Search
Search results
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)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the biggest challenges with an ongoing series is crafting a story that is on par or better than the prior offering and that the characters continue to grow so audiences do not get a rehash of what they have seen before.
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
With “Thor Ragnarok” Chris Hemsworth has returned for his third solo outing, and fifth outing overall as the heroic Asgardian warrior Thor.
This time out Thor is on his quest to track down the Infinity Stones and finds himself plagued by visions of Ragnarok: a legend detailing the fiery destruction of his home of Asgard.
With an action laden opening, Thor believes he has ended the threat and returns home to find his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins), has been sent to Earth and his evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assuming his place.
Thor ventures to Earth with his brother which sets a series of events into motion, the result of which unleashes the long imprisoned Hela (Cate Blanchett), who plans the subjugation of Thor and Asgard. Naturally Thor is not going to put up with this, but finds himself mid battle knocked out of his transit home and on a remote world called Sakaar.
As if being stranded far from home is not enough of a challenge, Thor is forced to become a gladiator for the erratic Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), whom Loki has managed to charm and become a part of his inner circle.
As fate has it, Thor becomes matched with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and must find a way to survive and make his way home before Hella can destroy all that he holds precious.
The film is the best of the Thor films and it is engaging from start to finish. There is a significant amount of humor in the film but it does not feel forced and is very appropriate to many of the scenes. The film also has plenty of action and the blend between comedy and action is deftly handed by Director TaiKa Waititi who never lets the film become a parody of itself nor take itself too seriously at times. He knows when there is a time to laugh and when there is a time to be deathly serious.
This allows for a deeper and more enjoyable and engaging Thor than has been previously seen. He is not as one-dimensional as he has been in the past as the strong, quick to anger muscle that I would love to see explored in further outings.
I had worried from the trailers that the movie might be more of a video game as it seemed heavily dependent on retro style CGI and camp humor which made it seem like something out of the 80s. While there are elements of that, the film mixes the old and new to create one of the most authentic and enjoyable comic adaptations seen to date. It continues the winning formula of Marvel Studios and of course, sets up the next outing for Thor in “Avengers: Infinity War” as well as the larger Marvel Universe as we a whole. The film also has some great cameos and I am curious to see how the addition of the newly introduced characters will be explored down the road. The return of Hiddleston was also a real treat as he is so good as the mercurial but always sly and dangerous Loki that he commands your complete attention every time he appears on screen.
Marvel has once again set very high standards for comic based movies and has again delivered another winner that you will not want to miss.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/01/thor-ragnarok-2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Iron Man (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The summer 0f 2008 movie season kicks off in a big way with the release of “Iron Man”, the latest in a long line of popular Marvel Comics superheroes to make the leap to the big screen.
Robert Downey JR. stars as Tony Stark a Billionaire playboy who owns a vast company that is known mainly for manufacturing weapon systems. When the film opens, Stark is ambushed shortly after a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan and is wounded by the attackers who take Stark into captivity.
Using a device to keep the shrapnel from his vital organs and thus keep him alive, Stark is forced to create a weapon for his captors who plan to use the creative genius of Stark for their own nefarious schemes.
Stark turns the tables on his captors and devices a special suit which allows him to escape, and eventually make his way back to America after three long and harrowing months of captivity.
One back in home, Stark starts to take stock of his life and realizes that many of the weapons he designed to protect America are now being used by other factions to kill those they were designed to protect. When Stark announces to the press that he is stopping the manufacture of weapons by his company he is viewed as suffering from the long captivity and finds himself at odds with the shareholders and board of directors, as well as his long time advisor and friend Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges).
Undaunted, Stark begins to build a prototype suit in his lab, and soon emerges as an iron clad crusader who is obsessed with keeping the bad guys from using the weapons his company created against the innocent.
Assisted by his friend in the military Colonel Rhodes (Terrance Howard) and the lovely Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Tony Stark soon finds himself caught in an even more dastardly plot, and needs every ounce of his creativity and his latest invention to keep the world safe.
The movie is a pure delight and it was nice to see a summer movie that actually had some plot and character development, and did not try to dumb the material down for the audience or let the film be carried entirely by the special effects.
The movie also has some moments of good humor which work well within the film as much of it comes from the quick wit of or at the expense of Stark.
Robert Downey JR. is perfect in the role as he perfectly captures the character without making him to over the top as often is the case in many comic adaptations. He portrays Stark exactly as he is portrayed in the comics, a hard drinking womanizer, who is forced to take stock of his life, and make changes.
The supporting performances by Paltrow, Howard, and Bridges help make the film stand out as does the solid work by Director John Favreau who clearly has a grasp on the character and story and thankfully took the time to establish the characters and the premise before rushing Downey into the Iron Man suit.
When the action comes it is solid, and shines with modern effects, but never once overshadow the fact that this is a character driven story. The action teases the audience with the full potential of the suit, which I am sure will be explored further in future films.
Many times summer films arrive in a frenzy of hype and expectations only to be little more than thinly plotted films awash in FX that fail to satisfy. I am happy to say that “Iron Man” is the rare exception to the recent trend and is easily one of the best Super Hero Films ever crafted.
Robert Downey JR. stars as Tony Stark a Billionaire playboy who owns a vast company that is known mainly for manufacturing weapon systems. When the film opens, Stark is ambushed shortly after a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan and is wounded by the attackers who take Stark into captivity.
Using a device to keep the shrapnel from his vital organs and thus keep him alive, Stark is forced to create a weapon for his captors who plan to use the creative genius of Stark for their own nefarious schemes.
Stark turns the tables on his captors and devices a special suit which allows him to escape, and eventually make his way back to America after three long and harrowing months of captivity.
One back in home, Stark starts to take stock of his life and realizes that many of the weapons he designed to protect America are now being used by other factions to kill those they were designed to protect. When Stark announces to the press that he is stopping the manufacture of weapons by his company he is viewed as suffering from the long captivity and finds himself at odds with the shareholders and board of directors, as well as his long time advisor and friend Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges).
Undaunted, Stark begins to build a prototype suit in his lab, and soon emerges as an iron clad crusader who is obsessed with keeping the bad guys from using the weapons his company created against the innocent.
Assisted by his friend in the military Colonel Rhodes (Terrance Howard) and the lovely Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Tony Stark soon finds himself caught in an even more dastardly plot, and needs every ounce of his creativity and his latest invention to keep the world safe.
The movie is a pure delight and it was nice to see a summer movie that actually had some plot and character development, and did not try to dumb the material down for the audience or let the film be carried entirely by the special effects.
The movie also has some moments of good humor which work well within the film as much of it comes from the quick wit of or at the expense of Stark.
Robert Downey JR. is perfect in the role as he perfectly captures the character without making him to over the top as often is the case in many comic adaptations. He portrays Stark exactly as he is portrayed in the comics, a hard drinking womanizer, who is forced to take stock of his life, and make changes.
The supporting performances by Paltrow, Howard, and Bridges help make the film stand out as does the solid work by Director John Favreau who clearly has a grasp on the character and story and thankfully took the time to establish the characters and the premise before rushing Downey into the Iron Man suit.
When the action comes it is solid, and shines with modern effects, but never once overshadow the fact that this is a character driven story. The action teases the audience with the full potential of the suit, which I am sure will be explored further in future films.
Many times summer films arrive in a frenzy of hype and expectations only to be little more than thinly plotted films awash in FX that fail to satisfy. I am happy to say that “Iron Man” is the rare exception to the recent trend and is easily one of the best Super Hero Films ever crafted.
casadeferro.com
Podcast
who is ricardo ferro? Ricardo is also known as DJ Ferro since his debuts in the world of djing,...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
Camera Genius
Photo & Video and Utilities
App
ON SALE! BUY IT NOW BEFORE THE PRICE INCREASES! Camera Genius spent over 2 weeks as the #1 Paid...