Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Good movie with 2 GREAT performances
Writer/Director Adam McKay was known for years as the writing partner/director of Will Ferrell, having written and directed such comedy gems as ANCHORMAN, TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS and then, in 2015, he stepped out of Ferrell's shadow - and the comedy world - and delivered the multi-Oscar nominated film THE BIG SHORT, a fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at the financial crisis of the mid-2000's.
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Dead Don't Die (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
I'm a little sad to say that I spent real money on this film. It wasn't showing at my Cineworld and the chance of a second stage release with the summer holidays approaching was unlikely. Luckily one of my Showcase Cinemas had it on and I ventured out into the real world to see it.
I won't bother with an extended synopsis because honestly I don't know what the point would be... it's zombies, everyone is trying to stay alive, literally nothing else is really happening in the story.
Up until this point I never really understood people using the word "meta" (unless it was DC related), I get it now. Officer Peterson, played by Adam Driver, is so meta that there actually may not be any more to go around.
The cast felt like it was just quirky enough to work together, especially as this wasn't going to be a traditional zombie movie. Looking back at the actors now I'm wondering if I might have enjoyed this movie more if it had unknown actors in it. I don't think it would have risen much higher in the rankings but I would have been less annoyed by some of the happenings.
Bill Murray plays Chief Robertson, a man who is seemingly always slightly confused by everything and also never becomes more than mildly alarmed by what's going on. The character and the performance were both rather boring. Murray came alive about as much as any of the zombies did.
The same can be said for Adam Driver, though I actually think that's par for the course with the way he acts rather than anything else. He always feels like mid-tier Keanu Reeves without the range. Once you realise that Peterson has the meta inside track it becomes a challenge to see anything he says in any other way. The script became rather frustrating because of this.
We're shown a very strange Tilda Swinton in the trailer and you have to wonder if the make-up direction was just "I want her to be the palest she's ever been and throw in a little "Ring" vibe for good measure." Zelda is probably the perfect zombie apocalypse companion, but she doesn't make for very dynamic viewing.
All of this negative feeling can be laid squarely at the script's door. It has little of interest to warrant a story at all, which is weird because there are elements that you think lead somewhere and then inexplicably don't. The ending is particularly bad and is what I've dubbed the "Stephen King ending". I won't expand on that here because it definitely constitutes spoilers if you haven't seen it.
There are some nice touches. The animal behaviour, the character of Mallory, and some of the effects on Selena Gomez. There's also some that left me questioning how they've portrayed zombies in this compared to other z-movies, but it's not in the trailer and while it's in my notes I'm wondering if I didn't just imagine the whole thing.
Those few little snippets can't save this movie. The poor script has several (that's me being generous) holes in it that just don't stand up when you look closely, and it's not good enough to give you anything else to look at apart from those holes. From its "maybe sciency things will cover the lack of reasoning" beginning to the "Stephen King ending" I was very disappointed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-dead-dont-die-movie-review.html
I won't bother with an extended synopsis because honestly I don't know what the point would be... it's zombies, everyone is trying to stay alive, literally nothing else is really happening in the story.
Up until this point I never really understood people using the word "meta" (unless it was DC related), I get it now. Officer Peterson, played by Adam Driver, is so meta that there actually may not be any more to go around.
The cast felt like it was just quirky enough to work together, especially as this wasn't going to be a traditional zombie movie. Looking back at the actors now I'm wondering if I might have enjoyed this movie more if it had unknown actors in it. I don't think it would have risen much higher in the rankings but I would have been less annoyed by some of the happenings.
Bill Murray plays Chief Robertson, a man who is seemingly always slightly confused by everything and also never becomes more than mildly alarmed by what's going on. The character and the performance were both rather boring. Murray came alive about as much as any of the zombies did.
The same can be said for Adam Driver, though I actually think that's par for the course with the way he acts rather than anything else. He always feels like mid-tier Keanu Reeves without the range. Once you realise that Peterson has the meta inside track it becomes a challenge to see anything he says in any other way. The script became rather frustrating because of this.
We're shown a very strange Tilda Swinton in the trailer and you have to wonder if the make-up direction was just "I want her to be the palest she's ever been and throw in a little "Ring" vibe for good measure." Zelda is probably the perfect zombie apocalypse companion, but she doesn't make for very dynamic viewing.
All of this negative feeling can be laid squarely at the script's door. It has little of interest to warrant a story at all, which is weird because there are elements that you think lead somewhere and then inexplicably don't. The ending is particularly bad and is what I've dubbed the "Stephen King ending". I won't expand on that here because it definitely constitutes spoilers if you haven't seen it.
There are some nice touches. The animal behaviour, the character of Mallory, and some of the effects on Selena Gomez. There's also some that left me questioning how they've portrayed zombies in this compared to other z-movies, but it's not in the trailer and while it's in my notes I'm wondering if I didn't just imagine the whole thing.
Those few little snippets can't save this movie. The poor script has several (that's me being generous) holes in it that just don't stand up when you look closely, and it's not good enough to give you anything else to look at apart from those holes. From its "maybe sciency things will cover the lack of reasoning" beginning to the "Stephen King ending" I was very disappointed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-dead-dont-die-movie-review.html
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 Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022) in Movies
Nov 18, 2022
Should have been called WAKANDA MOURNS
The passing of Chadwick Boseman from cancer is a unfortunate and sad thing. The makers of the Black Panther series of films for the MCU had a difficult task to accomplish. How do they pay tribute to their lost lead while also leading the series in a new direction? In the end, they ultimately decided to lean INTO (and not away from) his passing - and your emotional involvement in this film will be predicated on how you react to this, for basing an entire SuperHero Movie on grief and longing for a return to the past is not going to make the “feel good movie of the year”.
Directed and Written (with Joe Robert Cole) by Ryan Coogler (he of the first BLACK PANTHER film), BLACK PANTHER:WAKANDA FOREVER starts on a somber note with the off-screen passing of King T’Chala and the grief and celebration of life for him by his Sister Suri (Letitia Wright) and Mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Basset), both of whom are reprising their roles from previous MCU outings. This is all well and good and Basset, especially, shines in these early parts of the film for she is one of the best actresses working today and she rises above the material (and, if I’m honest, the other actors on the screen) to show actual grief and sorrow on the screen. Some are calling for her to be nominated for an Oscar for this role and she would be a deserved recipient of this.
With that out of the way, it’s time for this film to move on to it’s current adventure and the emergence of a new Black Panther. But, Coogler doesn’t do that, he hangs onto the grief, anger and sorrow that is being felt and this mood permeates the entire film - to, ultimately, it’s detriment.
Newcomer (at least to the MCU) Tenoch Huerta (THE FOREVER PURGE) shows up as Namor, the Sub-Mariner, the villain of the piece and he is formidable enough but with the lack of a Black Panther to battle him, it doesn’t seem like a fair fight. Suri, Okoye (Danai Gurira), M’Baku (Winston Duke) and the Dora Milaje (with Florence Kasumba and Michaela Coel being at the forefront - and they are terrific) all are game at the battles and trying to make it to the forefront. But this Wakandan group needed something.
They needed Chadwick Boseman.
While Angela Bassett was the star power the film needed in the first half of the film, Lupita Nyong’o filled that bill in the 2nd half and it was comforting to see her - and her character, Nakia - back in the MCU.
Unfortunately, the character that didn’t really gel was the catalyst to the conflict, Riri Williams (and her MCU SuperHero alter-ego Ironheart) played by Dominique Thorne. This character felt tacked onto this story and her Superhero origins were not really explained, so one will just need to “go with me here” on this one.
Because their is no real emotional center to the battles, they felt like CGI forces fighting CGI forces and the underwater scenery was “fine” but nothing special.
As stated earlier, this film has a dour, mourning mood to it throughout, making it feel more like a morose DC film than a life-affirming, fun MCU film. So just be prepared for that.
BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER should have been titled BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA MOURNS and it would have been a more accurate title.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed and Written (with Joe Robert Cole) by Ryan Coogler (he of the first BLACK PANTHER film), BLACK PANTHER:WAKANDA FOREVER starts on a somber note with the off-screen passing of King T’Chala and the grief and celebration of life for him by his Sister Suri (Letitia Wright) and Mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Basset), both of whom are reprising their roles from previous MCU outings. This is all well and good and Basset, especially, shines in these early parts of the film for she is one of the best actresses working today and she rises above the material (and, if I’m honest, the other actors on the screen) to show actual grief and sorrow on the screen. Some are calling for her to be nominated for an Oscar for this role and she would be a deserved recipient of this.
With that out of the way, it’s time for this film to move on to it’s current adventure and the emergence of a new Black Panther. But, Coogler doesn’t do that, he hangs onto the grief, anger and sorrow that is being felt and this mood permeates the entire film - to, ultimately, it’s detriment.
Newcomer (at least to the MCU) Tenoch Huerta (THE FOREVER PURGE) shows up as Namor, the Sub-Mariner, the villain of the piece and he is formidable enough but with the lack of a Black Panther to battle him, it doesn’t seem like a fair fight. Suri, Okoye (Danai Gurira), M’Baku (Winston Duke) and the Dora Milaje (with Florence Kasumba and Michaela Coel being at the forefront - and they are terrific) all are game at the battles and trying to make it to the forefront. But this Wakandan group needed something.
They needed Chadwick Boseman.
While Angela Bassett was the star power the film needed in the first half of the film, Lupita Nyong’o filled that bill in the 2nd half and it was comforting to see her - and her character, Nakia - back in the MCU.
Unfortunately, the character that didn’t really gel was the catalyst to the conflict, Riri Williams (and her MCU SuperHero alter-ego Ironheart) played by Dominique Thorne. This character felt tacked onto this story and her Superhero origins were not really explained, so one will just need to “go with me here” on this one.
Because their is no real emotional center to the battles, they felt like CGI forces fighting CGI forces and the underwater scenery was “fine” but nothing special.
As stated earlier, this film has a dour, mourning mood to it throughout, making it feel more like a morose DC film than a life-affirming, fun MCU film. So just be prepared for that.
BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER should have been titled BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA MOURNS and it would have been a more accurate title.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (2018) in Movies
Feb 8, 2019
Good Fun
The Teen Titans go on yet another crazy adventure when Robin decides it’s time for them to up their popularity by making a movie.
Acting: 10
This crew has been around for years and knows their way around voice acting. Voices match respective characters perfectly. Raven sounds just like a moody spellcaster while Starfire is bright and bubbly. Meanwhile, Beast Boy tries to be cool, but comes off as the biggest nerd in the group. When you read the comics and see how the characters act and interact, you can envision their voices sounding just like this.
Beginning: 10
You get action. You get funny. You get exactly what you get from the show on an even more extreme level. These superheroes crack me up and act just like you think teenagers would if given these powers. The first ten minutes shows them kicking butt and cracking you up while doing it.
Characters: 10
The movie succeeds off more than just the appeal of the Titans, although it certainly helps to see funny familiar faces like Cyborg doing his usual Cyborg thing. There are a number of other characters here that fill the time and keep you entertained. Between the Justice League, given exaggerated personalities, and a couple of cameos I won’t dare ruin, I was happy to see, not only the depth of character choices, but each character contributing to the fun of the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
It’s always a treat watching superhero teamups and this movie takes full advantage of that. The Teen Titans works so well together because all of their powers are unique so it’s cool to visually see them interact during action sequences. The movie also takes advantage of moving around to different locations so you’re taken on quite a journey by the end of it.
Conflict: 9
Action succeeds by not being overdone and contributing to the funny. The Titans kick butt, but they’re an extremely goofy bunch so I take even more pleasure in watching them fight. The movie has a pretty short run-time but directors Aaron Horvath and Peter Rida Michail make sure that time is maximized with quality action sequences.
Genre: 6
I’ve had a lot of good things to say so far, but the movie isn’t without its flaws. Those shortcomings keep it from extending into the classic realm of superhero films. Even animated superhero movies is starting to become a crowded genre and the challenge to find a place among the greats is getting tougher. Teen Titans Go! to the Movies holds its own…but I wouldn’t call it a classic.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
The funny gags within the movie not only take the show to new levels, it also helps to move the pace along quite nicely. Titans is not just kid-funny, but its subtle references make it funny on an adult level as well. Only adults that know DC movie history will pick up on some of the classic cameos within the story. One minute the crew is locked in a heated battle, the next you’re hearing hilarious jabs at Marvel. It’s meant to be fun and it succeeds greatly in that aspect.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 85
The plot was probably the weakest point of Teen Titans Go! to the Movies and kept the movie from jumping to A-status. The show is typically much ado about nothing and it’s hard to translate that to the big screen. While the story lacked in some spots and the overall plot was meh, the movie itself is still really enjoyable. Don’t expect to have your mind blown, but expect to have a really good time.
Acting: 10
This crew has been around for years and knows their way around voice acting. Voices match respective characters perfectly. Raven sounds just like a moody spellcaster while Starfire is bright and bubbly. Meanwhile, Beast Boy tries to be cool, but comes off as the biggest nerd in the group. When you read the comics and see how the characters act and interact, you can envision their voices sounding just like this.
Beginning: 10
You get action. You get funny. You get exactly what you get from the show on an even more extreme level. These superheroes crack me up and act just like you think teenagers would if given these powers. The first ten minutes shows them kicking butt and cracking you up while doing it.
Characters: 10
The movie succeeds off more than just the appeal of the Titans, although it certainly helps to see funny familiar faces like Cyborg doing his usual Cyborg thing. There are a number of other characters here that fill the time and keep you entertained. Between the Justice League, given exaggerated personalities, and a couple of cameos I won’t dare ruin, I was happy to see, not only the depth of character choices, but each character contributing to the fun of the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
It’s always a treat watching superhero teamups and this movie takes full advantage of that. The Teen Titans works so well together because all of their powers are unique so it’s cool to visually see them interact during action sequences. The movie also takes advantage of moving around to different locations so you’re taken on quite a journey by the end of it.
Conflict: 9
Action succeeds by not being overdone and contributing to the funny. The Titans kick butt, but they’re an extremely goofy bunch so I take even more pleasure in watching them fight. The movie has a pretty short run-time but directors Aaron Horvath and Peter Rida Michail make sure that time is maximized with quality action sequences.
Genre: 6
I’ve had a lot of good things to say so far, but the movie isn’t without its flaws. Those shortcomings keep it from extending into the classic realm of superhero films. Even animated superhero movies is starting to become a crowded genre and the challenge to find a place among the greats is getting tougher. Teen Titans Go! to the Movies holds its own…but I wouldn’t call it a classic.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
The funny gags within the movie not only take the show to new levels, it also helps to move the pace along quite nicely. Titans is not just kid-funny, but its subtle references make it funny on an adult level as well. Only adults that know DC movie history will pick up on some of the classic cameos within the story. One minute the crew is locked in a heated battle, the next you’re hearing hilarious jabs at Marvel. It’s meant to be fun and it succeeds greatly in that aspect.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 85
The plot was probably the weakest point of Teen Titans Go! to the Movies and kept the movie from jumping to A-status. The show is typically much ado about nothing and it’s hard to translate that to the big screen. While the story lacked in some spots and the overall plot was meh, the movie itself is still really enjoyable. Don’t expect to have your mind blown, but expect to have a really good time.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Half Of What You Hear in Books
Mar 20, 2019
Captivating characters and story
Bess and Cole Warner arrive in Greyhill, Virginia from Washington, DC. Ostensibly they've come to take over the local inn from Cole's parents, Diane and Bradley, but they are also fleeing the city. Bess is leaving behind her job as a social secretary at the White House, which she left in disgrace. Greyhill, meanwhile, is a beautiful town, but also one of old money, tradition, and gossip. Bess literally lives across the stress from her in-laws, allowing Diane to pop in anytime, bringing with her her trademark mixture of judgement and condescension. Bess soon realizes that it's not easy to assimilate into Greyhill if you're deemed an "outsider." Her husband seems happy among his old friends--many of whom are more than glad to spread gossip about Bess. Her twin children are figuring out their way at the local private school--a challenge that seems harder for her daughter than son. When she's offered a chance to write an article on a local figure, Susannah Greyhill Lane, Bess jumps at the chance. She soon realizes Susannah is a bit of a kindred spirit: the town doesn't seem to like her much either. Susannah also has a lot of secrets, some of which involve Bess' in-laws. As Bess learns more about Greyhill's past, she starts to wonder exactly what she's gotten herself and her family into.
This was a really engaging, easy-to-read book that expertly captured the small town dynamic. Bess was a likeable character, struggling as an outsider in her husband's town. She's trying to put a mistake behind her at her former job, giving her even more trust issues. The novel is told mainly from Bess' point of view, but we also get snippets of town gossip, too. Ugh, having lived in such a town, I can tell you that Lewis really gets it right. I was wrapped up in the story from the beginning and felt awfully sorry for Bess--moving away from all she knew and having to deal with those hateful small town busybodies (sometimes there's nothing worse, really).
"It's like living in Stars Hollow, the charming small town on Gilmore Girls... Although honestly, so far, Greyhill feels a little more Desperate Housewives. The star character being me."
I was initially drawn to reading this book because the fake town of Greyhill, as written, is practically in my backyard. It frequently mentions my hometown of Madison (which, believe me, *never* shows up in books - it's not that big), as well as where I currently live. Even better, Lewis captures both quite well, as well as the moneyed, snobby atmosphere of Greyhill that will be intimately familiar to anyone who lives in Virginia. There's always something fun about reading about a place (or places) you know. My favorite sports team even gets a mention!
Bess is also a very realistic mother. The book does an excellent job of capturing how hard it is being a mom when your kid is going through a hard time, for example. Honestly, it does a good job of portraying parenthood in general--it's real and true throughout. I very much appreciated that. None of the sugarcoated parent/child relationships we get in some books.
This one was not completely what I expected. While it's character-driven and portrays Bess' struggle to fit in in Greyhill, it is almost a mystery at times. You can't really trust what you read and it's twisty, with some surprises thrown in. It makes for a fast, interesting read that delves into the history of Greyhill and Bess' family.
Overall, this was a really captivating book. I enjoyed the characters and the story--and the setting was a real bonus. This is the first book I've read by Krusek Lewis, but I definitely would like to read more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher, Harper Collins, via LibraryThing in return for an unbiased review - thank you!
This was a really engaging, easy-to-read book that expertly captured the small town dynamic. Bess was a likeable character, struggling as an outsider in her husband's town. She's trying to put a mistake behind her at her former job, giving her even more trust issues. The novel is told mainly from Bess' point of view, but we also get snippets of town gossip, too. Ugh, having lived in such a town, I can tell you that Lewis really gets it right. I was wrapped up in the story from the beginning and felt awfully sorry for Bess--moving away from all she knew and having to deal with those hateful small town busybodies (sometimes there's nothing worse, really).
"It's like living in Stars Hollow, the charming small town on Gilmore Girls... Although honestly, so far, Greyhill feels a little more Desperate Housewives. The star character being me."
I was initially drawn to reading this book because the fake town of Greyhill, as written, is practically in my backyard. It frequently mentions my hometown of Madison (which, believe me, *never* shows up in books - it's not that big), as well as where I currently live. Even better, Lewis captures both quite well, as well as the moneyed, snobby atmosphere of Greyhill that will be intimately familiar to anyone who lives in Virginia. There's always something fun about reading about a place (or places) you know. My favorite sports team even gets a mention!
Bess is also a very realistic mother. The book does an excellent job of capturing how hard it is being a mom when your kid is going through a hard time, for example. Honestly, it does a good job of portraying parenthood in general--it's real and true throughout. I very much appreciated that. None of the sugarcoated parent/child relationships we get in some books.
This one was not completely what I expected. While it's character-driven and portrays Bess' struggle to fit in in Greyhill, it is almost a mystery at times. You can't really trust what you read and it's twisty, with some surprises thrown in. It makes for a fast, interesting read that delves into the history of Greyhill and Bess' family.
Overall, this was a really captivating book. I enjoyed the characters and the story--and the setting was a real bonus. This is the first book I've read by Krusek Lewis, but I definitely would like to read more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher, Harper Collins, via LibraryThing in return for an unbiased review - thank you!
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019
"They said the age of heroes would never come again."
As a huge fan of Zack Snyder's first two efforts inside the DCEU and Patty Jenkins wonderful Wonder Woman, my expectations for Justice League were pretty much through the roof. After the mediocre buzz that it got and all the stuff that happened behind the scenes, I was a little skeptical but still very excited, but after getting out of the theater, one word really just describes how I felt; disappointed.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Mini Avengers, Assemble
Is anyone else getting bored of superhero films? Nope? Just me then. We’re not even halfway through 2016 and there have been three of them. In February, there was Deadpool, a film that despite all the odds, turned out to be smashing – despite its generic finale.
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When I first heard that Warner Bros. was planning a series of films based on the classic DC Comics characters akin to what Marvel has successfully done, I was intrigued with the possibilities. With the release of Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, we get the first look into that universe and I have to say it is one that has more than a few stumbles.
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
"i'd like to purchase some of your finest beer please"
Shout "Shazam!" into the sky and you're struck by a bolt of lightning from the heavens; blessed with the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Atlas, the power of Zeus, the courage of Achilles and the speed of Mercury. Instantly elevated from whatever you were into your peak self; reborn with a crack of thunder, a flash of light and a cloud of smoke. It's a wonderfully novel and simple idea for a comic book character. Something that allows for a spectacular hero moment right before each conflict or feat; an epic bit of imagery to light up the night sky and electrify the frame. This transformation also perfectly captures the spirit of both this film and it's hero; a belief in the idea that even the most forgotten, marginalized and seemingly powerless person can change the world.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.