Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Welcome back, chaps
Kingsman: The Secret Service was one of the surprise hits of 2014. Marketed poorly by an unassuming set of trailers, the end result was a film as big a surprise as Guardians of the Galaxy was.
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 3 Days To Kill (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 3 Days to Kill starts as we meet CIA agent Ethan Renner (Costner) who along with his team is about to take down one of the biggest threats in the world The Wolf (Sammel) by eliminating his closest associate The Albino (Lemarquis) only the mission gets compromised when Ethan’s health catches up with him as he learns he only has 3 months to live.
Released by the CIA Ethan sets out on cleaning up his own personal affairs wanting to build a relationship with daughter Zooey (Steinfeld) through his ex-wife Christine (Nielsen) after years of times apart working. With everything going badly Ethan knows that it will become difficult but when fellow agent Vivi Delay (Heard) offers him a chance to live longer Ethan comes out of retirement for one last assignment.
Thoughts on 3 Days to Kill
Story – The story for this film tries to balance a dying man’s final months with his family and his CIA life that he has meant to have walked away from. The CIA story does feel very generic of this modern day slick hitman style which is all fine. The dying man’s wish story ends up feeling like an awkward comedy in places. The story also feels very long and doesn’t seem to end up deciding if it wants to be serious or not.
Action/Thriller – The action is all very good and entertaining with the opening sequence looking like it set the tone but in the end if just turns into another slick hitman film.
Characters/Performance – I can’t find anything wrong with Costner’s performance as well as Steinfeld or Neilsen, it is the Heard performance that doesn’t make sense because she doesn’t suit the character and the character doesn’t suit the movie. The movie tries to make all the characters fit into everyday experiences but for some reason Vivi character is wildly over the top for no apparent reason.
Settings – The settings are mostly all in Paris which all works for the film which is trying to make us have a location we want to visit but showing that crime can happen there I guess.
Special Effects – The Special effects are mostly used for the action sequences and they all come off to the level you need them too.
Final Thoughts –This is an overlong action thriller that ends up getting caught up in the middle of comedy too often for its own good.
Overall: Solid action film that starts too strong for its own benefits.
Released by the CIA Ethan sets out on cleaning up his own personal affairs wanting to build a relationship with daughter Zooey (Steinfeld) through his ex-wife Christine (Nielsen) after years of times apart working. With everything going badly Ethan knows that it will become difficult but when fellow agent Vivi Delay (Heard) offers him a chance to live longer Ethan comes out of retirement for one last assignment.
Thoughts on 3 Days to Kill
Story – The story for this film tries to balance a dying man’s final months with his family and his CIA life that he has meant to have walked away from. The CIA story does feel very generic of this modern day slick hitman style which is all fine. The dying man’s wish story ends up feeling like an awkward comedy in places. The story also feels very long and doesn’t seem to end up deciding if it wants to be serious or not.
Action/Thriller – The action is all very good and entertaining with the opening sequence looking like it set the tone but in the end if just turns into another slick hitman film.
Characters/Performance – I can’t find anything wrong with Costner’s performance as well as Steinfeld or Neilsen, it is the Heard performance that doesn’t make sense because she doesn’t suit the character and the character doesn’t suit the movie. The movie tries to make all the characters fit into everyday experiences but for some reason Vivi character is wildly over the top for no apparent reason.
Settings – The settings are mostly all in Paris which all works for the film which is trying to make us have a location we want to visit but showing that crime can happen there I guess.
Special Effects – The Special effects are mostly used for the action sequences and they all come off to the level you need them too.
Final Thoughts –This is an overlong action thriller that ends up getting caught up in the middle of comedy too often for its own good.
Overall: Solid action film that starts too strong for its own benefits.
Building Leadership Development Programmes: Zero Cost to High Investment Programmes That Work
10.0
Rate It
Book
Most leadership development runs on rails: courses are organized with standard content usually...
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Tree of Life (2011) in Movies
Apr 19, 2019
Challenge yourself. Give this a watch!
I have to admit to not having seen many films directed by Terrence Malick. Not by choice, just hadn't gotten around to it. I watched The Thin Red Line when it was released, but thought it was inferior to Saving Private Ryan which was released around the same time. I will give a rewatch soon.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.
Barbie Magazine - South Africa Interactive
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
App
The next best thing to owning the doll, is reading Barbie magazine Barbie has been around for more...
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament in Books
Jun 29, 2018
In Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), Eugene H. Merrill sets out to provide a theology of the Old Testament which represents the O.T. as a consistent whole that has God as its ultimate source. As such, he supports a high view of biblical inspiration as verbal: “The word of God to the prophets was verbal; and what they spoke and wrote, therefore, was also verbal. The means by which the verbalizing was effected is never disclosed, nor is it necessary to know. The point is that the prophetic word, the highest form of divine revelation, was recognized at the time to be the words of God, a view maintained by virtually unanimous consensus in Jewish and Christian tradition until the inroads of modern criticism.”
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Who knew finding an alien life form on another planet wasn't going to end badly. Well I would think everyone. I like that they also told the whole world that they found it too, and they gave it a name. If you know anything about finding an animal, once you give it a name its harder to let it go. The other problem is if it does get to earth an cause chaos now you know who to blame.
This movie was just like every other alien movie out there. I don't think I saw one surprise the whole time. The end was sort of, but you could have seen it coming. The one thing that I did like was the alien itself. How it grew, how it fed and how smart it was. Usually you don't get that from a alien movie. Its mostly seek and destroy.
The acting was just ok. For the cast that was chosen I think it could have been better. Also I thought there should have been a love story with a couple crew members, it would have added a little more drama. I also think if you send a team to space they really should have all been on the same page with firewalls.
I liked the graphics and the CGI. The way it was filmed was cool too. Being able to film the whole movie with it looking like they were in space was great. I thought you could totally believe they were floating around.
I think this movie could totally have a sequel if they do it correctly. Because they include the Earth at the beginning of the movie, I think it would be cool to find out what happened.
As far as alien movies go, it wasn't the worst. It was entertaining. I would say if you are looking for something sci-fi to watch or you just like the cast, go for it. As always, enjoy the show.
This movie was just like every other alien movie out there. I don't think I saw one surprise the whole time. The end was sort of, but you could have seen it coming. The one thing that I did like was the alien itself. How it grew, how it fed and how smart it was. Usually you don't get that from a alien movie. Its mostly seek and destroy.
The acting was just ok. For the cast that was chosen I think it could have been better. Also I thought there should have been a love story with a couple crew members, it would have added a little more drama. I also think if you send a team to space they really should have all been on the same page with firewalls.
I liked the graphics and the CGI. The way it was filmed was cool too. Being able to film the whole movie with it looking like they were in space was great. I thought you could totally believe they were floating around.
I think this movie could totally have a sequel if they do it correctly. Because they include the Earth at the beginning of the movie, I think it would be cool to find out what happened.
As far as alien movies go, it wasn't the worst. It was entertaining. I would say if you are looking for something sci-fi to watch or you just like the cast, go for it. As always, enjoy the show.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Groot Expectations.
James Gunn is back writing and directing the sequel to his surprise 2014 summer hit. And it might be a fresh mix tape slammed into the Walkman, but it’s much of the same again. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
SpongeBob: Sponge on the Run
Games and Entertainment
4.0
Rate It
App
SpongeBob and Plankton are in a race to find the lost Krabby Patty formula somewhere in Bikini...
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Fangirl in Books
Oct 3, 2017
Fangirling (2 more)
College Life
Carry On
Oh can I relate!
Rainbow Rowell’s Fangirl speaks to the hearts of the current generation of teenagers and young adults who have found love in fandoms, but cannot seem to figure it out in the real world when their heads are in the clouds full of fanfics and theories.
As we grow to become adults we must venture through events of many firsts like kissing, love, heartbreak, and more. It is how we figure out who we are and who we are meant to be even if sometimes the road is not so easy to travel; however, for Cath she was never alone to experience life with her twin sister. This was until Freshmen year of college when Wren wants to separate herself from Cath because they have done everything together always for their whole lives. Cath does not want this. She’s scared to not have Wren feet away from her. She fearful of the strangeness college will offer. She terrified she’s crazy and people will find her weird for her fanfics of Simon and Baz.
Wren does not give in. She moves in with her roommate, Coutrny, and spends her free time getting drunk at parties. She distances herself from Cath to the point they do not even speak to one another. Thus Cath finds out who she is under the layers she’s wrapped around herself since her mom left without Wren to hold her hand to keep her steady. Oh boy, does this journey give her more adventures she has ever had in the last eighteen years of life all because of Nick (writing partner), Reagan (her roommate), and most importantly Levi (the boy who is always waiting outside her dorm for Reagan). There are other important characters at play in Cath’s life. Miniature quests wrapped around the biggest one of all: Cath learning to be her own person.
Rowell’s style is very pleasing when it comes to the flow between Cath around people in real life and how Cath is when she is logged in FanFixx posting Carry On, Simon chapters. We can relate to the girl who has hidden in her room relying on Wren to give little breathes of life from the one she is not living. She is realistic and not a carbon copy twisted to fit into a new plot to gain readers. In general Rowell writes her characters exquisitely as they stand out being not only realistic versions of possibly real people we could run into on the street, but all have their own lives not pieced together solely to further the plot for Cath alone shown with each word written through their actions or when they speak. Each could stand alone as interesting additions instead of misplaced messes. Even the subplots do not feel tacked on and further the story until the final page is done where it is easy to see how each line led to the end.
By the end of it all none of it felt overdone or predictable and I personally stood behind Cath cheering for her. Anyone could read Fangirl and enjoy Cath’s voyage alone as a Freshmen in college, but I think the fangirls and fanboys might enjoy it a bit more. Pick up a copy as soon as possible to learn how Cath’s story ends.
As we grow to become adults we must venture through events of many firsts like kissing, love, heartbreak, and more. It is how we figure out who we are and who we are meant to be even if sometimes the road is not so easy to travel; however, for Cath she was never alone to experience life with her twin sister. This was until Freshmen year of college when Wren wants to separate herself from Cath because they have done everything together always for their whole lives. Cath does not want this. She’s scared to not have Wren feet away from her. She fearful of the strangeness college will offer. She terrified she’s crazy and people will find her weird for her fanfics of Simon and Baz.
Wren does not give in. She moves in with her roommate, Coutrny, and spends her free time getting drunk at parties. She distances herself from Cath to the point they do not even speak to one another. Thus Cath finds out who she is under the layers she’s wrapped around herself since her mom left without Wren to hold her hand to keep her steady. Oh boy, does this journey give her more adventures she has ever had in the last eighteen years of life all because of Nick (writing partner), Reagan (her roommate), and most importantly Levi (the boy who is always waiting outside her dorm for Reagan). There are other important characters at play in Cath’s life. Miniature quests wrapped around the biggest one of all: Cath learning to be her own person.
Rowell’s style is very pleasing when it comes to the flow between Cath around people in real life and how Cath is when she is logged in FanFixx posting Carry On, Simon chapters. We can relate to the girl who has hidden in her room relying on Wren to give little breathes of life from the one she is not living. She is realistic and not a carbon copy twisted to fit into a new plot to gain readers. In general Rowell writes her characters exquisitely as they stand out being not only realistic versions of possibly real people we could run into on the street, but all have their own lives not pieced together solely to further the plot for Cath alone shown with each word written through their actions or when they speak. Each could stand alone as interesting additions instead of misplaced messes. Even the subplots do not feel tacked on and further the story until the final page is done where it is easy to see how each line led to the end.
By the end of it all none of it felt overdone or predictable and I personally stood behind Cath cheering for her. Anyone could read Fangirl and enjoy Cath’s voyage alone as a Freshmen in college, but I think the fangirls and fanboys might enjoy it a bit more. Pick up a copy as soon as possible to learn how Cath’s story ends.