Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Snyder Cut sets up so much for future Justice League adventures, and those things would have been good... but the film absolutely didn't need to be this long to still do that, some of the scenes were so drawn out that it became painful. (I like Jason Momoa getting hit with buckets of water as much as the next person, but even I didn't need that full scene of him standing on the dock in the waves. At one point I wondered if they'd shot extra footage for an aftershave commercial.)
Overall it had a much more serious tone to it, and I don't mind that in a superhero film, but then it goes and throws in the petshop/hotdog scene. I feel like it was meant to be funny, but almost everything about it stuck out like a sore thumb in comparison to the rest of the film. I saw someone say they thought this version of the film was funnier in general compared to the first, I'm not sure we watched the same movie.
If you read my reviews you'll be aware of my feelings on "bizarre" ratios. In things like The Lighthouse I can see why they go with certain aspect ratios, but unless they're being shown on a screen that is that size they're really not for me, it's a distraction. This is a very personal feeling of course, there are a lot of people who like the aesthetics and style choices around this sort of thing. For me though, I want that full screen experience, especially with this sort of blockbuster.
I'm one of these strange people that likes most superhero movies, I liked the various Fantastic Fours, even Green Lantern... and I enjoyed the original Justice League cut. I gave it 4/5. And while seeing everything that was cut out of it makes me feel like we were robbed, I still enjoyed that movie on a rewatch. I'm unlikely to sit through the epic version again by choice, whereas I probably would rewatch the first one.
I always find it a little baffling when it comes to DC and Marvel. For me, Marvel always got the films right, but the TV shows were just okay. And DC always got the TV shows right and their films were okay. (When I'm saying okay I mean they're watchable but I wouldn't need to rush to rewatch them.) That felt like something that was on the change. Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam, all seemed to find a level that worked in a way I hadn't felt about their films in a while. I wanted to see them again, they mixed dramatic and fun in a way that Marvel have always been able to nail. But while this version of Justice League goes out and does its own thing, and that's perfectly acceptable, the tone felt wrong for the set of characters that were brought together... and when you put all the little niggles together from across the whole thing it leaves me with a film I'd be fine without.
Perhaps my rating of this is a little unfair, it has a lot of things I like in it after all. The negatives outweighed the bad in the end though, and as much as I like the Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman development, they wouldn't compel me to sit through it again. Not even in chunks.
Because this had a lot of different things to talk about it wasn't one of my usual reviews, you can find my full review here: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-movie.html
Overall it had a much more serious tone to it, and I don't mind that in a superhero film, but then it goes and throws in the petshop/hotdog scene. I feel like it was meant to be funny, but almost everything about it stuck out like a sore thumb in comparison to the rest of the film. I saw someone say they thought this version of the film was funnier in general compared to the first, I'm not sure we watched the same movie.
If you read my reviews you'll be aware of my feelings on "bizarre" ratios. In things like The Lighthouse I can see why they go with certain aspect ratios, but unless they're being shown on a screen that is that size they're really not for me, it's a distraction. This is a very personal feeling of course, there are a lot of people who like the aesthetics and style choices around this sort of thing. For me though, I want that full screen experience, especially with this sort of blockbuster.
I'm one of these strange people that likes most superhero movies, I liked the various Fantastic Fours, even Green Lantern... and I enjoyed the original Justice League cut. I gave it 4/5. And while seeing everything that was cut out of it makes me feel like we were robbed, I still enjoyed that movie on a rewatch. I'm unlikely to sit through the epic version again by choice, whereas I probably would rewatch the first one.
I always find it a little baffling when it comes to DC and Marvel. For me, Marvel always got the films right, but the TV shows were just okay. And DC always got the TV shows right and their films were okay. (When I'm saying okay I mean they're watchable but I wouldn't need to rush to rewatch them.) That felt like something that was on the change. Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam, all seemed to find a level that worked in a way I hadn't felt about their films in a while. I wanted to see them again, they mixed dramatic and fun in a way that Marvel have always been able to nail. But while this version of Justice League goes out and does its own thing, and that's perfectly acceptable, the tone felt wrong for the set of characters that were brought together... and when you put all the little niggles together from across the whole thing it leaves me with a film I'd be fine without.
Perhaps my rating of this is a little unfair, it has a lot of things I like in it after all. The negatives outweighed the bad in the end though, and as much as I like the Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman development, they wouldn't compel me to sit through it again. Not even in chunks.
Because this had a lot of different things to talk about it wasn't one of my usual reviews, you can find my full review here: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-movie.html
AmandaF (4 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Grows on you
Contains spoilers, click to show
I can see why this movie gets such a mixed bag with its reviews. There are certainly elements that could make you dislike the movie and those moments will be different for everyone.
Yes Luke seems out of character, but he is older and has made mistakes. He has demons to deal with, he is human is flawed. We just don't always like to see our hero's that way. Leia can tap into the force to save herself from floating into space (the difficult moment for me). There are weird flying space penguins, and the force can let you talk to people across the galaxy.
As a whole though the Last Jedi captures the essence of a Star Wars film. If The Force Awakens was a homage to the original trilogy then this movie is the one clearing the ground for something new. Stars Wars is set in a huge galaxy, the stories cannot always be about Skywalkers. The Last Jedi creates the opening for Rey, Finn and the other new blood to make their own stories.
Yes Luke seems out of character, but he is older and has made mistakes. He has demons to deal with, he is human is flawed. We just don't always like to see our hero's that way. Leia can tap into the force to save herself from floating into space (the difficult moment for me). There are weird flying space penguins, and the force can let you talk to people across the galaxy.
As a whole though the Last Jedi captures the essence of a Star Wars film. If The Force Awakens was a homage to the original trilogy then this movie is the one clearing the ground for something new. Stars Wars is set in a huge galaxy, the stories cannot always be about Skywalkers. The Last Jedi creates the opening for Rey, Finn and the other new blood to make their own stories.
Stephen (210 KP) rated The Dark (2018) in Movies
Mar 26, 2019
After watching the trailer for this, I had really high hopes. However, this turned out to be one of the worst films I have ever seen.
I don’t like writing bad reviews in general, but after sitting through this movie I felt compelled to express my views.
Remember that’s exactly what they are - MY views. I’m sure many others would enjoy this film, it’s just not for me.
For a start, the subject matter sets the story line up to fail, I don’t see how anyone could have achieved what the director was setting out to do.
The two main characters have both been subjected to terrible abuse, however only the female character’s history is fully explained - details of the male character’s abuse is merely hinted at.
I can honestly say that there was absolutely nothing I could find to like in this movie, and I really struggled to sit through it. And, like so many other movies of this genre, the ending was really confusing.
As I have previously stated, these are just my honest opinions - but I would be interested to know what other people think after watching this.
I don’t like writing bad reviews in general, but after sitting through this movie I felt compelled to express my views.
Remember that’s exactly what they are - MY views. I’m sure many others would enjoy this film, it’s just not for me.
For a start, the subject matter sets the story line up to fail, I don’t see how anyone could have achieved what the director was setting out to do.
The two main characters have both been subjected to terrible abuse, however only the female character’s history is fully explained - details of the male character’s abuse is merely hinted at.
I can honestly say that there was absolutely nothing I could find to like in this movie, and I really struggled to sit through it. And, like so many other movies of this genre, the ending was really confusing.
As I have previously stated, these are just my honest opinions - but I would be interested to know what other people think after watching this.
Nick Beaty (70 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020 (Updated Jan 13, 2020)
A must see for Laurel & Hardy fans...
This movie is a funny, moving and heartfelt biopic of the great Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy.
Director Jon S. Baird and writer Jeff Pope clearly have a great love for Laurel & Hardy and this shines through in Stan & Ollie. You can definitely see this film has been made with love and respect for the legendary comedy duo, which makes it a must see for Laurel & Hardy fans.
Steve Coogan & John C. Reilly are absolutely faultless with their performances. I have read a few reviews that don't really give Steve Coogan the credit he deserves for this role. For me he proves he is so much more than his Alan Partridge character that a lot of people can't seem to see past. Like the real thing it takes near on perfect comedy timing from both men to perform the routines and they do the original performances a huge justice.
To wrap things up whether you are a Laurel & Hardy fan or not this is still a very well made movie, with two exceptional performances from the lead actors. This should definitely be one to add to your watch list.
Director Jon S. Baird and writer Jeff Pope clearly have a great love for Laurel & Hardy and this shines through in Stan & Ollie. You can definitely see this film has been made with love and respect for the legendary comedy duo, which makes it a must see for Laurel & Hardy fans.
Steve Coogan & John C. Reilly are absolutely faultless with their performances. I have read a few reviews that don't really give Steve Coogan the credit he deserves for this role. For me he proves he is so much more than his Alan Partridge character that a lot of people can't seem to see past. Like the real thing it takes near on perfect comedy timing from both men to perform the routines and they do the original performances a huge justice.
To wrap things up whether you are a Laurel & Hardy fan or not this is still a very well made movie, with two exceptional performances from the lead actors. This should definitely be one to add to your watch list.
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated Downhill (2020) in Movies
Mar 14, 2020
404. Downhill. It has terrible reviews. Then i read them, and a lot of them seem to be hating because it's a remake of a foreign film. I didn't see it. But I liked this one, an uncomfortable comedy drama. Looking like the perfect family, Billie and Pete take the kids skiing, yay! Everything is going great, until one day at breakfast, one of the controlled avalanches goes a little out of bounds a bit and feels like a bunch of people are about to buried alive. Spoiler alert... In those seconds were they realize the snow is about to smack em hard, Billie puts her arms around her children and ducks down to protect them, Pete on the other hand, grabs his cell phone and splits, after its all over, the initial shock wears off and now Billie is left with the knowledge of what hubby did in the face of danger. Movie goes on to follow both on now their separate vacations, leading to some funny though uncomfortable situations. Check it out!! Will Ferrell was great as the slowing imploding Pete, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus was great as Billie trying to keep shit together! Filmbufftim on FB
The Ultimate Book of Gangster Movies: Featuring the 100 Greatest Gangster Films of All Time
George Anastasia, Glen Macnow, Joe Pistone and Donnie Brasco
Book
The gangster movie is one of the most popular genres in film. From the Italian, Irish, and Russian...
13 Reasons Why - Season 1
7.4
Rate It
TV Season Watch
13 Reasons Why (stylized onscreen as Th1rteen R3asons Why) is an American television series based on...
Zach Smith (62 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
What a pile of cinamatic shit!
Contains spoilers, click to show
I always check the contains spoilers because I might make mention of something that happen that would annoy some twat that reads reviews before seeing the movie. The original actors warned these assholes not to do this and they did, so I love how they get rewarded over probably 50 million or more because it was such a wash, trying to catch possible deadpool fans by rating it R so they can show headshots and demons rip apart humans. It felt pointless, we also have a kungfu expert that happend to transform into a werecheetah, WTF kind of stuppid shit is that? This moovie drags on forever even dragging King Arthurs legacy through shit as well. It has ok special effects that appear to be directly stolen from the mind of Del Toro, they just didnt want to pay him I guess. Just shameful and dreadful. Snorefactor of 1/0.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019
Masterful visuals, including many practical effects wonders (1 more)
Extraordinary score by Hans Zimmer
Relationships bud in the film, but feel forced (1 more)
A few plot-holes, albeit none thoroughly distracting
Contains spoilers, click to show
With two of the most scathing reviews I’ve written under my belt, I figured it was time to write about my favorite movie of all time, Christopher Nolan’s “Inception.”
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
Larry Eisner (2082 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
Vikander. She is excellent and plays this two-dimensional character far beyond the script. (3 more)
The supernatural elements
Did I mention Vikander’s superb performance?
Damn, Vikander was spectacular!
The script (3 more)
The tropes
The characters’ lack of dimension
Low hope for a sequel
It’s action. It’s rife with plot holes. It’s got an AMAZING lead.
Note: I was given a copy by SmashBomb to review.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.