Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019
Chemistry between Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson (1 more)
As always, END CREDITS SEQUENCE
A Marvel-ous "Buddy Cop" film
For those of you who read my reviews regularly know, I am a fan of the films produced in the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. There has been a bit of a hiatus in these films (the last one was ANT MAN AND THE WASP last July) so it was with some excitement that I headed to the multiplex to check out the latest installment in this film franchise.
And...after an opening that paid tribute to the late, great Stan Lee, I settled in for what, I hoped would be a fun time at the movies. I started to become a little concerned in the first half hour of this film as it jumbled things around, trying to tell an origin story of a person who has no memory of where she came from while Jude Law was "man-splaining" the new worlds and the new people that the audience needs to know about it. I was becoming concerned that this film was going to become a "hot mess".
And then came Samuel L. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson is a MOVIE STAR and his presence in this film instantly catapulted it to another level. The star power, energy and pacing of the film improved and (if I am honest with myself) the performance of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel improved as well. The film stopped being an "alien Super Hero" film and it become a "buddy cop film" along the lines of LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS and (my personal favorite) MIDNIGHT RUN.
The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is undeniable and they play off of each other very well, bantering and bouncing lines back and forth while chasing - and being chased - by the bad guys. This dynamic raised the level of this film from a "middle of the road" SuperHero film to a fun action/comedy that is in the upper third of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Aside from Jackson, Larson (eventually) is terrifically cast as the titular character. She has a difficult balancing act to fulfill in the first 1/2 hour of the film, since her character has no memories, she also was in danger of having no personality. I've heard the word "bland" thrown around to characterize her performance, but I wouldn't quite go there (especially once Jackson shows up and her character's memories start to return). This is a well rounded, fierce performance and I don't think we've really seen the "best" that this character - or Larson's portrayal - has to offer.
Jude Law, Annette Benning(!) Lashana Lynch and Clark Gregg are all "fine" in supporting roles, but they pale in comparison to Larson/Jackson. Only Ben Mendehlson was able to "up" his performance to match these two, so when Jackson/Larson/Mendehlson were on the screen together, things crackled. Oh...and I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of the best feline performances in film in quite some time - GOOSE, the cat (yes, named after the character in TOP GUN). The less I say about this character the better - but it was really fun. The only disappointment for me was the usage of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as Minn-Erva. She just didn't have much to do, probably because at the time of filming Chan was not much of a "name". I know here character is crucial to some Captain Marvel storylines in the comics, so I am hoping they bring her back and use her more in the future.
But...as for this film...it is a fun romp, with good action and a truly memorable pairing of Jackson/Larson - one that does not disappoint. Stay, of course, for the TWO end credits scene - the first one sets up AVENGERS: ENDGAME and the last one is...
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...after an opening that paid tribute to the late, great Stan Lee, I settled in for what, I hoped would be a fun time at the movies. I started to become a little concerned in the first half hour of this film as it jumbled things around, trying to tell an origin story of a person who has no memory of where she came from while Jude Law was "man-splaining" the new worlds and the new people that the audience needs to know about it. I was becoming concerned that this film was going to become a "hot mess".
And then came Samuel L. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson is a MOVIE STAR and his presence in this film instantly catapulted it to another level. The star power, energy and pacing of the film improved and (if I am honest with myself) the performance of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel improved as well. The film stopped being an "alien Super Hero" film and it become a "buddy cop film" along the lines of LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS and (my personal favorite) MIDNIGHT RUN.
The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is undeniable and they play off of each other very well, bantering and bouncing lines back and forth while chasing - and being chased - by the bad guys. This dynamic raised the level of this film from a "middle of the road" SuperHero film to a fun action/comedy that is in the upper third of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Aside from Jackson, Larson (eventually) is terrifically cast as the titular character. She has a difficult balancing act to fulfill in the first 1/2 hour of the film, since her character has no memories, she also was in danger of having no personality. I've heard the word "bland" thrown around to characterize her performance, but I wouldn't quite go there (especially once Jackson shows up and her character's memories start to return). This is a well rounded, fierce performance and I don't think we've really seen the "best" that this character - or Larson's portrayal - has to offer.
Jude Law, Annette Benning(!) Lashana Lynch and Clark Gregg are all "fine" in supporting roles, but they pale in comparison to Larson/Jackson. Only Ben Mendehlson was able to "up" his performance to match these two, so when Jackson/Larson/Mendehlson were on the screen together, things crackled. Oh...and I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of the best feline performances in film in quite some time - GOOSE, the cat (yes, named after the character in TOP GUN). The less I say about this character the better - but it was really fun. The only disappointment for me was the usage of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as Minn-Erva. She just didn't have much to do, probably because at the time of filming Chan was not much of a "name". I know here character is crucial to some Captain Marvel storylines in the comics, so I am hoping they bring her back and use her more in the future.
But...as for this film...it is a fun romp, with good action and a truly memorable pairing of Jackson/Larson - one that does not disappoint. Stay, of course, for the TWO end credits scene - the first one sets up AVENGERS: ENDGAME and the last one is...
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 8, 2021
An entertaining pose-struck by Johansson and Pugh
A long time in the waiting (again) but "Black Widow" is an excellent addition to the Marvel canon: almost a "Rogue One" in the series, taking us back to fill in some gaps after "Captain America: Civil War". It's just great to have ANY Marvel back in the cinema.... that Michael Giacchino Marvel tune set the hairs going on the back of my neck!
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Free Tone - US Phone Number
Social Networking and Utilities
App
UNLIMITED free calls & texts to ALL real U.S. and Canada phone numbers. No trials, no hidden costs,...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Lee Richmond (19 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Mar 2, 2019
The key to the future is finally unearthed.
I must admit, my hopes where not high. Since 2012 I have witnessed Ridley Scott wiping his arse on his past glory with the ever worsening Alien Prequels. I hated Prometheus and the less said about Alien Covenant the better. Not only that but did Blade Runner really need a sequel? I was of the strong belief that it did not. The original was a beautifully told, self contained flick with a strong start, middle and end. Throw in to the mix the fact that generally a movie sequel that appears a few decades after the original is rarely as good as what came before. I'm talking about you Indiana Jones, Dumb and Dumber and so on..
Taking that all into account I sat down to watch Blade Runner 2049 with the most open mind I could muster and as the end credits rolled the only thought in my sci-fi frazzled head was "holy shit what a movie"..
I loved it. Not just liked it. Not just found it to be ok (which was about all I had hoped for). I fucking loved it. My wife found it slow and eventually wandered off for a bath but I loved it. I loved the visuals that burst forth from the screen and penetrated my brain through my eyeballs. The story was equally as compelling as the original. Ryan Gosling was great. Harrison Ford was great. The nods to the original all great and never sickly nostalgic.
I can honestly say that I have never been so happy to be wrong. Although there is a 30+ year gap between both films I didn't feel that the special effects (although stunning here) did anything to spoil those of the original. Hopefully this movie has taught me to be more open minded but somehow I imagine I will always be this cynical old bastard that those who know me have come to love or loathe.
If you haven't seen this film yet, or if like me you're expecting the worst, my advice would be "stop being an arse and enjoy the spectacle and dare I say masterpiece? That Blade Runner 2049 truly is".
Taking that all into account I sat down to watch Blade Runner 2049 with the most open mind I could muster and as the end credits rolled the only thought in my sci-fi frazzled head was "holy shit what a movie"..
I loved it. Not just liked it. Not just found it to be ok (which was about all I had hoped for). I fucking loved it. My wife found it slow and eventually wandered off for a bath but I loved it. I loved the visuals that burst forth from the screen and penetrated my brain through my eyeballs. The story was equally as compelling as the original. Ryan Gosling was great. Harrison Ford was great. The nods to the original all great and never sickly nostalgic.
I can honestly say that I have never been so happy to be wrong. Although there is a 30+ year gap between both films I didn't feel that the special effects (although stunning here) did anything to spoil those of the original. Hopefully this movie has taught me to be more open minded but somehow I imagine I will always be this cynical old bastard that those who know me have come to love or loathe.
If you haven't seen this film yet, or if like me you're expecting the worst, my advice would be "stop being an arse and enjoy the spectacle and dare I say masterpiece? That Blade Runner 2049 truly is".
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Tree of Life (2011) in Movies
Apr 19, 2019
Challenge yourself. Give this a watch!
I have to admit to not having seen many films directed by Terrence Malick. Not by choice, just hadn't gotten around to it. I watched The Thin Red Line when it was released, but thought it was inferior to Saving Private Ryan which was released around the same time. I will give a rewatch soon.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2019
Shine bright like a diamond
#aladdin dazzles/soars putting a fresh & thrilling spin on a timeless #disney #classic. Like many I wasnt exactly excited to see one of the greatest #animated movies ever was getting the live action treatment but during the first 5 minutes when #WillSmith started to #sing chills ran up my spine, #goosebumps appeared on my arms & I sank into the #magical world in front of me immersed fully until the credits rolled. I wont be comparing this to the #original (as one is #animated i feel its unfair to compare) so judging this as a film on its own i think #Guyritchie has knocked it out of the park here. First of all i watch a fair few #bollywood movies & have to say the similar tone & vibe they went for here echoes/fits Aladdin perfectly making the film feel fresh, vibrant, #energetic & #enchanting. Just like an #indian film #musical numbers come seemingly out of nowhere extravagantly & on a grand scale, sets/clothing are all immaculate & vivid (all free from wear & tear/dirt & muck), acting is ludicrously exaggerated/over the top & theres such an air of clumsiness/awkwardness to everything that only amplifies is overall charm. Themes of temptation, corruption, weakness, greed & power all add great tension/deepen characters making them all feel more human. While the message of learning to love who you are before you can love another is as #heartwarming as ever. Everyone was likeable with Will Smith bringing something new to the #genie character as with a more mellow, humble, smooth jazz/r&b spin to the musical numbers which i felt worked a treat. However its #Naomiscott who absolutely kills it here, not only is she so #beautiful & mesmerising but her performance is filled with #passion & energy. #Menamassound is also very #charming & disney esque too. Over all i couldnt see this being done in a more fitting way its #laugh out loud #hilarious, the #music is toe tapping, theres enough changes to make things feel new/fresh & its deliciously camp, awkward, dazzling, #creative & over the top. #Aladdinmovie had me leaving the cinema with a grin from ear to ear excited to see it again it simply is phenomenal cosmic #fun for people of all ages. #robbinwilliams #princess
Kelly (279 KP) rated Idle Heroes - Idle Games in Apps
Dec 5, 2018
Ideal for time wasting
I originally trialled this game in order to get free credits for another game, but rather than delete it after achieving the desired goal, I have kept pursuing it.
The game itself involves the development of heroes, you start by building up 3 star and 4 star heroes, progressing towards 10 stars. Initially I found it quite fast to develop 5 star heroes, collecting my daily bonuses from activities to speed up the process. Progressing to six star +, brings a whole new level of challenge, as you need to merge specific heroes together - I have found that this takes a lot more time in order to collect the correct amount of resources.
The creators of the game provide a large number of diamonds on a daily basis, which is beneficial to players, as it means you do not have to spend money in order to progress through the game. There are paid options if desired, where you can purchase VIP, which gives you access to additional aspects to help speed the game.
Heroes can be used in battle against the computer in the tower of oblivion and various other forums within the game, but you do find you become stuck at a level, sometimes for many days whilst trying to up grade.
To support the social aspect of the game, there is the option to join a guild. If the guild is active and works together, then this supports the development of your own team. One thing I have found on this game, is that there is a lack of audience of the game at the moment, and a large number of inactive players. This has meant that guilds do struggle to start up. The game also operates across several servers which cannot interact with each other, meaning friends need to be directed to join specific servers (and will have to carry out the introduction activities twice).
All in all the game is enjoyable and addictive, however it does have a few flaws, which I am hoping will be ironed out with time.
The game itself involves the development of heroes, you start by building up 3 star and 4 star heroes, progressing towards 10 stars. Initially I found it quite fast to develop 5 star heroes, collecting my daily bonuses from activities to speed up the process. Progressing to six star +, brings a whole new level of challenge, as you need to merge specific heroes together - I have found that this takes a lot more time in order to collect the correct amount of resources.
The creators of the game provide a large number of diamonds on a daily basis, which is beneficial to players, as it means you do not have to spend money in order to progress through the game. There are paid options if desired, where you can purchase VIP, which gives you access to additional aspects to help speed the game.
Heroes can be used in battle against the computer in the tower of oblivion and various other forums within the game, but you do find you become stuck at a level, sometimes for many days whilst trying to up grade.
To support the social aspect of the game, there is the option to join a guild. If the guild is active and works together, then this supports the development of your own team. One thing I have found on this game, is that there is a lack of audience of the game at the moment, and a large number of inactive players. This has meant that guilds do struggle to start up. The game also operates across several servers which cannot interact with each other, meaning friends need to be directed to join specific servers (and will have to carry out the introduction activities twice).
All in all the game is enjoyable and addictive, however it does have a few flaws, which I am hoping will be ironed out with time.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated 127 Hours (2010) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
127 Hours is based on the true story of Aron Ralston, a mountain climber who was trapped under a rock for five days only to amputate his own arm to survive. Directed by Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later) and starring James Franco (Pineapple Express, Spider-Man), 127 Hours sucker punches you with its ability to be both absorbing and compelling.
The first thing to notice about 127 Hours is that it contains excellent editing. The opening credits illustrate this to a certain extent, but the best example comes at the peak of Aron's struggle once he's trapped and fighting for his life. His delusions begin overlapping with his memories as the screen is divided into three separate vertical segments representing how desperate and how dangerously close Aron has come to the brink of insanity.
127 Hours looks spectacular, as well. The desert is a mostly dry and bleak place that no one would want to visit, but it's shown in a light here that makes it makes it look both appealing and beautiful in a way that almost makes you forget that it lacks civilization. The film does an incredible job of making you feel like you're right there in these crevices with Aron without giving the overbearing sensation of claustrophobia. Captivating cinematography makes even the most simple things like a dripping faucet and air bubbles settling in a water bottle appear like more of a spectacle than they really are.
James Franco is also quite impressive. He is the only one on-screen for the majority of the film and has no one to play off of but himself. Events of his life flashing before his eyes and the decisions he should've but didn't make, Scooby Doo hallucinations, and premonitions of the future on top of his uphill battle to survive aren't only incredibly engaging but arguably some of the best scenes in the film.
127 Hours is enthralling, incredibly powerful, and easily one of the best films of the year. James Franco delivers what is quite possibly his strongest and most intriguing performance to date while Danny Boyle adds another visually brilliant and superbly written film to his repertoire that is a potential award winner.
The first thing to notice about 127 Hours is that it contains excellent editing. The opening credits illustrate this to a certain extent, but the best example comes at the peak of Aron's struggle once he's trapped and fighting for his life. His delusions begin overlapping with his memories as the screen is divided into three separate vertical segments representing how desperate and how dangerously close Aron has come to the brink of insanity.
127 Hours looks spectacular, as well. The desert is a mostly dry and bleak place that no one would want to visit, but it's shown in a light here that makes it makes it look both appealing and beautiful in a way that almost makes you forget that it lacks civilization. The film does an incredible job of making you feel like you're right there in these crevices with Aron without giving the overbearing sensation of claustrophobia. Captivating cinematography makes even the most simple things like a dripping faucet and air bubbles settling in a water bottle appear like more of a spectacle than they really are.
James Franco is also quite impressive. He is the only one on-screen for the majority of the film and has no one to play off of but himself. Events of his life flashing before his eyes and the decisions he should've but didn't make, Scooby Doo hallucinations, and premonitions of the future on top of his uphill battle to survive aren't only incredibly engaging but arguably some of the best scenes in the film.
127 Hours is enthralling, incredibly powerful, and easily one of the best films of the year. James Franco delivers what is quite possibly his strongest and most intriguing performance to date while Danny Boyle adds another visually brilliant and superbly written film to his repertoire that is a potential award winner.