Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Marvel's Spider-Man in Video Games
Jan 15, 2019 (Updated Jan 15, 2019)
The best web swinging has felt in any Spiderman game ever. (3 more)
Good presentation in all of the cutscenes.
Enjoyable orchestral backdrop to swing around Manhattan to.
The parts of Manhattan that are in the game look great.
A lot of Manhattan has been left out or vastly downsized. (2 more)
The other 4 boroughs have been ignored.
Although the presentation is great, the graphics are slightly sub par.
Thwip!
Marvel's Spider-man was one of the biggest games of last year. Developed by Insomniac and following an original story, not tied in to the recent MCU movie, this was the most exciting superhero game since the Arkham series for a lot of people. Thankfully, Insomniac did manage to deliver a brilliant game, but not a perfect one.
The game's opening fantastically sets up the tone and energy of what's to follow and it's probably one of the best video game opening's I have ever played in that respect. Once the rush and momentum of that first mission wears off, you are introduced to the open world that you will be exploring for the next 20 or so hours. Manhattan does look good here, possibly the best it ever has done in a game. Landmarks like the Empire State Building and Madison Square Garden are rendered extremely accurately to their real life counterparts.
The stuff that they chose to include in the game's version of Manhattan is great, but the issue is all of the parts that they left out. Battery Park is has halved in size, the One World Trade Centre has changed shape and everything above mid Harlem has vanished, making the district feel stumpy. Hopefully some of this stuff is amended for the sequel, along with the addition of at least a couple of the other boroughs.
Although the environment looks good graphically, as do Spidey's various suits that can be unlocked during the game, the human character models aren't the best and are fairly ugly when compared to character models in other 2018 games such as God of War, Red Dead 2 and Detroit: Become Human. Usually, in cutscenes etc, the game presents these character model well enough that it isn't too noticeable, but there were a good few times during gameplay that I would catch a glimpse of MJ's or Miles' weird faces and scratch my head wondering why they don't look better.
I have heard a few reviews moaning about the orchestral score that plays in the background as you swing around the city, but I personally really enjoyed it and it made me feel even more like a superhero than I already do when swinging through the middle of Times Square. I felt that all of the musical choices were well implemented and matched the story beats aptly to add impact in the right places.
Let's finish on a positive, the web swinging mechanic in this game is extremely satisfying and comes out on top of any other Spider-man game's web swinging system. Again, it's not flawless, there are moments that it will frustrate you and you will web to the opposite side of what you were aiming for. Also, for some reason the wall crawling mechanic is really slow and finicky and can often break the fast paced momentum of the web swinging/zipping/wall running combo that you have going. Most of the time though, it works fantastically and feels extremely fluid and immersive and it is probably one of the most satisfying game mechanics of 2018, along with Kratos' axe in GOW.
Overall, Marvel's Spider-man is great, but not perfect. There is definitely room for improvement, but this could be the start of a potentially incredible series of Marvel superhero games and hopefully the sequel, (that Insomniac is undoubtedly working on,) can improve on some of the flaws present in this game and deliver something incredible.
The game's opening fantastically sets up the tone and energy of what's to follow and it's probably one of the best video game opening's I have ever played in that respect. Once the rush and momentum of that first mission wears off, you are introduced to the open world that you will be exploring for the next 20 or so hours. Manhattan does look good here, possibly the best it ever has done in a game. Landmarks like the Empire State Building and Madison Square Garden are rendered extremely accurately to their real life counterparts.
The stuff that they chose to include in the game's version of Manhattan is great, but the issue is all of the parts that they left out. Battery Park is has halved in size, the One World Trade Centre has changed shape and everything above mid Harlem has vanished, making the district feel stumpy. Hopefully some of this stuff is amended for the sequel, along with the addition of at least a couple of the other boroughs.
Although the environment looks good graphically, as do Spidey's various suits that can be unlocked during the game, the human character models aren't the best and are fairly ugly when compared to character models in other 2018 games such as God of War, Red Dead 2 and Detroit: Become Human. Usually, in cutscenes etc, the game presents these character model well enough that it isn't too noticeable, but there were a good few times during gameplay that I would catch a glimpse of MJ's or Miles' weird faces and scratch my head wondering why they don't look better.
I have heard a few reviews moaning about the orchestral score that plays in the background as you swing around the city, but I personally really enjoyed it and it made me feel even more like a superhero than I already do when swinging through the middle of Times Square. I felt that all of the musical choices were well implemented and matched the story beats aptly to add impact in the right places.
Let's finish on a positive, the web swinging mechanic in this game is extremely satisfying and comes out on top of any other Spider-man game's web swinging system. Again, it's not flawless, there are moments that it will frustrate you and you will web to the opposite side of what you were aiming for. Also, for some reason the wall crawling mechanic is really slow and finicky and can often break the fast paced momentum of the web swinging/zipping/wall running combo that you have going. Most of the time though, it works fantastically and feels extremely fluid and immersive and it is probably one of the most satisfying game mechanics of 2018, along with Kratos' axe in GOW.
Overall, Marvel's Spider-man is great, but not perfect. There is definitely room for improvement, but this could be the start of a potentially incredible series of Marvel superhero games and hopefully the sequel, (that Insomniac is undoubtedly working on,) can improve on some of the flaws present in this game and deliver something incredible.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
If anyone tells me they didn’t enjoy The Irishman, I would have to say, fair enough. There are reasons not to. As an entertainment it isn’t Goodfellas, as a thriller it isn’t The Departed, and as a classic gangster tale it isn’t anywhere near The Godfather, of course. It sags in the middle, ends morbidly, and, at three and a half hours, even in its brightest moments, you can find yourself waiting for it to finish. But, anyone who tells me The Irishman isn’t a great film is blind to the artistry at work here from a gang of septegenarians with a mighty track record. If it is one thing, it is Epic!
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Downhill (2020) in Movies
Mar 8, 2020
I'm not going to lie, the trailer did not look good. I went in expecting something that would hopefully be mildly amusing to pass the time before seeing The Invisible Man, thank goodness I saw this one first, ending my double bill with this would have been heart-breaking.
Pete and Billie are taking their two boys away for a skiing trip, things have been tough recently and they all need a chance to unwind. When a controlled explosion on the slopes gets a little too close for comfort the family are shaken. When the snow settles Billie, who instinctively went to protect her sons looks around and Pete is nowhere to be seen. Tensions run high between the could and they both start to wonder what the situation means for their family.
Let me first state that this is a confused mess of genre, I think that was clear even in the trailer, but it became more evident as I sat through the film. It isn't funny enough to be comedy and it's trying so hard to be comedy that it misses drama.
This could turn into a bitch fest if I let it but there are some good points I would like to mention (while I'm not angry at this film).
Both Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell get to have moments that are actually quite moving. In the trailer we see Billie relaying their story to their friends, that complete scene you can tell that Louis-Dreyfus is digging deep for that emotion and it comes through incredibly well. Ferrell, when he finally gets to open up about the event felt very sincere, though he does manage to get upstaged by Billie seconds later.
The setting is obviously very picturesque and they do a great job of showing the contrast between the two different resorts, there are quite a lot of clips of skiing that feel like stock footage and somehow feel out of place with whatever genre this film was. The snow footage that really excited me was that initial avalanche early on, for the briefest moment I thought I'd misjudged the film (it was a fleeting feeling). The rush of the snow, the sound and the reaction of the people on the deck really made for a tense moment.
I'm at a loss for anything apart from that thought. I think I vaguely remember laughing at one point, or more accurately, exhaling slightly more vigorously than normal, but I couldn't tell you which bit that was. The guy across the aisle from me (who arrived nearly 20 minutes late) was roaring with laughter... I just couldn't see any of it. None of the jokes landed and the one character who seemed to only be there for comedic effect was so over the top that it just became annoying.
Will Ferrell's movie career is an interesting thing to scroll through, it has a lot of films you've heard of, most of which I just kind of go "meh" at and will never see again. I honestly don't think I've enjoyed one of his films since Old School. Downhill is sadly no different. I had hoped that this might have been interestingly different with its drama aspect but there was nothing to dig it out of that avalanche.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus wasn't bad, I think mainly because her character wasn't overly burdened with any of the comic stuff to do. A lot of her role was serious and that really helped. But with the film feeling so mediocre/bad around her most of the good acting was lost.
If you can find the good in this film then I'm really pleased for you, but I was left confused and somewhat down about what I'd seen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/downhill-movie-review.html
Pete and Billie are taking their two boys away for a skiing trip, things have been tough recently and they all need a chance to unwind. When a controlled explosion on the slopes gets a little too close for comfort the family are shaken. When the snow settles Billie, who instinctively went to protect her sons looks around and Pete is nowhere to be seen. Tensions run high between the could and they both start to wonder what the situation means for their family.
Let me first state that this is a confused mess of genre, I think that was clear even in the trailer, but it became more evident as I sat through the film. It isn't funny enough to be comedy and it's trying so hard to be comedy that it misses drama.
This could turn into a bitch fest if I let it but there are some good points I would like to mention (while I'm not angry at this film).
Both Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell get to have moments that are actually quite moving. In the trailer we see Billie relaying their story to their friends, that complete scene you can tell that Louis-Dreyfus is digging deep for that emotion and it comes through incredibly well. Ferrell, when he finally gets to open up about the event felt very sincere, though he does manage to get upstaged by Billie seconds later.
The setting is obviously very picturesque and they do a great job of showing the contrast between the two different resorts, there are quite a lot of clips of skiing that feel like stock footage and somehow feel out of place with whatever genre this film was. The snow footage that really excited me was that initial avalanche early on, for the briefest moment I thought I'd misjudged the film (it was a fleeting feeling). The rush of the snow, the sound and the reaction of the people on the deck really made for a tense moment.
I'm at a loss for anything apart from that thought. I think I vaguely remember laughing at one point, or more accurately, exhaling slightly more vigorously than normal, but I couldn't tell you which bit that was. The guy across the aisle from me (who arrived nearly 20 minutes late) was roaring with laughter... I just couldn't see any of it. None of the jokes landed and the one character who seemed to only be there for comedic effect was so over the top that it just became annoying.
Will Ferrell's movie career is an interesting thing to scroll through, it has a lot of films you've heard of, most of which I just kind of go "meh" at and will never see again. I honestly don't think I've enjoyed one of his films since Old School. Downhill is sadly no different. I had hoped that this might have been interestingly different with its drama aspect but there was nothing to dig it out of that avalanche.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus wasn't bad, I think mainly because her character wasn't overly burdened with any of the comic stuff to do. A lot of her role was serious and that really helped. But with the film feeling so mediocre/bad around her most of the good acting was lost.
If you can find the good in this film then I'm really pleased for you, but I was left confused and somewhat down about what I'd seen.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/downhill-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
My love for Eurovision is as deep as some of the songs in Eurovision attempt to be, I live for ridiculous costumes and dance moves... and I LOVE quips from Graham. I'm glad I didn't have a lot of time to really think about what this film might come out to be, it would definitely have hindered the watching process.
As a child Lars makes a connection with the Eurovision Song Contest that will follow him through his adult life, it will be his obsession, his life, and it will lead him on an adventure he could never imagine. When an unimaginable miracle happens, Fire Saga make their way to the greatest song contest in the world. The competition is fierce and the pair must navigate more than one bump on their road to Eurovision success.
Firstly I want to make a clear point about this film... it's bad, not in a good way, and then it's good, but not in the bad way. When I started watching it I was so very annoyed and then at some point I realised I was enjoying myself. Not unlike watching the actual contest.
Will Ferrell has never particularly been a draw for me and when I tried to bring any Rachel McAdams film to mind I went blank... Together this pairing make an interesting team though, there's a good dynamic and I'm not particularly against anything they do, but there's a certain sloppiness to the story that makes it difficult to root for them. There are a lot of scenes that feel unnecessary or overplay a joke and somehow the film is just over two hours long... this idea definitely would have suited something between 90 and 105 minutes.
The singers mostly make their cameos in a Pitch Perfect-esque sing-off, that was one of the first things I both hated and loved at the same time. Singing in films brings me joy and everybody who participated is very talented... but it was so cheesy. Our other stars are fine, Dan Stevens as Alexander has just the right amount of cliche characteristics and Pierce Brosnan as Lars' father is... I don't know how to describe it really but I was loving the look.
Accents on the actors... they might not necessarily be bad but coming from people that aren't native made it feel like they were over the top. I'm sure this is more to do with the fact that I know what the people should sound like and with acting that isn't convincing enough it all collides into chaos in my brain.
They definitely managed to create some great moments that will put you in a good Eurovision mood. I loved the music video they create right at the beginning, and honestly, if someone doesn't use that for their next entry I really think they're missing out. We've got the bizarre songs and over the top props that make Eurovision such a spectacle. But that's where we have my overall issue with the film.
Eurovision Song Contest started pretty badly (apart from that video) and I was really thinking it was going to be a disaster, once they get to the contest it is so much better. Taking those excess minutes out of the beginning (and removing that final piece of the ending) and rebalancing the film with more contest would have made it better, not that this is a bad film, it just could have been better. There are a lot of flaws throughout but it manages to turn it around and give something charming and entertaining that will appeal to a lot of people, I'd be interested to see how this gets received outside of Europe though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/eurovision-song-contest-movie-review.html
As a child Lars makes a connection with the Eurovision Song Contest that will follow him through his adult life, it will be his obsession, his life, and it will lead him on an adventure he could never imagine. When an unimaginable miracle happens, Fire Saga make their way to the greatest song contest in the world. The competition is fierce and the pair must navigate more than one bump on their road to Eurovision success.
Firstly I want to make a clear point about this film... it's bad, not in a good way, and then it's good, but not in the bad way. When I started watching it I was so very annoyed and then at some point I realised I was enjoying myself. Not unlike watching the actual contest.
Will Ferrell has never particularly been a draw for me and when I tried to bring any Rachel McAdams film to mind I went blank... Together this pairing make an interesting team though, there's a good dynamic and I'm not particularly against anything they do, but there's a certain sloppiness to the story that makes it difficult to root for them. There are a lot of scenes that feel unnecessary or overplay a joke and somehow the film is just over two hours long... this idea definitely would have suited something between 90 and 105 minutes.
The singers mostly make their cameos in a Pitch Perfect-esque sing-off, that was one of the first things I both hated and loved at the same time. Singing in films brings me joy and everybody who participated is very talented... but it was so cheesy. Our other stars are fine, Dan Stevens as Alexander has just the right amount of cliche characteristics and Pierce Brosnan as Lars' father is... I don't know how to describe it really but I was loving the look.
Accents on the actors... they might not necessarily be bad but coming from people that aren't native made it feel like they were over the top. I'm sure this is more to do with the fact that I know what the people should sound like and with acting that isn't convincing enough it all collides into chaos in my brain.
They definitely managed to create some great moments that will put you in a good Eurovision mood. I loved the music video they create right at the beginning, and honestly, if someone doesn't use that for their next entry I really think they're missing out. We've got the bizarre songs and over the top props that make Eurovision such a spectacle. But that's where we have my overall issue with the film.
Eurovision Song Contest started pretty badly (apart from that video) and I was really thinking it was going to be a disaster, once they get to the contest it is so much better. Taking those excess minutes out of the beginning (and removing that final piece of the ending) and rebalancing the film with more contest would have made it better, not that this is a bad film, it just could have been better. There are a lot of flaws throughout but it manages to turn it around and give something charming and entertaining that will appeal to a lot of people, I'd be interested to see how this gets received outside of Europe though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/eurovision-song-contest-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Marvel films have become a staple for any movie fan’s diet over the past few years. We’ve had some bloody fantastic ones; Spiderman 2, Iron Man and the second X-Men to name a few; and we’ve had some pretty rubbish ones, Hulk, The Fantastic Four and Spiderman 3 are ones that spring to mind.
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
James Franco (1 more)
The tone
Far from a disaster
If you haven't seen The Room, then I urge you to do so at once. It's a bemusing, confusing, unintentionally hilarious 90 odd minutes that fully deserves all the cult screenings and bewildered wonder that it has garnered over the years. It's without question a perfect awful movie. And here with The Disaster Artist, based on the book of the same name, we get to see the story of just went on to get this film made.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Witchfinder's Sister in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<i><b>I think now that to be close to someone can be to underestimate them. Grow too close, and you do not see what they are capable of; or you do not see it in time.</b></i>
<i>The Witchfinder’s Sister</i> is based on true life witch hunter Matthew Hopkins that grew to fame during the English Civil War around East Anglia, hunting and killing “witches”. This book isn’t non-fiction, it’s fiction based around non-fiction! I love these sorts of books that create their own stories from something that was very much real. Not only does it make for good reading, they also bring in some true history facts, so you’re being educated on the subject as you read.
High praise goes to Underdown for this novel. I feel like historical fiction can be hard genre to get right, and considering this is a <i>debut</i> novel, I’m amazed at how well put together and beautiful this has turned out to be! I love reading historical fiction, every once in awhile, and this is the sort of book that keeps my love for the genre burning.
The writing in this novel was haunting and beautiful. Nine times out of ten, it was exactly as you would have imagined the 17th Century to be, but I felt there were a few slips that made the book feel modern. For example, would a lady in 1645 say the phrase <i><b>“shitting herself”</b></i>? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that feels like a reasonably modern phrase to me.
I loved our main character, Alice. Me and my mum were talking about historical fiction novels and how we find it hard to understand why women make the decisions they make in these books, because we’re so used to having some equality and independence. But I noted that in this book, even though Alice is inferior to her brother and his counterparts, she is still a risk taker; going against her brother's wishes & sneaking around. I liked that she was strong and a little rebellious, it was so much easier to connect with her because of this.
On the other hand. I <i>hated</i> Matthew. He was a despicable character. I can rarely hate a character in a book, even if I’m supposed to. I tend to find the good in them at some point, or have some sort of sympathy for them, but I absolutely despised Matthew. Well done to Underdown for creating such a hate-inducing character. It’s quite a hard feat, but she managed it perfectly. The same goes for Mary Phillips.
The tension was built so well in this novel, you could feel the mystery growing and growing with every page and I loved it! Though the story moved reasonably slowly, the book was still absolutely riveting and I found it extremely hard to put down when I knew it was time to get some rest.
I am so, so excited to read more from Underdown. This was an amazingly well put together and researched.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<i>The Witchfinder’s Sister</i> is based on true life witch hunter Matthew Hopkins that grew to fame during the English Civil War around East Anglia, hunting and killing “witches”. This book isn’t non-fiction, it’s fiction based around non-fiction! I love these sorts of books that create their own stories from something that was very much real. Not only does it make for good reading, they also bring in some true history facts, so you’re being educated on the subject as you read.
High praise goes to Underdown for this novel. I feel like historical fiction can be hard genre to get right, and considering this is a <i>debut</i> novel, I’m amazed at how well put together and beautiful this has turned out to be! I love reading historical fiction, every once in awhile, and this is the sort of book that keeps my love for the genre burning.
The writing in this novel was haunting and beautiful. Nine times out of ten, it was exactly as you would have imagined the 17th Century to be, but I felt there were a few slips that made the book feel modern. For example, would a lady in 1645 say the phrase <i><b>“shitting herself”</b></i>? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that feels like a reasonably modern phrase to me.
I loved our main character, Alice. Me and my mum were talking about historical fiction novels and how we find it hard to understand why women make the decisions they make in these books, because we’re so used to having some equality and independence. But I noted that in this book, even though Alice is inferior to her brother and his counterparts, she is still a risk taker; going against her brother's wishes & sneaking around. I liked that she was strong and a little rebellious, it was so much easier to connect with her because of this.
On the other hand. I <i>hated</i> Matthew. He was a despicable character. I can rarely hate a character in a book, even if I’m supposed to. I tend to find the good in them at some point, or have some sort of sympathy for them, but I absolutely despised Matthew. Well done to Underdown for creating such a hate-inducing character. It’s quite a hard feat, but she managed it perfectly. The same goes for Mary Phillips.
The tension was built so well in this novel, you could feel the mystery growing and growing with every page and I loved it! Though the story moved reasonably slowly, the book was still absolutely riveting and I found it extremely hard to put down when I knew it was time to get some rest.
I am so, so excited to read more from Underdown. This was an amazingly well put together and researched.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Books UK for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Last House Guest in Books
Jun 21, 2019
Typically the locals and the summer visitors don't mix much in the resort town of Littleport, Maine. But when summer resident Sadie Loman and local Avery Greer meet, they form a fast, intense friendship that lasts nearly a decade. It ends the night of the Plus-One party--the one night where locals and summer guests come together at the summer's end. It's also the night Sadie dies; her body is found on Breaker Breach, where she has drowned after falling off a cliff. The police believe Sadie has committed suicide, but Avery isn't so sure. A year later, she begins digging more into Sadie's death. What she finds leaves her more convinced that ever that Sadie's death wasn't at her own hand--and the more she discovers, the more she wonders if she's in danger, too.
So, I read this book in about 24 hours. It's a fast, quick read. A lot of the plot seems familiar--it was the second book of the last three, I'd read, for instance, where someone died suspiciously after falling off a cliff. The plot definitely has the tried-and-true feel of "friend obsessed with richer/prettier/etc. friend's death yet won't leave it to police even though it makes no sense to investigate on their own." You know where I'm coming from, right? You've been there before.
In this case, Avery is, of course, the local, with no money, who has been taken in by Sadie's family. They've funded her coursework, given her a place to live, and a job--she oversees all of the Loman's rental properties in Littleport. They even bought her grandmother's house. So Sadie--and her family--mean a lot to Avery.
"Sadie was my anchor, my coconspirator, the force that had grounded my life for so many years. If I imagined her jumping, then everything tilted precariously, just as it had that night."
The book is told entirely from Avery's point of view, but it goes back and forth in time. We get the night of the party, when Sadie died, and then the present, a year later. A memorial is coming up for Sadie, dredging up memories for Avery and causing her to question what happened that night. It's an effective formula--Miranda is good at playing with time.
The book has an ominous, creepy feel to it. Weird things start happening at the rental properties for instance, and you can't help but feel that something bad is going to happen. The setting is a good one--a beachy, resort town--and it's easy to visualize the scene. I did enjoy how much this one kept me guessing. Maybe I should have figured things out earlier, but I didn't. I was intrigued about what happened to Sadie, and I kept reading because of that. That being said, I didn't really care about any of the characters in the book. Most of the characters, including the Lomans, seem rich and spoiled, and somehow, I just couldn't find a ton of affection for Avery. I was reading more out of curiosity versus an investment in their storyline.
Overall, this thriller is a quick read that kept me guessing. The characters aren't particularly likeable but the mystery is interesting and the setting somehow both ominous and picturesque. 3.5 stars.
So, I read this book in about 24 hours. It's a fast, quick read. A lot of the plot seems familiar--it was the second book of the last three, I'd read, for instance, where someone died suspiciously after falling off a cliff. The plot definitely has the tried-and-true feel of "friend obsessed with richer/prettier/etc. friend's death yet won't leave it to police even though it makes no sense to investigate on their own." You know where I'm coming from, right? You've been there before.
In this case, Avery is, of course, the local, with no money, who has been taken in by Sadie's family. They've funded her coursework, given her a place to live, and a job--she oversees all of the Loman's rental properties in Littleport. They even bought her grandmother's house. So Sadie--and her family--mean a lot to Avery.
"Sadie was my anchor, my coconspirator, the force that had grounded my life for so many years. If I imagined her jumping, then everything tilted precariously, just as it had that night."
The book is told entirely from Avery's point of view, but it goes back and forth in time. We get the night of the party, when Sadie died, and then the present, a year later. A memorial is coming up for Sadie, dredging up memories for Avery and causing her to question what happened that night. It's an effective formula--Miranda is good at playing with time.
The book has an ominous, creepy feel to it. Weird things start happening at the rental properties for instance, and you can't help but feel that something bad is going to happen. The setting is a good one--a beachy, resort town--and it's easy to visualize the scene. I did enjoy how much this one kept me guessing. Maybe I should have figured things out earlier, but I didn't. I was intrigued about what happened to Sadie, and I kept reading because of that. That being said, I didn't really care about any of the characters in the book. Most of the characters, including the Lomans, seem rich and spoiled, and somehow, I just couldn't find a ton of affection for Avery. I was reading more out of curiosity versus an investment in their storyline.
Overall, this thriller is a quick read that kept me guessing. The characters aren't particularly likeable but the mystery is interesting and the setting somehow both ominous and picturesque. 3.5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
