming essentially bankrupt in the mid 90s, Marvel Comics ended up selling off the film rights of their properties to various film studios, resulting in a decade of new superhero franchises varying in quality, from X-Men, to Dardevil, Spider-Man to Hulk, Blade to Ghost Rider, and so on.
As such, none of these films we ever close to being part of a connected universe.
Along comes 2008, and Marvel Comics and Kevin Feige hit the scene with their first offering from Marvel Studios. A company determined to just that, with the properties they still have left.
Before 2008, Iron Man was a beloved character to the comic book faithful. A lot of casual moviegoers had no idea who he was, and Iron Man was essentially a B-list risk. And now, in 2020, that couldn't be further from the truth. The trifecta of Iron Man, Tony Stark, and Robert Downey Jr. are arguably the premier face of Marvel, and it's all thanks to this fantastic B-list risk.
Director Jon Favreau wastes no time in introducing us to Tony himself, and RDJ does a fine job of letting us know just how arrogant, clever and sarcastic the titular hero is. When everything goes wrong and Tony ends up captive in a terrorist environment, were given a pretty gritty origin story to how Iron Man came to be.
As Tony is quickly forced into a situation where his life becomes fragile, we see a slow burning but evident change in his behaviour, and RDJ does a great job in sweeping the audience up alongside him in his path to becoming the people's hero.
It's a simple and effective origin template that has definitely been borrowed again in other MCU projects (looking at you Dr Strange), but it's easy to see why.
Along side Downey Jr is the always charismatic Jeff Bridges. He plays Obadiah Stane, a villain who has close ties to the Stark family, and is an imposing presence throughout. His character sees him go full super villain, which honestly cheapens his otherwise great performance. Also, in the ensuing clash between Iron Man and Iron Monger, this is the first of many MCU films to do the whole 'villain-is-just-an-evil-version-of-the-hero' trope, which is fine here (let's not forget - first MCU film after all), but did become annoyingly predictable here and there.
Gwyneth Paltrow is Pepper Potts, and I suitably charming in the role, and still remains a fan favourite now.
We also have Terrance Howard as James Rhodes, the future War Machine. I enjoyed him here, and it's evident that he had good chemistry with RDJ. It's a shame that he didn't stay on for more films, but that's money for you I guess!
Considering this film is entering it's 12th year of existence, the CGI still holds up incredibly well. The classic red and gold Iron Man suit is striking and looks great. The action scenes are pretty thrilling and fun, something that Marvel Studios have excelled in since, and just to top it all off, the now infamous post credit scene sets up the conjoined Avengers franchise that we all know and love.
Iron Man is a solid first effort from Marvel Studios, and set the MCU running out the gates, whilst simultaneously setting up a new injection of quality into Marvel movies.
As such, none of these films we ever close to being part of a connected universe.
Along comes 2008, and Marvel Comics and Kevin Feige hit the scene with their first offering from Marvel Studios. A company determined to just that, with the properties they still have left.
Before 2008, Iron Man was a beloved character to the comic book faithful. A lot of casual moviegoers had no idea who he was, and Iron Man was essentially a B-list risk. And now, in 2020, that couldn't be further from the truth. The trifecta of Iron Man, Tony Stark, and Robert Downey Jr. are arguably the premier face of Marvel, and it's all thanks to this fantastic B-list risk.
Director Jon Favreau wastes no time in introducing us to Tony himself, and RDJ does a fine job of letting us know just how arrogant, clever and sarcastic the titular hero is. When everything goes wrong and Tony ends up captive in a terrorist environment, were given a pretty gritty origin story to how Iron Man came to be.
As Tony is quickly forced into a situation where his life becomes fragile, we see a slow burning but evident change in his behaviour, and RDJ does a great job in sweeping the audience up alongside him in his path to becoming the people's hero.
It's a simple and effective origin template that has definitely been borrowed again in other MCU projects (looking at you Dr Strange), but it's easy to see why.
Along side Downey Jr is the always charismatic Jeff Bridges. He plays Obadiah Stane, a villain who has close ties to the Stark family, and is an imposing presence throughout. His character sees him go full super villain, which honestly cheapens his otherwise great performance. Also, in the ensuing clash between Iron Man and Iron Monger, this is the first of many MCU films to do the whole 'villain-is-just-an-evil-version-of-the-hero' trope, which is fine here (let's not forget - first MCU film after all), but did become annoyingly predictable here and there.
Gwyneth Paltrow is Pepper Potts, and I suitably charming in the role, and still remains a fan favourite now.
We also have Terrance Howard as James Rhodes, the future War Machine. I enjoyed him here, and it's evident that he had good chemistry with RDJ. It's a shame that he didn't stay on for more films, but that's money for you I guess!
Considering this film is entering it's 12th year of existence, the CGI still holds up incredibly well. The classic red and gold Iron Man suit is striking and looks great. The action scenes are pretty thrilling and fun, something that Marvel Studios have excelled in since, and just to top it all off, the now infamous post credit scene sets up the conjoined Avengers franchise that we all know and love.
Iron Man is a solid first effort from Marvel Studios, and set the MCU running out the gates, whilst simultaneously setting up a new injection of quality into Marvel movies.
JT (287 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As the dust settles on a film that has seriously ‘hulk smashed’ the box office its clear to see why this film has been met with such high acclaim from critics and fans alike. There is no getting away from the fact that this is one hell of a blockbuster, with more superheroes than you can cram into a S.H.I.E.L.D. meeting room and a villain that almost stole the whole show, it had pretty much everything.
The film opens as S.H.I.E.L.D. is mid evacuation after The Tesseract, an energy source of unknown potential, has activated. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has plans to take over the world with a strong army and have everyone kneel before him, he’s cunning but “lacks conviction” as is pointed out by cult fan favourite Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).
So, Nick Fury activates the Avengers initiative, pulling resource from Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye and of course Bruce Banner in order to stop the impending attack. The good thing about the Avengers is that no time needs to be spent setting the characters up, as given the previous films we know all about them and their powers. However, this gives more time for them to decipher each others egos.
Tony Stark feels like the team’s unofficial leader, brash and bold he has to contend with a number of personalities, remember he doesn’t play well with others. A great scene sees Thor, Captain America and Iron Man all come to blows but its hard to say if there was any clear winner.
Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow and Clint ‘Hawkeye’ Barton who have popped up in previous films but neither had their own title struggle at times to fit in, but they are integral to the group and plot. However if there were not part of the assemble you wouldn’t miss them too much.
As for Bruce Banner, Weadon’s Hulk is probably the most realistic CGI transformation to date. Ang Lee’s looked ridiculous and Louis Leterrier’s Hulk looked liked he’d been pumped full of steroids as opposed to gamma radiation.
Weadon though achieved a great balance and with Mark Ruffalo stepping in as the green monster the Hulk had a lot of charisma in this, even having time for some humour. T.V. original big man Lou Ferrigno provided the voice so it all seemed like the Hulk was back.
The perfect villain – Loki
Hiddleston for me though was the stand-out here, as comic book villains go he brought so much to the role. It was a dark, composed and at times sinister portrayal of a man desperate for revenge and to be worshipped like the god he feels he deserves to be.
The films action sequences are second to none, with everything from the initial opening evacuation at S.H.I.E.L.D. to the climactic ending all choreographed to perfection. The only gripe is that it boarder lines on Transformers styled destruction, in which some parts are drawn out. I mean just how many Chitauri can one group of superheroes fend off?
Another post credits scene certainly would pave the way for a sequel, and given the film’s massive haul which is well in excess of $450m no one would stand in the way. It should pretty much be a forgone conclusion that the team will at some point reunite.
The film opens as S.H.I.E.L.D. is mid evacuation after The Tesseract, an energy source of unknown potential, has activated. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has plans to take over the world with a strong army and have everyone kneel before him, he’s cunning but “lacks conviction” as is pointed out by cult fan favourite Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).
So, Nick Fury activates the Avengers initiative, pulling resource from Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye and of course Bruce Banner in order to stop the impending attack. The good thing about the Avengers is that no time needs to be spent setting the characters up, as given the previous films we know all about them and their powers. However, this gives more time for them to decipher each others egos.
Tony Stark feels like the team’s unofficial leader, brash and bold he has to contend with a number of personalities, remember he doesn’t play well with others. A great scene sees Thor, Captain America and Iron Man all come to blows but its hard to say if there was any clear winner.
Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow and Clint ‘Hawkeye’ Barton who have popped up in previous films but neither had their own title struggle at times to fit in, but they are integral to the group and plot. However if there were not part of the assemble you wouldn’t miss them too much.
As for Bruce Banner, Weadon’s Hulk is probably the most realistic CGI transformation to date. Ang Lee’s looked ridiculous and Louis Leterrier’s Hulk looked liked he’d been pumped full of steroids as opposed to gamma radiation.
Weadon though achieved a great balance and with Mark Ruffalo stepping in as the green monster the Hulk had a lot of charisma in this, even having time for some humour. T.V. original big man Lou Ferrigno provided the voice so it all seemed like the Hulk was back.
The perfect villain – Loki
Hiddleston for me though was the stand-out here, as comic book villains go he brought so much to the role. It was a dark, composed and at times sinister portrayal of a man desperate for revenge and to be worshipped like the god he feels he deserves to be.
The films action sequences are second to none, with everything from the initial opening evacuation at S.H.I.E.L.D. to the climactic ending all choreographed to perfection. The only gripe is that it boarder lines on Transformers styled destruction, in which some parts are drawn out. I mean just how many Chitauri can one group of superheroes fend off?
Another post credits scene certainly would pave the way for a sequel, and given the film’s massive haul which is well in excess of $450m no one would stand in the way. It should pretty much be a forgone conclusion that the team will at some point reunite.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Thunder Force (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021
I love Octavia Spencer's versatility, so a superhero type of film was intriguing, and the combination of her and Melissa McCarthy felt right. Then they throw in Bobby Cannavale and Jason Bateman too? There appears to be a lot to love about this film.
Lydia and Emily, once the best of friends, are brought back together by a school reunion. But things take a turn as the serum devised by Emily to help their city ends up accidentally changing their lives in a way they hadn't planned for.
We start with a wonderful comic book opening that give a very succinct review of how the whole has shaped the tale we're about to hear. That then drops us into Lydia and Emily's friendship. I really did enjoy this part, and the young Lydia's were particularly good. It gave a solid start to the film and I was feeling optimistic about what was to come after having enjoyed the trailer.
But at this point it starts to show a few issues.
Grown-up Emily (Spencer) feels a little inconsistent. She's reserved initially but it fluctuates a lot throughout, which doesn't feel right for a woman in her position.
Lydia seemed to be much more believable, and the outlandish behaviour was quite amusing while still cementing the caring person that she is, and what we can expect from her going forward.
Spencer and McCarthy do work well together, and the back and forth when it's there is really good, but Emily is never as strong in scenes that they share.
Bobby Cannavale as The King makes an excellent baddie, and Pom Klementieff as a henchwoman is too. They're backed by some wonderfully comedic "muscle", and as a team they work well together. But... while every character is a little quirky, The Crab is where my problems begin. Jason Bateman acts well during the "serious" scenes, but the humour that is attached to his character just didn't land. I was pleased they added in crab-like characteristics, but its amusement was short-lived.
The main problem with the humour in Thunder Force is something I see in other Melissa McCarthy films. It rushes up to the line of going too far, stops briefly, and the crab scuttles straight across it and far off into the distance. Why make one joke when you can make five in a row? This is particularly evident in Lydia and The Crab's interactions, and its repetition became a little tiresome.
The script didn't just mess with these characters, it also ruined a perfectly good (though mildly inexplicable) scene where The King and Laser come face to face with Lydia and Emily. It was going so well and then it jumped over that line. It does do some good things though. There's an ongoing joke with Lydia and her training that did land well every time, and it had some lovely moments of bonding with Tracy and Lydia. How all these things made it into the same film I don't know.
My time watching this didn't feel wasted, but I don't think I'd need to watch it again anytime soon. And that's a shame, because there's a really good film hiding in Thunder Force.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/thunder-force-movie-review.html
Lydia and Emily, once the best of friends, are brought back together by a school reunion. But things take a turn as the serum devised by Emily to help their city ends up accidentally changing their lives in a way they hadn't planned for.
We start with a wonderful comic book opening that give a very succinct review of how the whole has shaped the tale we're about to hear. That then drops us into Lydia and Emily's friendship. I really did enjoy this part, and the young Lydia's were particularly good. It gave a solid start to the film and I was feeling optimistic about what was to come after having enjoyed the trailer.
But at this point it starts to show a few issues.
Grown-up Emily (Spencer) feels a little inconsistent. She's reserved initially but it fluctuates a lot throughout, which doesn't feel right for a woman in her position.
Lydia seemed to be much more believable, and the outlandish behaviour was quite amusing while still cementing the caring person that she is, and what we can expect from her going forward.
Spencer and McCarthy do work well together, and the back and forth when it's there is really good, but Emily is never as strong in scenes that they share.
Bobby Cannavale as The King makes an excellent baddie, and Pom Klementieff as a henchwoman is too. They're backed by some wonderfully comedic "muscle", and as a team they work well together. But... while every character is a little quirky, The Crab is where my problems begin. Jason Bateman acts well during the "serious" scenes, but the humour that is attached to his character just didn't land. I was pleased they added in crab-like characteristics, but its amusement was short-lived.
The main problem with the humour in Thunder Force is something I see in other Melissa McCarthy films. It rushes up to the line of going too far, stops briefly, and the crab scuttles straight across it and far off into the distance. Why make one joke when you can make five in a row? This is particularly evident in Lydia and The Crab's interactions, and its repetition became a little tiresome.
The script didn't just mess with these characters, it also ruined a perfectly good (though mildly inexplicable) scene where The King and Laser come face to face with Lydia and Emily. It was going so well and then it jumped over that line. It does do some good things though. There's an ongoing joke with Lydia and her training that did land well every time, and it had some lovely moments of bonding with Tracy and Lydia. How all these things made it into the same film I don't know.
My time watching this didn't feel wasted, but I don't think I'd need to watch it again anytime soon. And that's a shame, because there's a really good film hiding in Thunder Force.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/thunder-force-movie-review.html
James P. Sumner (65 KP) created a post
Aug 22, 2019
Garrett (1099 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2020
Set design (2 more)
Costumes
Most of the acting
Story (2 more)
Theme
Message/meaning
I think I need to note a few things about my review before I actually get into it. First, I got this for free in a giveaway. Second, having watched the trailers for this I thought I wasn't going to like it and I didn't see it in theaters, the buzz and good reviews made me want to enter the giveaway so I could see it because I likely wouldn't have paid for it. Third, I know that I can "grade" movies I don't like harsher than maybe they deserve. Finally, in an effort to prevent me from being too harsh I "forced" my sister to watch it with me and some of her views of the movie and review are mixed in with my opinion of it.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
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.