Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Iron Man (2008) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020
Where it all began
After becoming essentially bankrupt in the mid 90s, Marvel Comics ended up selling off the film rights of their properties to various film studios, resulting in a decade of new superhero franchises varying in quality, from X-Men, to Dardevil, Spider-Man to Hulk, Blade to Ghost Rider, and so on.
As such, none of these films we ever close to being part of a connected universe.
Along comes 2008, and Marvel Comics and Kevin Feige hit the scene with their first offering from Marvel Studios. A company determined to just that, with the properties they still have left.
Before 2008, Iron Man was a beloved character to the comic book faithful. A lot of casual moviegoers had no idea who he was, and Iron Man was essentially a B-list risk. And now, in 2020, that couldn't be further from the truth. The trifecta of Iron Man, Tony Stark, and Robert Downey Jr. are arguably the premier face of Marvel, and it's all thanks to this fantastic B-list risk.
Director Jon Favreau wastes no time in introducing us to Tony himself, and RDJ does a fine job of letting us know just how arrogant, clever and sarcastic the titular hero is. When everything goes wrong and Tony ends up captive in a terrorist environment, were given a pretty gritty origin story to how Iron Man came to be.
As Tony is quickly forced into a situation where his life becomes fragile, we see a slow burning but evident change in his behaviour, and RDJ does a great job in sweeping the audience up alongside him in his path to becoming the people's hero.
It's a simple and effective origin template that has definitely been borrowed again in other MCU projects (looking at you Dr Strange), but it's easy to see why.
Along side Downey Jr is the always charismatic Jeff Bridges. He plays Obadiah Stane, a villain who has close ties to the Stark family, and is an imposing presence throughout. His character sees him go full super villain, which honestly cheapens his otherwise great performance. Also, in the ensuing clash between Iron Man and Iron Monger, this is the first of many MCU films to do the whole 'villain-is-just-an-evil-version-of-the-hero' trope, which is fine here (let's not forget - first MCU film after all), but did become annoyingly predictable here and there.
Gwyneth Paltrow is Pepper Potts, and I suitably charming in the role, and still remains a fan favourite now.
We also have Terrance Howard as James Rhodes, the future War Machine. I enjoyed him here, and it's evident that he had good chemistry with RDJ. It's a shame that he didn't stay on for more films, but that's money for you I guess!
Considering this film is entering it's 12th year of existence, the CGI still holds up incredibly well. The classic red and gold Iron Man suit is striking and looks great. The action scenes are pretty thrilling and fun, something that Marvel Studios have excelled in since, and just to top it all off, the now infamous post credit scene sets up the conjoined Avengers franchise that we all know and love.
Iron Man is a solid first effort from Marvel Studios, and set the MCU running out the gates, whilst simultaneously setting up a new injection of quality into Marvel movies.
As such, none of these films we ever close to being part of a connected universe.
Along comes 2008, and Marvel Comics and Kevin Feige hit the scene with their first offering from Marvel Studios. A company determined to just that, with the properties they still have left.
Before 2008, Iron Man was a beloved character to the comic book faithful. A lot of casual moviegoers had no idea who he was, and Iron Man was essentially a B-list risk. And now, in 2020, that couldn't be further from the truth. The trifecta of Iron Man, Tony Stark, and Robert Downey Jr. are arguably the premier face of Marvel, and it's all thanks to this fantastic B-list risk.
Director Jon Favreau wastes no time in introducing us to Tony himself, and RDJ does a fine job of letting us know just how arrogant, clever and sarcastic the titular hero is. When everything goes wrong and Tony ends up captive in a terrorist environment, were given a pretty gritty origin story to how Iron Man came to be.
As Tony is quickly forced into a situation where his life becomes fragile, we see a slow burning but evident change in his behaviour, and RDJ does a great job in sweeping the audience up alongside him in his path to becoming the people's hero.
It's a simple and effective origin template that has definitely been borrowed again in other MCU projects (looking at you Dr Strange), but it's easy to see why.
Along side Downey Jr is the always charismatic Jeff Bridges. He plays Obadiah Stane, a villain who has close ties to the Stark family, and is an imposing presence throughout. His character sees him go full super villain, which honestly cheapens his otherwise great performance. Also, in the ensuing clash between Iron Man and Iron Monger, this is the first of many MCU films to do the whole 'villain-is-just-an-evil-version-of-the-hero' trope, which is fine here (let's not forget - first MCU film after all), but did become annoyingly predictable here and there.
Gwyneth Paltrow is Pepper Potts, and I suitably charming in the role, and still remains a fan favourite now.
We also have Terrance Howard as James Rhodes, the future War Machine. I enjoyed him here, and it's evident that he had good chemistry with RDJ. It's a shame that he didn't stay on for more films, but that's money for you I guess!
Considering this film is entering it's 12th year of existence, the CGI still holds up incredibly well. The classic red and gold Iron Man suit is striking and looks great. The action scenes are pretty thrilling and fun, something that Marvel Studios have excelled in since, and just to top it all off, the now infamous post credit scene sets up the conjoined Avengers franchise that we all know and love.
Iron Man is a solid first effort from Marvel Studios, and set the MCU running out the gates, whilst simultaneously setting up a new injection of quality into Marvel movies.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Fly (1986) in Movies
Oct 3, 2019
Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid
Seth Brundle is his own version of Dr Frankenstein. Instead of reanimating dead issue, his desire is to teleport flesh from one "telepod" to another.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Rabid (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Rose is the quiet assistant to a fashion designer, she has her own ideas that she does want to see made, the girls come to her to get small adjustments, but the designer treats her like a carpet. She isn’t seen in the same light as the models and often keeps to herself. She gets involved in an accident which first sees her horribly disfigured and secondly lose her job, desperate to fix this, she turns to an experimental procedure which fixes everything, giving her a new lease for life and a taste for blood. Brad is one of the co-workers that does try to help Rose come out of her shell by inviting her to the party before the accident. Chelsea is the foster sister to Rose that has been working with her too, she is the one that opens up her home after the accident, helping her get back on her feet, supporting her through the treatment, not looking away like most the others in her life would.
Performances – Laura Vandervoort does give us a strong performance throughout, being able to balance the losing her mind and determined personality. Hanneke Talbot is strong too and the supportive friend, that does get to show the pushy personality her character has around Rose. Benjamin Hollingsworth does show us a strong friend or potential love interest in the film, while big names like Stephen McHattie and C.M. Punk make entertaining supporting appearance.
Story – The story here follows a young lady that sees her life turned upside down after an accident leaves her disfigured, only for an experiment procedure bringing out a new version of herself and an unwanted side effect along the way. This is a remake and one story that can remain similar is places, while bringing the social side of the film to new heights, the fashion world does make a wonderful backdrop for the story because it reflects the world that image needs to be fix with surgery. There are certain ways the story does feel weaker, that is mostly seeing how everything is spreading, which is important, but it doesn’t follow Rose, which is the important side of the story.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror side of the film comes from the real world situation that Rose goes through, with the accident before hitting the graphic violence of what is happening to Rose, which is also the sci-fi side of the film, the changes Rose goes through.
Settings – The film uses the fashion world as the main settings backdrop, it shows us just how important image is to Rose and the people close to her.
Special Effects – The complete highlight of this film comes from the practical effects, which look as graphic as they can, the injury suffered by Rose is one of the worst wounds you will see in this year’s horror films. We should give a shout out to the team (According to IMDB) Graham Chivers, Jeff Derushie, Anahita Loghmanifar, Emily O’Quinn and Omar Roessler
Scene of the Movie – The first reveal from the injury.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do move away from Rose, as the bigger problems spread around the city, we could have been given more fear from not seeing this, only hearing about it.
Final Thoughts – This is a practical effects masterclass in horror, it will use some of the best you will see this year even if the story is a modernised look at a cult classic.
Overall: Bloody graphic horror.
Performances – Laura Vandervoort does give us a strong performance throughout, being able to balance the losing her mind and determined personality. Hanneke Talbot is strong too and the supportive friend, that does get to show the pushy personality her character has around Rose. Benjamin Hollingsworth does show us a strong friend or potential love interest in the film, while big names like Stephen McHattie and C.M. Punk make entertaining supporting appearance.
Story – The story here follows a young lady that sees her life turned upside down after an accident leaves her disfigured, only for an experiment procedure bringing out a new version of herself and an unwanted side effect along the way. This is a remake and one story that can remain similar is places, while bringing the social side of the film to new heights, the fashion world does make a wonderful backdrop for the story because it reflects the world that image needs to be fix with surgery. There are certain ways the story does feel weaker, that is mostly seeing how everything is spreading, which is important, but it doesn’t follow Rose, which is the important side of the story.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror side of the film comes from the real world situation that Rose goes through, with the accident before hitting the graphic violence of what is happening to Rose, which is also the sci-fi side of the film, the changes Rose goes through.
Settings – The film uses the fashion world as the main settings backdrop, it shows us just how important image is to Rose and the people close to her.
Special Effects – The complete highlight of this film comes from the practical effects, which look as graphic as they can, the injury suffered by Rose is one of the worst wounds you will see in this year’s horror films. We should give a shout out to the team (According to IMDB) Graham Chivers, Jeff Derushie, Anahita Loghmanifar, Emily O’Quinn and Omar Roessler
Scene of the Movie – The first reveal from the injury.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do move away from Rose, as the bigger problems spread around the city, we could have been given more fear from not seeing this, only hearing about it.
Final Thoughts – This is a practical effects masterclass in horror, it will use some of the best you will see this year even if the story is a modernised look at a cult classic.
Overall: Bloody graphic horror.
Need for Speed™ Hot Pursuit
Games and Sports
App
** NOW WITH AUTOLOG! Get into the ULTIMATE RACING COMPETITION and CLAIM YOUR $100K BOUNTY REWARD...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 8, 2022
After having the film halted and its release delayed by the Pandemic, “Jurassic World: Dominion” has finally arrived and closes out the new trilogy in a spectacle of action and visual splendor.
Picking up a few years after the events of “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom”, the dinosaurs have escaped into the wild and now mingle with and at times endanger society.
A multi-national company has been leading the way with a reserve to study the animals and their quirky leader Lewis Dodgson (Campbell Scott), promises the goal is to discover medicines that will benefit all of society.
At the same time, various concerns have arisen such as gigantic Locust swarms that threaten the food supply and activist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) is convinced that Dodgson and his company are behind it. Desperate to find answers, she seeks the help of Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) to get to the bottom of the mystery.
Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), find their lives disrupted by the poaching of a unique dinosaur and a genetically unique young girl named Maisie (Isabella Sermon) and this puts them on a path to recover them both which takes them into the illegal world of dinosaur sales and on a collision course with Ellie and her team.
The old and new cast faces numerous dangers along the way before they unite for a rousing final act which effectively combines the original and new trilogy and cast very well.
Director Colin Trevorrow takes his time getting the story up to speed as the early part of the film is heavy on characters and set up before getting to the action but once it starts, there is an endless parade of dinosaurs old and new to endanger the cast and keep the tension moving.
While people may be able to find fault with elements of the plot, pacing, and dialogue, the cast is very effective and it is nice to see the cast from the original series being given a much larger role and how elements from the first film are addressed which have been a point of debate for fans.
The visuals are impressive and there is no end of snarling, biting, and deadly creatures mixed in with favorites old and new while people may want more depth or variation, the creatures are the focal point of the story and the film provides plenty of what fans have come to expect.
The formula of gathering the cast and endangering them with an array of dinosaurs does not change much aside from the locales and creatures involved but fans of the series know what they are getting and “Jurassic World: Dominion” gives fans what they expect and does it well.
DeWanda Wise and Mamoudou Athie are nice additions to the cast and Isabella Sermon appears to be a breakout star in the making. It will be interesting to see how long Universal waits before returning the franchise to cinemas as they have mentioned taking a break following this film, hopefully, it will not be as long as the break between “Jurassic Park 3”, and “Jurassic World” as it will be interesting to see what the next summer event film in the series will offer.
4 stars out of 5.
Picking up a few years after the events of “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom”, the dinosaurs have escaped into the wild and now mingle with and at times endanger society.
A multi-national company has been leading the way with a reserve to study the animals and their quirky leader Lewis Dodgson (Campbell Scott), promises the goal is to discover medicines that will benefit all of society.
At the same time, various concerns have arisen such as gigantic Locust swarms that threaten the food supply and activist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) is convinced that Dodgson and his company are behind it. Desperate to find answers, she seeks the help of Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) to get to the bottom of the mystery.
Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), find their lives disrupted by the poaching of a unique dinosaur and a genetically unique young girl named Maisie (Isabella Sermon) and this puts them on a path to recover them both which takes them into the illegal world of dinosaur sales and on a collision course with Ellie and her team.
The old and new cast faces numerous dangers along the way before they unite for a rousing final act which effectively combines the original and new trilogy and cast very well.
Director Colin Trevorrow takes his time getting the story up to speed as the early part of the film is heavy on characters and set up before getting to the action but once it starts, there is an endless parade of dinosaurs old and new to endanger the cast and keep the tension moving.
While people may be able to find fault with elements of the plot, pacing, and dialogue, the cast is very effective and it is nice to see the cast from the original series being given a much larger role and how elements from the first film are addressed which have been a point of debate for fans.
The visuals are impressive and there is no end of snarling, biting, and deadly creatures mixed in with favorites old and new while people may want more depth or variation, the creatures are the focal point of the story and the film provides plenty of what fans have come to expect.
The formula of gathering the cast and endangering them with an array of dinosaurs does not change much aside from the locales and creatures involved but fans of the series know what they are getting and “Jurassic World: Dominion” gives fans what they expect and does it well.
DeWanda Wise and Mamoudou Athie are nice additions to the cast and Isabella Sermon appears to be a breakout star in the making. It will be interesting to see how long Universal waits before returning the franchise to cinemas as they have mentioned taking a break following this film, hopefully, it will not be as long as the break between “Jurassic Park 3”, and “Jurassic World” as it will be interesting to see what the next summer event film in the series will offer.
4 stars out of 5.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Oct 3, 2017
Plot Holes Galore (1 more)
Lack of Character Motivations
A Disappointing Sequel
Contains spoilers, click to show
You can look at this movie from two different perspectives. If you choose to see it as a dumb, switch-your-brain-off spy movie and are only going for the batshit insane action scenes, then you will have a good time. If you are looking for a decent comic book movie that serves as a sequel to the first movie and sets up a potential future franchise, then you will probably leave feeling similar to how I did, pretty disappointed.
The first movie was released with no hype behind it and for most people was a pleasant surprise. This film has a lot more to live up to and unfortunately it doesn't quite get there. Although the movie does feel like a sequel, it's not the worst sequel I've ever seen and it's not the worst sequel released this year.
Julianne Moore plays the antagonist in the movie and whilst her motivations for what she was doing were questionable, you could tell she was having fun with the character and it was a fun performance to watch. The action scenes were as fast paced and as fun as you would want them to be and although they do feel cartoony, there are a few crazy set pieces that you can’t help but grin at.
This movie also introduces the Statesman, an American version of the Kingsman who work out of a whisky factory rather than a tailor’s shop. Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry don’t get much screen time, which is fine, but Channing Tatum is hardly in the movie at all, despite appearing on a lot of the marketing for the film. I think he is onscreen in Hateful Eight for longer than he is in this.
Ok, spoiler time. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, don’t read on past this point. I mean if you have seen any of the trailers for the movie then you already know that they have brought Colin Firth back from the dead.
The explanation for this is sort of anti-climactic. Essentially, The Statesman have came up with a cure to gunshot wounds to the head and any other fatal wound that you may sustain, the process involves wrapping the wound in a gel strip and then inflating it with two syringes. Sure, you can argue this is a heightened reality where crazy stuff like this is entirely possible, but my problem with it, is that it immediately lowers all of the stakes. If anyone can be brought back from the dead, then how is there any peril left for the characters in the franchise?
After this whole revelation, they kill off Merlin, the character played by Mark Strong. His death is really pathetic and something that could have easily been avoided. Eggsy accidentally steps on a landmine, (even though they specifically point out that they are using a minesweeper,) then Merlin sprays the mine with a freeze gel so that Eggsy can step off of the mine and Merlin takes his place, then he distracts some guards and gets blown up. What I’m left wondering is the limit of what can be fixed with the regeneration strip. Surely if a bullet to the head can be walked off, then getting blown up by a landmine is fair game? Could they not have tried piecing him together like a jigsaw a wrapping him in the magic gel strips? I guess they could bring him back in the next movie and I’m sure if they do, we will know when the first trailer for Kingsman 3 is released.
Overall this isn’t a bad movie, it’s just disappointing. There are some entertaining action scenes, but rubbish dialogue and ridiculous plot elements make this inferior to the first Kingsman movie and pretty mediocre overall.
The first movie was released with no hype behind it and for most people was a pleasant surprise. This film has a lot more to live up to and unfortunately it doesn't quite get there. Although the movie does feel like a sequel, it's not the worst sequel I've ever seen and it's not the worst sequel released this year.
Julianne Moore plays the antagonist in the movie and whilst her motivations for what she was doing were questionable, you could tell she was having fun with the character and it was a fun performance to watch. The action scenes were as fast paced and as fun as you would want them to be and although they do feel cartoony, there are a few crazy set pieces that you can’t help but grin at.
This movie also introduces the Statesman, an American version of the Kingsman who work out of a whisky factory rather than a tailor’s shop. Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry don’t get much screen time, which is fine, but Channing Tatum is hardly in the movie at all, despite appearing on a lot of the marketing for the film. I think he is onscreen in Hateful Eight for longer than he is in this.
Ok, spoiler time. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, don’t read on past this point. I mean if you have seen any of the trailers for the movie then you already know that they have brought Colin Firth back from the dead.
The explanation for this is sort of anti-climactic. Essentially, The Statesman have came up with a cure to gunshot wounds to the head and any other fatal wound that you may sustain, the process involves wrapping the wound in a gel strip and then inflating it with two syringes. Sure, you can argue this is a heightened reality where crazy stuff like this is entirely possible, but my problem with it, is that it immediately lowers all of the stakes. If anyone can be brought back from the dead, then how is there any peril left for the characters in the franchise?
After this whole revelation, they kill off Merlin, the character played by Mark Strong. His death is really pathetic and something that could have easily been avoided. Eggsy accidentally steps on a landmine, (even though they specifically point out that they are using a minesweeper,) then Merlin sprays the mine with a freeze gel so that Eggsy can step off of the mine and Merlin takes his place, then he distracts some guards and gets blown up. What I’m left wondering is the limit of what can be fixed with the regeneration strip. Surely if a bullet to the head can be walked off, then getting blown up by a landmine is fair game? Could they not have tried piecing him together like a jigsaw a wrapping him in the magic gel strips? I guess they could bring him back in the next movie and I’m sure if they do, we will know when the first trailer for Kingsman 3 is released.
Overall this isn’t a bad movie, it’s just disappointing. There are some entertaining action scenes, but rubbish dialogue and ridiculous plot elements make this inferior to the first Kingsman movie and pretty mediocre overall.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Oct 27, 2017
Thor! (3 more)
Hulk!
Korg!
Everything else!
Finally, a decent Thor movie!
Thor movies have always been a bit hit and miss for me. The first one did a pretty decent, standard job of introducing Thor and the mythology surrounding him and home world of Asgard. It also introducing us to mischievous brother Loki, in preparation for his involvement in the Avengers and beyond. But, in my opinion the movie never really hit the mark in the way that the first Captain America or Iron Man movies did. The Dark World was just awful. I remember falling asleep halfway through and then waking up right at the end. Before I drifted off, Loki was dead. When I woke up, he was alive. I just couldn't be arsed to go back and find out what the hell had happened in-between, and I still don't know.
Since then, the appeal of Thor (aside from his obvious appeal to the ladies) has grown considerably via his other appearances within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. His humourous side began to show a lot more. Ragnarok just takes that side of him to a whole other level, delivering the funniest most ridiculous Marvel movie to date. And it's a joyous blast!
Things start as they mean to go on, with Thor dangling in chains before giant fire demon Surtur, constantly interrupting his monologue as he waffles on about destroying Asgard. Thor soon escapes, defeating a huge army and killing a dragon creature in an impressive battle sequence. Then, it's back to Asgard for a little bit of Loki mischief, down to Earth for a brief but hilarious meeting with one of the newest additions to the MCU, followed by a trip to Norway! And then it's time to introduce us to the big bad of the movie, banished sister of Thor and Loki, Hela the goddess of death (Cate Blanchett), who has returned to claim the throne of Asgard. It's no secret, if you've seen the trailer, that she's powerful enough to destroy Mjolnir, so when she does, Thor and Loki both know she means business. Hela banishes Thor to Sakaar, and that's where the crazy really kicks in. Captured by a Valkyrie from Asgard, Thor is transported to the fighting pits where he is set to meet the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum) and fight against his champion in the main event. It's at this point that we also meet Korg, a rock gladiator voiced by Taika Waititi himself, who manages to deliver many of the films funniest lines in a softly spoken Kiwi accent.
Again, if you've seen the trailer then you've already at this point got a pretty good idea who the champion gladiator is going to be. And the "He's a friend from work" line sums up just how much fun this entire scene is. Watching from the sidelines is Loki, and his reaction upon seeing Hulk, along with his reaction to the whole magnificent fight sequence, is hilarious. But, the one thing on Thor's mind is to get back to Asgard and stop Hela. And his plan involves eventually recruiting Hulk, the Valkyrie who captured him, and even Loki, to form a brand new team called 'The Revengers'!
Along with Thor, this is also the best use of Hulk within a Marvel movie so far. He has plenty more to say this time round, and with a wider range of emotions too. Most of the time though this involves being sulky and moody, and complaining about everyone on Earth thinking he's the stupidest Avenger. The banter between Thor and Hulk throughout the entire movie is just brilliant.
I tend to judge my Marvel movies on how often I catch myself gazing at the screen with a wide-eyed, slack-jawed geeky grin on my face and there were a lot of those moments during Ragnarok, especially during the final scenes. I can't remember the last time I had this much fun watching a Marvel movie!
Since then, the appeal of Thor (aside from his obvious appeal to the ladies) has grown considerably via his other appearances within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. His humourous side began to show a lot more. Ragnarok just takes that side of him to a whole other level, delivering the funniest most ridiculous Marvel movie to date. And it's a joyous blast!
Things start as they mean to go on, with Thor dangling in chains before giant fire demon Surtur, constantly interrupting his monologue as he waffles on about destroying Asgard. Thor soon escapes, defeating a huge army and killing a dragon creature in an impressive battle sequence. Then, it's back to Asgard for a little bit of Loki mischief, down to Earth for a brief but hilarious meeting with one of the newest additions to the MCU, followed by a trip to Norway! And then it's time to introduce us to the big bad of the movie, banished sister of Thor and Loki, Hela the goddess of death (Cate Blanchett), who has returned to claim the throne of Asgard. It's no secret, if you've seen the trailer, that she's powerful enough to destroy Mjolnir, so when she does, Thor and Loki both know she means business. Hela banishes Thor to Sakaar, and that's where the crazy really kicks in. Captured by a Valkyrie from Asgard, Thor is transported to the fighting pits where he is set to meet the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum) and fight against his champion in the main event. It's at this point that we also meet Korg, a rock gladiator voiced by Taika Waititi himself, who manages to deliver many of the films funniest lines in a softly spoken Kiwi accent.
Again, if you've seen the trailer then you've already at this point got a pretty good idea who the champion gladiator is going to be. And the "He's a friend from work" line sums up just how much fun this entire scene is. Watching from the sidelines is Loki, and his reaction upon seeing Hulk, along with his reaction to the whole magnificent fight sequence, is hilarious. But, the one thing on Thor's mind is to get back to Asgard and stop Hela. And his plan involves eventually recruiting Hulk, the Valkyrie who captured him, and even Loki, to form a brand new team called 'The Revengers'!
Along with Thor, this is also the best use of Hulk within a Marvel movie so far. He has plenty more to say this time round, and with a wider range of emotions too. Most of the time though this involves being sulky and moody, and complaining about everyone on Earth thinking he's the stupidest Avenger. The banter between Thor and Hulk throughout the entire movie is just brilliant.
I tend to judge my Marvel movies on how often I catch myself gazing at the screen with a wide-eyed, slack-jawed geeky grin on my face and there were a lot of those moments during Ragnarok, especially during the final scenes. I can't remember the last time I had this much fun watching a Marvel movie!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Utterly preposterous
Thor is arguably one of Marvel’s strongest characters. Played by the superb Chris Hemsworth since 2011, the God of thunder is one of the MCUs most popular assets.
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
Hardy, Williams elevate mediocre material
I had lowered my expectations when entering the new Sony film VENOM for I had heard that this non-MCU Marvel film wasn't really a Marvel - or a Spiderman - film, even though it features one of the more famous characters from the Spiderman Universe, which is, of course, a Marvel property.
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)