Search
Search results
comiXology - Comics & Manga
Book, Comics and Entertainment
8.8
Rate It
App
Are you ready to explore over 100,000 digital comics, graphic novels and manga from Marvel, DC,...
3D Police Car Parking
Games
App
Chasing down the most wanted outlaws in your cop car is one thing you need to do as a cop. As a...
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of Call of Duty WWII in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The long running and very popular Call of Duty series has gone back to where it all began for the latest entry into the series. Call of Duty: WW2 returns the series to where the early games in the series were set and looks to restore its legacy as the best-selling series on the planet in doing so.
Last year’s Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare did not sell as well as other in the series had in recent years, and many fans were upset or divided over a futuristic setting that involved spaceships, energy weapons, and futuristic locations and technology.
It should be noted that the series has three developers working on games so developer Sledgehammer likely started work on the game before Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, and Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare shipped so the return to WW2 was something long in the planning.
The game opens with D-Day and players play as a young Private who is thrown headfirst into the conflict and learns the horrors of war as well as duty, honor, and sacrifice through his missions and interactions with members of his platoon.
Over the course of the missions, players will battle in highly-detailed maps and locales ranging from forests, bunkers, beaches, and bombed out cities as the Allies advance deeper and deeper into enemy held locales. The various locales for the game are so highly-detailed that they seem right out of a movie and would be a dream come true for location scouts looking for filming locations.
As anyone who has played a call of Duty game knows, they will be faced with waves of enemies to fight off as well as the usual stealth and vehicle missions. This time out there are a couple of driving missions as well as a clever one in a tank and one airborne fighter escort.
The attention to detail is very good as enemy Panzer tanks can take any fire from your tank head on, but have weaker armor in the bank which leads players to have to flank the enemy to survive.
Another new wrinkle is the health system which does not regenerate in the story mode and instead requires players to take cover and use a first aid kit in order to heal. The multiplayer portion does use a regenerative system so players can avoid any major disruptions in battle.
I really liked Josh Duhamel as the rough Sargent with a backstory. He was a very interesting character that kept me guessing as to his motivations and next moves as the story advanced.
Players could also call in ammo, mortar strikes, and health by requesting them from select members of their platoon. This could be tricky as when pinned down, having to move to another character to get needed items added to the challenge.
The weaponry was appropriate for the time and I had to adjust to slower load times, accuracy issues, and such with older tech, but it did give me a much greater level of immersion.
While I did enjoy the solo campaign, it did at times seem very familiar and as if I had seen and played some of it all before. I guess that is the trick with a series that has run as long as Call of Duty has as certain aspects of the gameplay are expected and while locations, weapons, locations, and characters may change, some things are going to be constant throughout the series.
The multiplayer aspects of the game really shine as not only are there numerous multiplayer modes, players can now pick a class such as Airborne, Recon, etc. which each have their own weapons and abilities and allow players to pick a division that best matches their abilities and gameplay style.
This comes in very handy in the new War mode where teams much battle one another to accomplish various objectives. Such as escorting tanks, protecting or stealing gas, and taking or defending key locales. My only issue is that this mode and many maps are camp fests where people with scoped rifles can easily hide in the back part of a map and pick off players as they spawn or enter the map. It seems far more pronounced in this game and leads to some frustrations. There is also the matter of iffy hit detection where players take half a clip from a machine gun point blank and yet can absorb them and one shit kill a player all while you unload on them.
There is also a very good Zombie mode where players take on wave after wave of undead soldiers as they attempt to get power restored and activate technology. The speed of the game is intense, the enemies numerous, and the ability to arm, armor up, and accessories your character is key as is having a good team around you.
As one person said that is Call of Duty and you know what you are in for if you have played any of the prior games. As such Call of Duty: World War 2 is not a radical new direction for the series, but rather a return to what made the series and is like slipping into a comfy pair of slippers after a long day., Familiar and comfortable and is in my opinion what the series needed.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/06/call-duty-ww2/
Last year’s Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare did not sell as well as other in the series had in recent years, and many fans were upset or divided over a futuristic setting that involved spaceships, energy weapons, and futuristic locations and technology.
It should be noted that the series has three developers working on games so developer Sledgehammer likely started work on the game before Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, and Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare shipped so the return to WW2 was something long in the planning.
The game opens with D-Day and players play as a young Private who is thrown headfirst into the conflict and learns the horrors of war as well as duty, honor, and sacrifice through his missions and interactions with members of his platoon.
Over the course of the missions, players will battle in highly-detailed maps and locales ranging from forests, bunkers, beaches, and bombed out cities as the Allies advance deeper and deeper into enemy held locales. The various locales for the game are so highly-detailed that they seem right out of a movie and would be a dream come true for location scouts looking for filming locations.
As anyone who has played a call of Duty game knows, they will be faced with waves of enemies to fight off as well as the usual stealth and vehicle missions. This time out there are a couple of driving missions as well as a clever one in a tank and one airborne fighter escort.
The attention to detail is very good as enemy Panzer tanks can take any fire from your tank head on, but have weaker armor in the bank which leads players to have to flank the enemy to survive.
Another new wrinkle is the health system which does not regenerate in the story mode and instead requires players to take cover and use a first aid kit in order to heal. The multiplayer portion does use a regenerative system so players can avoid any major disruptions in battle.
I really liked Josh Duhamel as the rough Sargent with a backstory. He was a very interesting character that kept me guessing as to his motivations and next moves as the story advanced.
Players could also call in ammo, mortar strikes, and health by requesting them from select members of their platoon. This could be tricky as when pinned down, having to move to another character to get needed items added to the challenge.
The weaponry was appropriate for the time and I had to adjust to slower load times, accuracy issues, and such with older tech, but it did give me a much greater level of immersion.
While I did enjoy the solo campaign, it did at times seem very familiar and as if I had seen and played some of it all before. I guess that is the trick with a series that has run as long as Call of Duty has as certain aspects of the gameplay are expected and while locations, weapons, locations, and characters may change, some things are going to be constant throughout the series.
The multiplayer aspects of the game really shine as not only are there numerous multiplayer modes, players can now pick a class such as Airborne, Recon, etc. which each have their own weapons and abilities and allow players to pick a division that best matches their abilities and gameplay style.
This comes in very handy in the new War mode where teams much battle one another to accomplish various objectives. Such as escorting tanks, protecting or stealing gas, and taking or defending key locales. My only issue is that this mode and many maps are camp fests where people with scoped rifles can easily hide in the back part of a map and pick off players as they spawn or enter the map. It seems far more pronounced in this game and leads to some frustrations. There is also the matter of iffy hit detection where players take half a clip from a machine gun point blank and yet can absorb them and one shit kill a player all while you unload on them.
There is also a very good Zombie mode where players take on wave after wave of undead soldiers as they attempt to get power restored and activate technology. The speed of the game is intense, the enemies numerous, and the ability to arm, armor up, and accessories your character is key as is having a good team around you.
As one person said that is Call of Duty and you know what you are in for if you have played any of the prior games. As such Call of Duty: World War 2 is not a radical new direction for the series, but rather a return to what made the series and is like slipping into a comfy pair of slippers after a long day., Familiar and comfortable and is in my opinion what the series needed.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/06/call-duty-ww2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Trivia question for you…what does an immortal evil queen, King Arthur, Nazis and a boy born from Hell itself have in common? If you answered Hellboy you win a prize. The prize is going to the theater and watching the film and whether it’s a prize worth winning is something you’ll have to decide for yourself. I’m getting a bit ahead of myself though, so let’s rewind a bit and start at the beginning.
Hellboy (David Harbour) is a demon from Hell (hence the name), his backstory as we learn early on in the movie is pretty standard fare. The Nazi’s are on the verge of losing World War II and in a desperate move to turn the tide call upon the evil sorcerer Rasputin to call upon the depths of Hell and raise a champion who will fight for them. The incantation is interrupted when famous Nazi hunter Lobster Johnson (Thomas Haden Church) goes in with guns blazing, as other allied troops join the fray. Their relief at stopping the incantation is short-lived as the alter opens and a young demon climbs through. Professor Broom who had infiltrated the Nazi team had been brought in to put down any evil that was successfully summoned. Upon seeing the young demon, Professor Broom (for reasons known only to him at the time) decides not to kill him, but to take him in and raise him as his own.
Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy as we now know him alongside his father are members of the B.P.R.D (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense). On a mission to defeat some giants that are roaming the countryside in England they stumble upon an ancient evil that dark forces are trying to retrieve. It seems back in the dark ages a war between humans and monsters was being waged. Seeing no end to the violence King Arthur (Mark Stanley) and his faithful wizard Merlin (Brian Gleeson) offer to surrender to The Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich). On top the hill where the surrender is to take place, the Blood Queen is betrayed by one of her own and King Arthur, using the infamous blade Excalibur, cut the Blood Queen into several parts. While she can’t be killed, she can be contained and each of her body parts are placed in separate boxes. These boxes are then sealed with holy water that only a holy man can unlock and are sent to the farthest corners of England. If the Blood Queen ever returns, she will release a plague that will not only destroy England but spread across the entire world. Thus, sets the stage for Hellboy.
Being a fan of the previous movies and in particular the portrayal of Hellboy by Ron Pearlman, I wasn’t sure how to feel about David Harbour in this role. It’s always a bit hit or miss when a series is rebooted, and I was pleasantly surprised with how David Harbour stepped up and into the role. While he doesn’t have the same menacing size and gruffness that Ron Pearlman possesses, it didn’t take me long to adjust to this new version. He is joined by a strong supporting cast consisting of Sasha Lane as his ghost whispering friend Alice and Ben Daimo as an MI-11 agent weary of teaming up with a monster. Milla Jovovich does an outstanding job as the Blood Queen and her fairy-pig friend portrayed by Stephen Graham and Douglas Tait.
Visually the movie is stunning, with the numerous monsters and fairy creatures coming to life before your eyes. The movie is exceptionally gory as one might expect, with numerous limb dismemberments, decapitations, and more blood than anyone would expect to erupt from such wounds. It’s over-the-top and meant to be that way which tended to bring some uncomfortable laughter at times from those around me. Having recently played Mortal Kombat 11, I couldn’t help but feel that some of the fatality screens in that game would have felt right at home in this movie.
Story is where I feel Hellboy falls a bit flat. There are so many characters and side stories going on that it’s easy to get lost in it. From my description above, you can see that it includes King Arthur, Rasputin, Nazis, Secret Societies, Witches that eat children, monsters…and that’s only in the first half of the movie. There is a ton going on and there are a lot of disconnects. While trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the film where Hellboy is talking to Baba Yaga (see another character reference), and after tricking her she places a curse on him. I’m still trying to figure out if the curse she placed on him occurred in the movie or not. In fact, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the point of that scene was. It’s not a bad story, but it tries to pack in a TON of references in its brief hour and forty five-ish minutes.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never read any of the Hellboy graphic novels, I have seen both of the previous films, so I had a little bit of background going into this movie. I don’t know if all the references in the movie are pivotal to the novels or not. You certainly don’t have to have read them or seen the previous movies to appreciate this one, I just wonder if they tried to fit in too many Hellboy references into one film. Hellboy is an enjoyable ride, and it certainly doesn’t drag at all, in fact I was surprised at how quickly it was over. With all that being said, it’s a fun action-packed movie, with lots of gratuitous violence if that’s your thing. I certainly wouldn’t recommend taking your children to see it, violence aside, I just think there is way too much going on and it can be difficult to follow. Oh, and don’t forget to stay through the credits for the end credit scene. It’s not pivotal to the movie, but worth waiting around for.
Hellboy (David Harbour) is a demon from Hell (hence the name), his backstory as we learn early on in the movie is pretty standard fare. The Nazi’s are on the verge of losing World War II and in a desperate move to turn the tide call upon the evil sorcerer Rasputin to call upon the depths of Hell and raise a champion who will fight for them. The incantation is interrupted when famous Nazi hunter Lobster Johnson (Thomas Haden Church) goes in with guns blazing, as other allied troops join the fray. Their relief at stopping the incantation is short-lived as the alter opens and a young demon climbs through. Professor Broom who had infiltrated the Nazi team had been brought in to put down any evil that was successfully summoned. Upon seeing the young demon, Professor Broom (for reasons known only to him at the time) decides not to kill him, but to take him in and raise him as his own.
Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy as we now know him alongside his father are members of the B.P.R.D (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense). On a mission to defeat some giants that are roaming the countryside in England they stumble upon an ancient evil that dark forces are trying to retrieve. It seems back in the dark ages a war between humans and monsters was being waged. Seeing no end to the violence King Arthur (Mark Stanley) and his faithful wizard Merlin (Brian Gleeson) offer to surrender to The Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich). On top the hill where the surrender is to take place, the Blood Queen is betrayed by one of her own and King Arthur, using the infamous blade Excalibur, cut the Blood Queen into several parts. While she can’t be killed, she can be contained and each of her body parts are placed in separate boxes. These boxes are then sealed with holy water that only a holy man can unlock and are sent to the farthest corners of England. If the Blood Queen ever returns, she will release a plague that will not only destroy England but spread across the entire world. Thus, sets the stage for Hellboy.
Being a fan of the previous movies and in particular the portrayal of Hellboy by Ron Pearlman, I wasn’t sure how to feel about David Harbour in this role. It’s always a bit hit or miss when a series is rebooted, and I was pleasantly surprised with how David Harbour stepped up and into the role. While he doesn’t have the same menacing size and gruffness that Ron Pearlman possesses, it didn’t take me long to adjust to this new version. He is joined by a strong supporting cast consisting of Sasha Lane as his ghost whispering friend Alice and Ben Daimo as an MI-11 agent weary of teaming up with a monster. Milla Jovovich does an outstanding job as the Blood Queen and her fairy-pig friend portrayed by Stephen Graham and Douglas Tait.
Visually the movie is stunning, with the numerous monsters and fairy creatures coming to life before your eyes. The movie is exceptionally gory as one might expect, with numerous limb dismemberments, decapitations, and more blood than anyone would expect to erupt from such wounds. It’s over-the-top and meant to be that way which tended to bring some uncomfortable laughter at times from those around me. Having recently played Mortal Kombat 11, I couldn’t help but feel that some of the fatality screens in that game would have felt right at home in this movie.
Story is where I feel Hellboy falls a bit flat. There are so many characters and side stories going on that it’s easy to get lost in it. From my description above, you can see that it includes King Arthur, Rasputin, Nazis, Secret Societies, Witches that eat children, monsters…and that’s only in the first half of the movie. There is a ton going on and there are a lot of disconnects. While trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the film where Hellboy is talking to Baba Yaga (see another character reference), and after tricking her she places a curse on him. I’m still trying to figure out if the curse she placed on him occurred in the movie or not. In fact, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the point of that scene was. It’s not a bad story, but it tries to pack in a TON of references in its brief hour and forty five-ish minutes.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never read any of the Hellboy graphic novels, I have seen both of the previous films, so I had a little bit of background going into this movie. I don’t know if all the references in the movie are pivotal to the novels or not. You certainly don’t have to have read them or seen the previous movies to appreciate this one, I just wonder if they tried to fit in too many Hellboy references into one film. Hellboy is an enjoyable ride, and it certainly doesn’t drag at all, in fact I was surprised at how quickly it was over. With all that being said, it’s a fun action-packed movie, with lots of gratuitous violence if that’s your thing. I certainly wouldn’t recommend taking your children to see it, violence aside, I just think there is way too much going on and it can be difficult to follow. Oh, and don’t forget to stay through the credits for the end credit scene. It’s not pivotal to the movie, but worth waiting around for.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Hopefully this truly is Last Blood.
In Sylvester Stallone's fifth and (hopefully) final outing as one-man army John Rambo, we find the eponymous hero enjoying the quiet life on the Texas ranch he returned to at the end of "Rambo (2008)".
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Iron Lady (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Meryl Streep certainly has an impressive roster of films under her belt. She’s reduced Anne Hathaway to tears in The Devil Wears Prada, she’s played the role of struggling hotelier in the all singing, all dancing Mamma Mia and has racked up an astonishing 16 Oscar nominations for films like Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie’s Choice. However, here, she perhaps takes on her biggest role to date portraying arguably the most controversial figure in British politics; Baroness Thatcher. Can she pull it off? Did you really need to ask?
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Streep teams up with Mammia Mia director Phyllida Lloyd in the Iron Lady, a biopic surrounding the life of ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and between the two of them and a wonderful supporting cast, deliver a stunning but disappointingly safe take on the 86 year olds life.
The film opens with a frail looking woman wandering the streets and buying a bottle of milk, we soon learn that this woman is of course, Baroness Thatcher. After a thought provoking moment of silence, the scene is switched to her current home where she is kept under lock and key, struggling with ever worsening dementia. Her constant conversations with dead husband Dennis, played fabulously by Jim Broadbent are emotional and form the basis of the entire film.
It is in these scenes that we begin to ‘study’ Thatcher’s life from her youth right up until the present day. We see her refusing to give up after failing to gain a seat in the 1950 and 1951 general elections as well as her first steps into Number 10 as the first ever female Prime Minister. Lloyd displays these moments with great finesse and integrates Streep’s portrayal with real footage of Thatcher walking into 10 Downing Street amongst other key moments.
Most of the major events in Margaret’s career are carried over into the film, bar a few notable exceptions. The Grand Hotel bombing, the Falklands war, the death of Thatcher’s personal assistant at the hands of the IRA and of course the controversial Poll Tax all make the grade but are explained in a way that isn’t damaging to the reputation of the Baroness and this is perhaps where the film loses its way a little.
There’ll be no prizes in telling you that Margaret Thatcher was either a fantastic woman who turned around the fates of a country struggling with recession or a woman who nearly destroyed everything we hold dear; depending obviously on your thoughts of her. No matter what thoughts we all have, opinions are opinions. Here, however, the film tries to make up the minds of those watching, rather than allowing an opinion to form on its own and this is perhaps the biggest problem with a political biopic, there is always a sense of bias.
Fortunately, Lloyd stays on the right side of mass appeal and doesn’t give in to mindless brown-nosing.
It is in the films present day moments that really shine. Seeing a woman who wanted to change the world struggle to cope with the loss of her husband and fall into dementia is, no matter what your opinion on the ex-Prime Minister, heart-breaking. It is here, that sympathy is found.
Streep’s performance is stunning to say the least and she is a joy to watch. Her transgression from young, enthusiastic Thatcher to the old and frail woman we see today is yes, in part down to the astonishing make-up given to her throughout but mainly because of her ability as an actress. She, like the lady herself takes charge of every scene she is a part of, something which many actresses struggle to do. Streep may have had her critics in being cast for this film, but she has proved them wrong. It will be a crime if she isn’t nominated for an Oscar this year.
Of the films other cast, Olivia Colman does well as Margaret’s daughter Carole and as mentioned previously, Jim Broadbent is brilliant as the deceased Dennis Thatcher; he fits the role perfectly and again should be nominated for an Oscar later this year. The supporting cast includes the likes of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe and Nicholas Farrell as Thatcher’s murdered assistant Airey Neave, but the scenes with these characters are often overshadowed by Streep’s presence.
The Iron Lady is a joy to behold. It makes you proud to be British, to know that we as a country can produce films of this calibre and it shows the world just what a woman Margaret Thatcher was. In the scenes showing Thatcher’s spiral into dementia is where it becomes most touching, but throughout, we get a full, if slightly biased view of her 11 and a half years in office and Meryl Streep does the old girl proud.
Think what you will of the former Conservative leader, but The Iron Lady is worth a watch for Streep’s performance alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/12/review-the-iron-lady-2011/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Kingdom (2019) in Movies
Aug 12, 2019
Action sequences. (2 more)
The Mountain Tribe.
Zuo Ci.
134-minute duration feels like a marathon. (1 more)
Drags a lot in its first half.
I haven’t read any of the 55 volumes (and counting) of Yasuhisa Hara’s Kingdom manga or watched any of the 77 episodes of the anime adapted by animation studio Pierrot (Bleach, Yu Yu Hakusho, and Tokyo Ghoul among many others). To make matters worse, I haven’t seen any of the films by director and co-screenwriter Shinsuke Sato (the two live-action Gantz films, Death Note: Light Up the New World, the live-action Bleach film for Netflix). I’m going into Kingdom completely blind and I have no idea if that makes the viewing experience any better or worse.
In 255 B.C., Kingdom revolves around the quick-tempered and charge-headfirst-into-battle-without-thinking Xin (Kento Yamazaki) that dreams of being the greatest general of the Qin Kingdom. There’s other stuff going on; a bloody 500 year war between the seven states of China, Xin’s best friend Piao (Ryô Yoshizawa) being enlisted by the King only to turn around and be killed, and King Yin Zheng being a splitting image of Piao, but nothing is emphasized or screamed louder than Xin’s desire to become the greatest general China has ever known.
Kingdom feels like it’s about 45 minutes too long for its own good. The first hour seems to drag as blood spraying into the air every now and then isn’t enough to keep you fully intrigued. The manga is an exaggerated recounting of Zheng actually becoming king in 221 B.C. during the Warring States period and eventually unifying China while the characters are loosely based on actual historical figures. The action adventure film attempts to portray Xin and Piao as worthy and capable swordsman because they clunked stick swords together 10,000 times in an empty field throughout their childhood and teenage years.
The film tries to compensate for its slow first hour with a more eventful second half, but it doesn’t totally succeed. Yang Duan He (Masami Nagasawa) and her mountain tribe are pretty awesome. Their masks remind you of something straight out of Princess Mononoke and you’ll be trying your hardest not to compare Yang Duan He to Xena: Warrior Princess. There’s this competition for the throne that gets a little complicated. Zheng’s brother Cheng Jiao (Kanata Hongo) is nasty and heartless and basically a human version of Salacious Crumb sitting on an even more elaborate version of Jabba the Hutt’s dais. Zheng and Jiao have the same father, but different mothers; Jiao’s is of royal blood and Zheng’s is a dancer or, in other words, a commoner. Jiao viewed peasantry as being bone deep; it isn’t something that can ever go away.
The main theme of Kingdom sounds like a direct ripoff of the main Guardians of the Galaxy theme, which is kind of brain-numbing. The prosthetics in the film are questionable with Li Dian, the original slave owner of Xin and Piao, having this awkwardly orange colored face, inhumanly puffy cheeks, stringy facial hair, and the ugliest facial expressions imaginable. After Xin joins up with Zheng, a girl in a bushy owl costume named He Liao Diao (Kanna Hasimoto) is mostly only around to take everyone to the mountains later. The chemistry Xin, Zheng, and Diao have is reminiscent of what Mugen, Jin, and Foo have in Samurai Champloo. Another observation is that Xin is basically Goku with Vegeta’s short-fuse temper; he lives to fight and eat, he’s dumber than a bag of rocks, and he can’t identify a woman when she’s standing directly in front of him.
Cheng Jiao’s go-to henchman, former general and current hitman for hire Zuo Ci (Tak Sakaguchi) may be the film’s coolest character. He doesn’t care about anybody, tells Xin that all dreams are BS, and is a part of what is arguably the best action sequence in the film. Meanwhile, General Wang Yi (Takao Ohsawa), the most renowned general in all of China and the guy with the status Xin plans on taking in the future, is a bit overrated. He mostly just parades his weird and pointy facial hair around and swings his giant sword as if it won’t remind us of Guts from Berserk.
All in all, Kingdom is a decent action adventure that just takes a while to really get going. The performances aren’t totally satisfying with Kento Yamazaki hamming it up on more than occasion and taking the brainless dolt with a huge mouth thing to uncomfortable levels. The story isn’t exactly hard to follow, but it does feel like it’s trying to be more convoluted than it needs to be. You don’t feel any sort of attachment to any of the characters and any sort of twist can be seen long before the reveal. Kingdom is just an okay way to spend two hours that is probably a justifiable rental on a day when you have nothing better to do, but is not worth paying full price to own.
In 255 B.C., Kingdom revolves around the quick-tempered and charge-headfirst-into-battle-without-thinking Xin (Kento Yamazaki) that dreams of being the greatest general of the Qin Kingdom. There’s other stuff going on; a bloody 500 year war between the seven states of China, Xin’s best friend Piao (Ryô Yoshizawa) being enlisted by the King only to turn around and be killed, and King Yin Zheng being a splitting image of Piao, but nothing is emphasized or screamed louder than Xin’s desire to become the greatest general China has ever known.
Kingdom feels like it’s about 45 minutes too long for its own good. The first hour seems to drag as blood spraying into the air every now and then isn’t enough to keep you fully intrigued. The manga is an exaggerated recounting of Zheng actually becoming king in 221 B.C. during the Warring States period and eventually unifying China while the characters are loosely based on actual historical figures. The action adventure film attempts to portray Xin and Piao as worthy and capable swordsman because they clunked stick swords together 10,000 times in an empty field throughout their childhood and teenage years.
The film tries to compensate for its slow first hour with a more eventful second half, but it doesn’t totally succeed. Yang Duan He (Masami Nagasawa) and her mountain tribe are pretty awesome. Their masks remind you of something straight out of Princess Mononoke and you’ll be trying your hardest not to compare Yang Duan He to Xena: Warrior Princess. There’s this competition for the throne that gets a little complicated. Zheng’s brother Cheng Jiao (Kanata Hongo) is nasty and heartless and basically a human version of Salacious Crumb sitting on an even more elaborate version of Jabba the Hutt’s dais. Zheng and Jiao have the same father, but different mothers; Jiao’s is of royal blood and Zheng’s is a dancer or, in other words, a commoner. Jiao viewed peasantry as being bone deep; it isn’t something that can ever go away.
The main theme of Kingdom sounds like a direct ripoff of the main Guardians of the Galaxy theme, which is kind of brain-numbing. The prosthetics in the film are questionable with Li Dian, the original slave owner of Xin and Piao, having this awkwardly orange colored face, inhumanly puffy cheeks, stringy facial hair, and the ugliest facial expressions imaginable. After Xin joins up with Zheng, a girl in a bushy owl costume named He Liao Diao (Kanna Hasimoto) is mostly only around to take everyone to the mountains later. The chemistry Xin, Zheng, and Diao have is reminiscent of what Mugen, Jin, and Foo have in Samurai Champloo. Another observation is that Xin is basically Goku with Vegeta’s short-fuse temper; he lives to fight and eat, he’s dumber than a bag of rocks, and he can’t identify a woman when she’s standing directly in front of him.
Cheng Jiao’s go-to henchman, former general and current hitman for hire Zuo Ci (Tak Sakaguchi) may be the film’s coolest character. He doesn’t care about anybody, tells Xin that all dreams are BS, and is a part of what is arguably the best action sequence in the film. Meanwhile, General Wang Yi (Takao Ohsawa), the most renowned general in all of China and the guy with the status Xin plans on taking in the future, is a bit overrated. He mostly just parades his weird and pointy facial hair around and swings his giant sword as if it won’t remind us of Guts from Berserk.
All in all, Kingdom is a decent action adventure that just takes a while to really get going. The performances aren’t totally satisfying with Kento Yamazaki hamming it up on more than occasion and taking the brainless dolt with a huge mouth thing to uncomfortable levels. The story isn’t exactly hard to follow, but it does feel like it’s trying to be more convoluted than it needs to be. You don’t feel any sort of attachment to any of the characters and any sort of twist can be seen long before the reveal. Kingdom is just an okay way to spend two hours that is probably a justifiable rental on a day when you have nothing better to do, but is not worth paying full price to own.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Marylegs (44 KP) rated After Before in Books
Aug 14, 2019
I received After Before, a while ago as a first reads book. I started it a while ago, but have recently re-picked it up and became completely engrossed by it. The pause in reading this book was not based on how engaging I found this book. But rather I was focused on other books I was reading. Once I dedicated my time to this book however, I couldnt stop. When I wasnt reading it I was thinking out it, and it was based actually about a point of history I didnt know about, or at least didnt know a lot about.
The book focuses on three women, who through chance are pulled into each others lives. There is Vera, newly engaged and newly discovering her faith in god. Her fiancé Luke, a devote Christian is helping her to change her life for the better, to move forward and overcome her past. But there is so much more to her past than she has told Luke and she finds it impossible to move on and become better while she still hold onto these secrets. Luke is Veras link to Lynn, his mother, who has found out she has terminal cancer and has to relinquish her control on the life. As she comes to terms with her illness and what will be her untimely death she relives elements of her life that she resents and was unable to achieve because of the choices she made. Vera tries to help care for Lynn, but the two cannot come to terms with each other and so Emily, originally from Rwanda, is brought in to care for Lynn. Emily is a survivor of the Rwandan genocide, and has not come to terms with all that she has seen, or what was done to her. She drifts through her life never wanting to remember her past but forever at its whim. The story flits back and forth through the present and the past for each of the three women. All with different stories but all in pain and unable to let go.
I found Emilys story the most interesting, I could have read a book just about her and how she learns to deal with the horrible event that has overtaken her life. Her flash backs are so well written, graphic in places, but dignified to the history that these people have to live with. We hear a lot about the injustice and the horror of the holocaust, which happened in the Second World War. But learning about the Rwandan Genocide through Emilys 12 year old eyes really touched me. I could feel the fear building, know what was to happen but having to control over it. Knowing that the people who were yesterday your friends are no longer that.
This is a brilliantly written book about forgiveness. That without forgiveness, whether that is for yourself, through god, or for other people, that you will not be able to move on and truly live. Would highly recommend it is however not a light-hearted or emotionally easy read.
The book focuses on three women, who through chance are pulled into each others lives. There is Vera, newly engaged and newly discovering her faith in god. Her fiancé Luke, a devote Christian is helping her to change her life for the better, to move forward and overcome her past. But there is so much more to her past than she has told Luke and she finds it impossible to move on and become better while she still hold onto these secrets. Luke is Veras link to Lynn, his mother, who has found out she has terminal cancer and has to relinquish her control on the life. As she comes to terms with her illness and what will be her untimely death she relives elements of her life that she resents and was unable to achieve because of the choices she made. Vera tries to help care for Lynn, but the two cannot come to terms with each other and so Emily, originally from Rwanda, is brought in to care for Lynn. Emily is a survivor of the Rwandan genocide, and has not come to terms with all that she has seen, or what was done to her. She drifts through her life never wanting to remember her past but forever at its whim. The story flits back and forth through the present and the past for each of the three women. All with different stories but all in pain and unable to let go.
I found Emilys story the most interesting, I could have read a book just about her and how she learns to deal with the horrible event that has overtaken her life. Her flash backs are so well written, graphic in places, but dignified to the history that these people have to live with. We hear a lot about the injustice and the horror of the holocaust, which happened in the Second World War. But learning about the Rwandan Genocide through Emilys 12 year old eyes really touched me. I could feel the fear building, know what was to happen but having to control over it. Knowing that the people who were yesterday your friends are no longer that.
This is a brilliantly written book about forgiveness. That without forgiveness, whether that is for yourself, through god, or for other people, that you will not be able to move on and truly live. Would highly recommend it is however not a light-hearted or emotionally easy read.