Search
Search results
A Curse So Dark and Lonely
8.5
Rate It
Book
In a lush, contemporary fantasy retelling of Beauty and the Beast, Brigid Kemmerer gives readers...
Ross (3284 KP) rated Season of Storms in Books
Apr 23, 2018 (Updated Apr 25, 2018)
2-d characters (2 more)
fantasy-by-numbers
Frequent incongruent Latin/French phrases
More a set of short stories than a novel in its own right
* I received an advance copy of this book from NetGalley in return for an honest review. Formatting issues (many) have not been factored into the review *
To my knowledge, the books of The Witcher are split into the short story collection prequels (one of which I have read) and the full books (which I have not read). This book is somewhere in between being neither strictly a collection of short stories nor a focussed standalone novel in its own right. Chronologically, this book falls in between the stories contained in The Last Wish) though it is impossible to say quite where it falls (as mention of the stryga is made near the end, which begins the Last Wish I have to assume it comes after the flashback stories from that tome but before the overarching story linking them all).
It may be because I haven't read the full novels, but I find the Witcher to be a thoroughly bland and unexciting character and I have no connection with him. He has next to no personality and contributes nothing to the dialogue of the book. Similarly, all other characters are very disposable - they are either supposedly strong-willed sorceresses (who smell of flowers and throw themselves at the Witcher and are bedded instantly) or they are otherwise instantly forgettable.
I think Sapkwoski was trying to give the sorcerers a sense of academic snobbery but they frequently use Latin phrases, which just gets irritating very quickly. Similarly French words and phrases are thrown in willy-nilly without translation which gets annoying as well. This seems even more unusual when you realise the story was written in Polish and translated into English, with some parts kept in French or Latin. And then further when it is meant to be in a different world where French wouldn't be a thing.
The story essentially follows Geralt of Rivia (The Witcher) who loses his swords and goes on a quest to get them back, and just happens along the way to meet people who need his skills (like on Neighbours where one character leaves and another comes in through the door at exactly the same moment). This aspect makes me think this was meant to be a series of short stories stitched together. But unfortunately here those short stories are not finished up within themselves and you have a number of unsatisfying loose ends in the back of your head throughout.
As with The Last Wish, I found the ending very confusing and had no idea what had happened. It may be that other works fill in the gap and I will have that filled in time, but if so that makes this not a satisfying read in its own right.
Overall, I don't mind Sapkowski's writing in general, other than a few irritating bad habits and I like the overriding idea of the stories but find the execution, character development and overall world-building somewhat clumsy and throw-away. But as I say, this may be because (I think) I have read these in chronological order, rather than published order. I will fill in the gaps and work out if that is the case.
To my knowledge, the books of The Witcher are split into the short story collection prequels (one of which I have read) and the full books (which I have not read). This book is somewhere in between being neither strictly a collection of short stories nor a focussed standalone novel in its own right. Chronologically, this book falls in between the stories contained in The Last Wish) though it is impossible to say quite where it falls (as mention of the stryga is made near the end, which begins the Last Wish I have to assume it comes after the flashback stories from that tome but before the overarching story linking them all).
It may be because I haven't read the full novels, but I find the Witcher to be a thoroughly bland and unexciting character and I have no connection with him. He has next to no personality and contributes nothing to the dialogue of the book. Similarly, all other characters are very disposable - they are either supposedly strong-willed sorceresses (who smell of flowers and throw themselves at the Witcher and are bedded instantly) or they are otherwise instantly forgettable.
I think Sapkwoski was trying to give the sorcerers a sense of academic snobbery but they frequently use Latin phrases, which just gets irritating very quickly. Similarly French words and phrases are thrown in willy-nilly without translation which gets annoying as well. This seems even more unusual when you realise the story was written in Polish and translated into English, with some parts kept in French or Latin. And then further when it is meant to be in a different world where French wouldn't be a thing.
The story essentially follows Geralt of Rivia (The Witcher) who loses his swords and goes on a quest to get them back, and just happens along the way to meet people who need his skills (like on Neighbours where one character leaves and another comes in through the door at exactly the same moment). This aspect makes me think this was meant to be a series of short stories stitched together. But unfortunately here those short stories are not finished up within themselves and you have a number of unsatisfying loose ends in the back of your head throughout.
As with The Last Wish, I found the ending very confusing and had no idea what had happened. It may be that other works fill in the gap and I will have that filled in time, but if so that makes this not a satisfying read in its own right.
Overall, I don't mind Sapkowski's writing in general, other than a few irritating bad habits and I like the overriding idea of the stories but find the execution, character development and overall world-building somewhat clumsy and throw-away. But as I say, this may be because (I think) I have read these in chronological order, rather than published order. I will fill in the gaps and work out if that is the case.
Merissa (12066 KP) rated Half a Soul (Regency Faerie Tales #1) by Olivia Atwater in Books
May 26, 2022 (Updated Jun 13, 2023)
HALF A SOUL is the first book in the Regency Faerie Tales and I honestly can't wait to read more. This was a gentle story with some harsh life lessons for our main character when she learns what war and workhouses are really like in a world where magic exists.
She -- Dora -- sees life through a slightly skewed lens as it is, being a Faerie Lord stole half her soul when she was only a child. Since then, she struggles to feel emotions, apart from "long-tailed ones". Her cousin, Vanessa, is the only warmth in her life and she will do all she can to please her. This includes going to London, although Dora isn't sure if she is going to help Vanessa's chances of finding a husband, or if she is going because of Vanessa's scheme to cure Dora. Either way, they end up in London, with the ton, and Dora has her own adventures whilst Vanessa is at the mercy of the matchmaking mothers.
I found Dora to be a heart-warming character who is aware of her own 'strangeness' but tries her best to fit in to please her cousin. I loved how she was truthful and direct, at a time when it was not fashionable to be so. Elias was the perfect foil for her. She didn't accept his rudeness or be put off by his temper, simply because she wasn't affected by it. Albert, and his mother, Lady Caraway, were jewels in this book and I loved every scene they were in. I was so happy for him!
Rightly or wrongly, I enjoy historical fiction as it is written. I have no idea if the dip of the neckline or the length of the hem is one hundred per cent accurate, and I don't really care. And if it is historically incorrect, so what? So long as the story fits together, and the inconsistencies remain the same throughout (now there's an oxymoron for you), that's all that concerns me.
I loved this story as it guided me along, all coming together nicely at the end. The epilogue was perfect. I sincerely hope to see more of this couple in future books. A fantastic start to a new series by a new-to-me author and absolutely recommended!
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
May 26, 2022
She -- Dora -- sees life through a slightly skewed lens as it is, being a Faerie Lord stole half her soul when she was only a child. Since then, she struggles to feel emotions, apart from "long-tailed ones". Her cousin, Vanessa, is the only warmth in her life and she will do all she can to please her. This includes going to London, although Dora isn't sure if she is going to help Vanessa's chances of finding a husband, or if she is going because of Vanessa's scheme to cure Dora. Either way, they end up in London, with the ton, and Dora has her own adventures whilst Vanessa is at the mercy of the matchmaking mothers.
I found Dora to be a heart-warming character who is aware of her own 'strangeness' but tries her best to fit in to please her cousin. I loved how she was truthful and direct, at a time when it was not fashionable to be so. Elias was the perfect foil for her. She didn't accept his rudeness or be put off by his temper, simply because she wasn't affected by it. Albert, and his mother, Lady Caraway, were jewels in this book and I loved every scene they were in. I was so happy for him!
Rightly or wrongly, I enjoy historical fiction as it is written. I have no idea if the dip of the neckline or the length of the hem is one hundred per cent accurate, and I don't really care. And if it is historically incorrect, so what? So long as the story fits together, and the inconsistencies remain the same throughout (now there's an oxymoron for you), that's all that concerns me.
I loved this story as it guided me along, all coming together nicely at the end. The epilogue was perfect. I sincerely hope to see more of this couple in future books. A fantastic start to a new series by a new-to-me author and absolutely recommended!
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
May 26, 2022
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Weird - and I couldn't look away
I have viewed some really strange films in my day. When asked, I often mention MIRRORMASK (based on a Neil Gaiman story) and mother! (the Darren Aronofsky oddity) as the strangest films I have ever seen.
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Sugar Daddy Meet
Social Networking and Entertainment
1.0
Rate It
App
SugarDaddyMeet is the best sugar daddy dating app for young women seeking mutual arrangements with...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I'd Give Anything in Books
Jun 11, 2020
At eighteen, Ginny "Zinny" Beale is a lighthearted, fun, brave girl with a close group of friends and brother with whom she can unite against their uptight mother. But one night changes all of that. Someone sets the town's high school on fire and in the aftermath, the father of Ginny's best friend, Gray, is dead. The townspeople look for someone to blame--leaving most of it on a troubled teen--but Ginny learns some news that changes her entire world. She tells no one, but the secret alters her life and leaves her an outcast among her friends and family. Over the next twenty years, Ginny transitions, settling down, returning to her hometown and marrying Harris, a professor. They have a daughter, Avery, and Ginny cares for her mother, who is dying. But when scandal rocks the town again--this time focused on Harris--Ginny has to make some choices. It's time to confront the past and the secret she's kept buried all this time.
"In one night, one night, I lost all of them."
I adore Marisa de los Santos and her writing, though this wasn't my favorite of her books. Still, she's just so good at capturing the little moments in life: nailing down the feelings and emotions of her characters. Ginny, Avery, and others spring to life in this one. The story swings between past and present, with older excerpts often told from Ginny's diary entries. It takes a while to learn Ginny's big secret, which is a bit of a pet peeve of mine: I'm not always a fan of dragging out a secret.
This is a poignant and sad read, delving into marriage, love, and parenthood. My favorite character was fifteen-year-old Avery, who is hit hard by the incident involving her father, Harris. In many ways, I was far more invested in Avery's growth than Ginny's--I liked Ginny, but I couldn't quite find myself fully wanting to root for her. Although the juxtaposition between young Zinny and present-day Ginny was quite well-done.
Did you stop being your old selves? Did they fall away? Were you always only the self you were in the present?
The book explores how one secret can so change a person and the ripple effect it has on many lives. Ms. de los Santos examines her characters very closely via her writing, and I will always love picking up her books and getting an intimate look at her cast of players. In the end, this is a touching and well-written novel, even if I couldn't always find myself fully engaged in Ginny's world. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 here.
"In one night, one night, I lost all of them."
I adore Marisa de los Santos and her writing, though this wasn't my favorite of her books. Still, she's just so good at capturing the little moments in life: nailing down the feelings and emotions of her characters. Ginny, Avery, and others spring to life in this one. The story swings between past and present, with older excerpts often told from Ginny's diary entries. It takes a while to learn Ginny's big secret, which is a bit of a pet peeve of mine: I'm not always a fan of dragging out a secret.
This is a poignant and sad read, delving into marriage, love, and parenthood. My favorite character was fifteen-year-old Avery, who is hit hard by the incident involving her father, Harris. In many ways, I was far more invested in Avery's growth than Ginny's--I liked Ginny, but I couldn't quite find myself fully wanting to root for her. Although the juxtaposition between young Zinny and present-day Ginny was quite well-done.
Did you stop being your old selves? Did they fall away? Were you always only the self you were in the present?
The book explores how one secret can so change a person and the ripple effect it has on many lives. Ms. de los Santos examines her characters very closely via her writing, and I will always love picking up her books and getting an intimate look at her cast of players. In the end, this is a touching and well-written novel, even if I couldn't always find myself fully engaged in Ginny's world. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 here.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
May 18, 2019
"I can save today, you can save the world"
Remember when some trickster claiming to be a former worker from Warner Bros. wrote an open letter saying that Wonder Woman was just another mess of a DC movie, et cetera? I remember how Patty Jenkins responded to that. She tweeted: "Just wait and you'll see".
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 300: Rise of an Empire (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 300: Rise of an Empire starts by right where the previous one finished with Xerxes (Santoro) taking the head of Leonidas. Queen Gorgo (Headey) is leading the next onslaught on the Persians.
I think we go prequel with Themistokles (Stapleton) leading the Greek army back against the Persians before they can take any of the Greek cities. The battle leads to the death of King Darius (Naor) leads to Artemisia (Green) and Xerxes son of Darius go on the revenge mission with Xerxes entering into the world of the Gods becoming a God King.
Themistokles goes to Sparta to build a united Greece while Xerxes is waiting for word from the messenger sent. We learn of Artemisia is Greek by descent and is out for revenge on any Greek person she finds after they raped and murdered her whole family. Themistokles builds his navy army for a battle on the sea against the Persian fleet leading to epic battles on the ocean. What follows is a string of battles each one with the other trying to get the upper hand.
Suffering a defeat Themistokles uses his defeat and the Spartans defeat as fuel to unite Greece once and for all as they take the battle to a conclusion once and for all.
300: Rise of an Empire does play the idea of following another side of the battle really well, mixing between the prequel elements and sequel elements. The main problem is that the scenes of the battles come off very confusing which is the main reason for the story. It does show the new historical legends even though they are lesser known names. It really ends up feeling like a forced sequel that has come too late after the first one. I feel this focuses too much on its action sequences and the story falls into the background after a while. (5/10)
Actor Review
Sullivan Stapleton: Themistokles Greek warrior who leads the navy fleet into battles on the sea against the Persians after he kills their King Darrius. Sullivan does give a good performance and looks the part. (7/10)
themstokles
Eva Green: Artemisia leader of the Persian naval unit who also plays Xerxes to go into combat the way she wants to win the war. Eva gives a good performance and makes for a great villainous role. (7/10)
green
Rodrigo Santoro: Xerxes God King of Persia who is at battle with the Spartans and the Greeks. Rodrigo gives a solid performance and has to get praised for the look he ends up having after the makeup. (7/10)
erxes
Support Cast: 300: Rise of an Empire has a huge support cast that are all warriors in either side of the battle.
Director Review: Noam Murro – Noam does a solid job directing making the action look very good but doesn’t pull the story through as much as he should be. (6/10)
Action: 300: Rise of an Empire can’t be denied about how good the action is even if the naval moments come off confusing at times. (8/10)
War: 300: Rise of an Empire really is one of the war films that really do end up putting the fantasy into legend. (7/10)
Settings: 300: Rise of an Empire creates settings that look the part for the time of the battles. (7/10)
Special Effects: 300: Rise of an Empire has great effects at time but slowly start to feel over used. (7/10)
Suggestion: 300: Rise of an Empire is one to be watched if you enjoyed the first one but not the most interesting for the first time viewer. (Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle looks good.
Worst Part: A Horse on a boat, really?
Action Scene Of The Film: Final Battle.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for another sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $337 Million
Budget: $110 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Tagline: Seize your glory
Trivia: The original script featured King Leonidas from 300 (2006), but he was ultimately cut out. This was due to Gerard Butler, who turned down to reprise his role as Leonidas, since it “wasn’t really [his] thing”.
Overall: Sequel we didn’t really need
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/17/300-rise-of-an-empire-2014/
I think we go prequel with Themistokles (Stapleton) leading the Greek army back against the Persians before they can take any of the Greek cities. The battle leads to the death of King Darius (Naor) leads to Artemisia (Green) and Xerxes son of Darius go on the revenge mission with Xerxes entering into the world of the Gods becoming a God King.
Themistokles goes to Sparta to build a united Greece while Xerxes is waiting for word from the messenger sent. We learn of Artemisia is Greek by descent and is out for revenge on any Greek person she finds after they raped and murdered her whole family. Themistokles builds his navy army for a battle on the sea against the Persian fleet leading to epic battles on the ocean. What follows is a string of battles each one with the other trying to get the upper hand.
Suffering a defeat Themistokles uses his defeat and the Spartans defeat as fuel to unite Greece once and for all as they take the battle to a conclusion once and for all.
300: Rise of an Empire does play the idea of following another side of the battle really well, mixing between the prequel elements and sequel elements. The main problem is that the scenes of the battles come off very confusing which is the main reason for the story. It does show the new historical legends even though they are lesser known names. It really ends up feeling like a forced sequel that has come too late after the first one. I feel this focuses too much on its action sequences and the story falls into the background after a while. (5/10)
Actor Review
Sullivan Stapleton: Themistokles Greek warrior who leads the navy fleet into battles on the sea against the Persians after he kills their King Darrius. Sullivan does give a good performance and looks the part. (7/10)
themstokles
Eva Green: Artemisia leader of the Persian naval unit who also plays Xerxes to go into combat the way she wants to win the war. Eva gives a good performance and makes for a great villainous role. (7/10)
green
Rodrigo Santoro: Xerxes God King of Persia who is at battle with the Spartans and the Greeks. Rodrigo gives a solid performance and has to get praised for the look he ends up having after the makeup. (7/10)
erxes
Support Cast: 300: Rise of an Empire has a huge support cast that are all warriors in either side of the battle.
Director Review: Noam Murro – Noam does a solid job directing making the action look very good but doesn’t pull the story through as much as he should be. (6/10)
Action: 300: Rise of an Empire can’t be denied about how good the action is even if the naval moments come off confusing at times. (8/10)
War: 300: Rise of an Empire really is one of the war films that really do end up putting the fantasy into legend. (7/10)
Settings: 300: Rise of an Empire creates settings that look the part for the time of the battles. (7/10)
Special Effects: 300: Rise of an Empire has great effects at time but slowly start to feel over used. (7/10)
Suggestion: 300: Rise of an Empire is one to be watched if you enjoyed the first one but not the most interesting for the first time viewer. (Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle looks good.
Worst Part: A Horse on a boat, really?
Action Scene Of The Film: Final Battle.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for another sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $337 Million
Budget: $110 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Tagline: Seize your glory
Trivia: The original script featured King Leonidas from 300 (2006), but he was ultimately cut out. This was due to Gerard Butler, who turned down to reprise his role as Leonidas, since it “wasn’t really [his] thing”.
Overall: Sequel we didn’t really need
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/17/300-rise-of-an-empire-2014/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021 (Updated Dec 14, 2021)
Taika Waititi. (2 more)
The cameos.
Impressive special effects.
Not as funny as it could have been. (2 more)
Love being the "hokey" solution.
Mouser.
Artificial Excellence
Filmed in 2019 and finally seeing release after five separate delays from its original July 2020 premiere date, Free Guy is a sci-fi action comedy directed by Shawn Levy (Real Steal, the Night at the Museum trilogy) and written by Matt Lieberman (Scoob!) and Zak Penn (Ready Player One), which follows the life of Guy (Ryan Reynolds), an NPC that and lives and works as a bank teller in Free City.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.